RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Remember Punjab-Gate, Homophobia-Gate, Wasted-Lives-Gate?

UPDATE: “[T]he Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton — that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.” — Greg Sargent, TPM’s Election Central, June 15, 2007. The Drudge Report headlined the false story, according to an investigation by The Carpetbagger Report, June 15, 2007. So the Obama campaign sends its negative attacks, with a don’t-tell-anyone-where-you-got-it, to Matt Drudge? Carpetbagger Report: “[W]hat really bugs me is that the Obama team got the story wrong. They dug up some dirt, dished it, but screwed it up and hit a very popular former president for something he did not do.”

Original Post: Barack Obama has had to apologize plenty of times, but hasn’t apologized face-to-face to Sen. Hillary Clinton, as she did yesterday when she sought to meet and apologize personally on the tarmac of a Washington, D.C. airport for the remarks of Bill Sheehan, a campaign co-chair, about Sen. Obama’s youthful drug usage. Mr. Sheehan resigned yesterday. The “gates” include:

Punjab-gate: The opposition research department for Obama’s campaign wrote a dossier titled “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjabs)’s Personal Financial and Political Ties to India,” suggesting that Clinton’s pro-India proclivities “will compromise her commitment to Americans.” Reason identified Obama’s hit piece as “Lou Dobbs-level rhetoric.”

The dossier was distributed to reporters by the Obama campaign in June “on the condition that they could not attribute it to the campaign,” wrote WaPo‘s Anne Kornblut. Reason‘s Kerry Howley observed, “It’s nice, I guess, that Obama wants to bring people together. Now perhaps his research team can find a social glue superior to a shared xenophobia.”

Members of South Asians for Obama were shocked and upset: “In addition to being offended by the clear anti-Indian sentiment in the memo, we were particularly disturbed because the memo flies in the face of what we respect most about Senator Obama — his inclusive message and his ability to relate to people of all backgrounds.”

The supporters were also disturbed that it took Obama so long to apologize: “What really bothers me is that a (D-Israel), (R-Vatican) or (D-Mexico) would have triggered an immediate apology. We deserve the same consideration.”

There’s a hint of more racism in Blacks-Only-Gate. And there are Homophobia-Gate, Geffen-Gate, Wasted-Soldier-Lives-Gate, along with personal attacks on Sen. Clinton. More about those below the fold.

First, There’s Obama’s Failed Promise: Most notable about Punjab-gate — besides his attempt to shift the blame to his staff — is that it goes against Obama’s promise that “his opposition research team would focus on contrasting candidates’ policy differences, not personal attacks.”

As The Hill‘s Ben Goddard noted, “[Obama's] ham-handed attack on Clinton’s ties to India made the non-politician sound very much like the old-school crowd he’s been trying to position himself against. Voters tell me he’s not what they’d hoped for as an alternative.”

Then There’s Obama’s Frequent Shifting of Blame to His Staff: Jake Tapper wrote at his ABC News blog, Political Punch:

In his first public comments about the controversial opposition research his campaign prepared about Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, trying to tie her to outsourcing in India, Obama today blamed — for the third time in 5 months — his staff.

"It was a screw-up on the part of our research team," Obama told the Des Moines Register (LINK). "It wasn’t anything I had seen or my senior staff had seen." [...]

Obama has blamed his staffers for other campaign mishaps.

In February, after Obama contributor David Geffen slammed Bill and Hillary Clinton in Maureen Down’s New York Times column … Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said "We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters.”

Obama later distanced himself from that comment, telling reporters he had been flying from Los Angeles to Iowa during the whole dustup and that, "I told my staff that I don’t want us to be a party to these kinds of distractions because I want to make sure that we’re spending time talking about issues. My preference going forward is that we have to be careful not to slip into playing the game as it customarily is played.”

In May, Obama blamed staffers for his missing an event with firefighters in New Hampshire. …

Boy, it must be tough to be so continually disappointed with your staff.

Not to mention to have a campaign you have so little control over!

And Then There Are the Media Aiding and Abetting Clintonian Conspiracy Theories: Critic pundits like hyper-loquacious Chris Matthews are piling on Hillary Clinton right now, creating imaginative but factually-unsupported theories about how Bill Sheehan’s questions about Obama’s past drug use and Sheehan’s subsequent resignation were crafted directly by Sen. Clinton to damage Obama — helped along by “reporter” David Shuster twice terming Sen. Clinton’s laugh during yesterday’s Iowa debate as a “cackle.” The media can’t say a good word about Sen. Clinton these days. Even CNN’s usually fair-minded Wolf Blitzer, in a poll of how the candidates drink their coffee, said that Sen. Clinton is a “flip-flopper” because she sometimes drinks her coffee black, and sometimes with cream.

Writes Washington Monthly‘s Kevin Drum, Sen. Clinton is “polarizing not because she wants to be, but because the right-wing attack machine made her that way. She’s ‘polarizing’ only because a certain deranged slice of conservative nutjobs detest her.” Either without consciously realizing how they’ve been influenced by the “conservative nutjobs” — or, more frighteningly, because they’re pandering to their conservative friends and viewers — the media like Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, et al. are promoting the memes that she’s polarizing and conniving.

This is not new media behavior. We saw the media turn on Vice President Al Gore during his presidential campaign.

In November 1999, Chris Matthews said, “[I]sn’t this getting ridiculous? . . . Isn’t it getting to be delusionary?.” The next night, Matthews was beating the same drum: “What is it, the Zelig guy who keeps saying, ‘I was the main character in Love Story, I invented the Internet. I invented Love Canal’.”

This is not shocking new media behavior to the Clintons. The Clintons vividly recall the happy day of December 13, 1995 when — in the midst of shenanigans by the Office of Independent Counsel and outcries from Republicans during the Clinton administration’s two terms — the Resolution Trust Corporation released its supplemental report on Whitewater — which, to their relief, exonerated the Clintons, and disproved all of the Whitewater conspiracy theories.

“It is recommended,” said the RTC’s report, “no further resources need be expended on the Whitewater part of this investigation.”

What was the media’s response after 150 copies of the report were distributed to all major media organizations? Silence. There were no articles in the New York Times or Washington Post, and no TV news reports. Two weeks later, the Times printed a short item in its “News of the Week in Review,” but the Washington Post never mentioned the report exonerating the Clintons.

For a Moment, Imagine That a President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama Were Under Constant Assault From the GOP Coupled With Silence From The Media: What would a President Obama do then? Blame his staff?

Will the media, that are fawning towards him now, treat him the same way then?

History tells us much. We know that Sen. Clinton has weathered the storms, the attacks, and the inconsistencies of media reporting — particularly during eight years in the glare of the White House spotlight. Yes, she has scars. But it’s better to be cautious and proactive against assaults than to blame others or fumble the apologies. Or, as Sen. Obama has failed to do: Not once apologize directly to Sen. Clinton for his or his campaign’s attacks on her.

For a Moment, Let’s Try Out Another Scenario: Imagine if Hillary Clinton had responded as Obama did yesterday:

The moderator asked how he squares his promise to bring change with his use of so many former Clinton advisors. Hillary had a good laugh at that one. But he shot back that he looked forward to getting her advice when he’s President, too.

What would Chris Matthews et al. have said if it had been Sen. Clinton who said she’d look forward to getting Obama’s advice when she’s President? They would have said that “there she goes again, implying that she’s inevitable.”

The Rest of The Gates:

Wasted-Soldiers’-Lives-Gate: Lynn Sweet wrote in February:

In his first stumble, White House hopeful Barack Obama on Monday took back words from the day before, when he said the lives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were “wasted.”

Homophobia-Gate: From Radio Left blog’s, “Senator Barack Obama, Tarnished Angel,” November 3, 2007:

Obama organized a series of gospel concerts for black evangelicals in South Carolina. The objective was to bring them into the Obama for President camp.

Donnie McClurkin, a black gospel singer who claims to be cured of his homosexuality through Jesus Christ, headlined the events. (To see Mr McClurkin prance around the stage, you would never guess he had gone back into the closet.)

When challenged about McClurkin by LGBT and civil rights groups, Senator Obama ignored the concerns and not only kept McClurkin on the program, but allowed him to talk to the audience from the stage. Mr. McClurkin, as would be expected, told them that homosexuality is a sin and he had been cured through prayer.

Senator Obama apologized, and hired a gay evangelist to appear at later concerts in the series.

Totally necessary

Senator Obama made a mistake that demonstrates his lack of experience – a primary concern about his candidacy. Worse, it was totally unnecessary. He could have allowed McClurkin to sing, but not make a speech. He could have engaged another gospel singer who doesn’t have McClurkin’s baggage. McClurkin’s comments and McClurkin himself were not a requirement for Obama to successfully reach out to black evangelicals. To me, that is the saddest and most hurtful aspect of the entire affair.

[...]

Barack Obama owes that audience an apology for subjecting them to Donnie McClurkin’s diatribe against gays.

So, far all Obama has done is make an incomplete apology and step into it again. …

Blacks-Only-Gate: Also from Radio Left blog’s, “Senator Barack Obama, Tarnished Angel,” November 3, 2007:

Senator Obama delivered a civil rights speech in South Carolina which compounded the offense by scrupulously limiting it to blacks. He didn’t mention the struggle for civil rights of any other group.

[...]

I have never seen anyone I respected be so hypocritical as to pander to bigotry in a civil rights speech until Obama’s Civil Rights speech in South Carolina yesterday. It is common practice at least, and required under these circumstances, to make mention of the other groups that have struggled along with blacks for civil rights.

Geffen-Gate: The New York Times‘s business reporter David Carr caustically noted “media mogul David Geffen’s drive-by maiming of the Clintons earlier in the week in remarks he made to Maureen Dowd of The New York Times.”

Despite David Geffen’s vicious attacks on Hillary Clinton and his ardent campaigning for Obama, Barack Obama refused to apologize.

Campaigning in Iowa, Obama said to the AP, “It’s not clear to me why I’d be apologizing for someone else’s remark.”

I guess that Sen. Clinton could have said something similar about Bill Sheehan’s remarks. Instead, while she pointed out that she did not know about or authorize Mr. Sheehan’s remarks about Sen. Obama’s past drug use, she took the extra step of personally meeting with Sen. Obama and apologizing to him, to his face.

::::::::::::::

[Emphases mine.]

  • anon

    Hillary Clinton is a profoundly dishonest, manipulative politician and her campaign has attempted to replace a near-complete lack of substance on any serious issue and to divert attention from her baggage as well with cheap politicking and sniping.

    I really can’t stand her, or her slimeball campaign staff, either.

    The people writing at this web log surprise me; for all their supposed disapproval of, for example, the US of Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, the Hillary campaign maintains via Mark Penn, Hillary’s right-hand man, the closest connections to Blackwater, USA, of any candidate in the race, regardless of party.

    It is really bizarre the way that liberal Hillary supporters manage to somehow fail to notice all of these glaring issues with that lamentable candidate, who in truth, should appeal primarily to Republican voters disenchanted with the Bush-era Republican party.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

    There was a time when I nodded when others said, “I hate Hillary.”

    It took soul-searching to realize that I’d been conditioned — unconsciously — by over a decade of negative reporting and commentary about the Clintons. The constant onslaught of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, and others — who’ve turned negative commentary on the Clintons into an endeavor that pleases their right-wing viewers — has also impacted the conscious thinking of otherwise rational Democrats.

    It’s just that it’s difficult to admit to one’s self that one has been influenced by the right so negatively.

    Go to her Senate Web site, and look at her “NEWS” section. Her hard work for her constituents and people around the country is truly impressive. She acts. She completes tasks. She doesn’t just give speeches — she performs. She may not be a great orator, but oration won’t keep Social Security and Medicare viable. It’ll take nothing so much as plain hard work. I know she’ll do that hard work.

    For one thing, she votes. A hell of a lot more often than Obama. For another, she shows up when her bills are being voted on, even if she has to cut campaign trips short. She shows up when difficult votes come up, even if she has to miss a day of campaigning or face scrutiny for her vote. Unlike Obama who just doesn’t vote to avoid displeasing anyone. That’s not a good trait for leadership in the Oval Office.

  • anon

    Right, Susan, I see the reality now … it’s all … a vast, right-wing conspiracy!

    The fact that the overblown “candidate” has pathologically dissembled and dodged any serious question on the issues of the day, and that her overblown “experience” amounts to a miserable stint in the Senate where she rubber-stamped the worst of everything that George Bush wanted, none of this matters.

    She’s a shill for special interests, nothing more, nothing less. The Status-Quo Candidate. She’s the most bought-and-sold figure in the race and her sponsors tell it all. She is getting more special interest money from military-industrial lobbyists and donors than any other candidate in the race regardless of party. She is a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. She is THE go-to-girl for the Israel Lobby.

    If you want to understand how Hillary operates, don’t read the New York Times. And don’t read The Wall Street Journal. And whatever you, don’t read whatever lies she’s got in the latest PR. Just go to CNN Money, and look at the stock ticker. You’ll see it flash by, with an up-arrow next to it, everytime Blackwater or Halliburton gets away with more wrongful conduct, every time there is a threat of more war in the Middle East, four characters: HLRY

    Her stock is going up, you see, with every worsening of the world and national conditions.

    Don’t look to her for any change. The woman is the single best bet for Republican voters disenchanted with the Bush Republican Party. This is not about “I hate Hillary” this is about “I left my cup of Kool-Aid at the door, and now I wander the madhouse with a clear mind.”

    Hillary is the worst of a bad set of candidates.

    The woman does not “perform”, Susan. She’s never a done a damn thing except ride on Bill Clinton’s coat tails and the only reason she has for running for POTUS is her own personal ambition and sense of entitlement. She has no real reason to be in an election that should be all about a clean break with from the disaster that the last 7 years of George Bush has created.

    In other words, her presence in the election is nothing more or less than a blow to the credibility of the American representative democracy system. After 7 years of George Bush, we have … WHAT … as the “agent of change”?

    Come on. You can disagree with me, but you can’t insult my intelligence by suggesting to me that this miserably over-entitled, indulged woman is somehow being abused by a vast media conspiracy. She’s got the biggest PR names in the country on her side. Come on, Susan. You can do better.

    (And to make it clear, *I* am not the one who sees Obama as an alternative to Hillary. Instead, I see neither Obama nor Hillary being meaningful alternatives of any sort.)

  • anon

    In other words, thinking people can find a world of reasons to loathe Hillary. It doesn’t take the rightist bloviators on the radio and TV, who in truth really suck at convincing thinking people anyway.

    No, no … thinking people can take one look at Mama Warbucks and know a Big Lie when they see it.

    This fellow isn’t buying another 4 years of the Clinton 2-Step. It’s going to take more than a Rope-a-Dope PR-and-Image campaign a la Schwarzenegger For Gubernator to get me drunk enough to climb on HER bandwagon.

  • MEP

    This is not about Obama. This is about advancing Hillary. That is why I find it disgusting. If you are going to turn into a cheerleading site then declare it. Don’t hide behind the bullshit veil of “telling the truth” about Obama. Here’s a little truth about Hill…..she, like many, sucks ass on the AIPAC. She gladly accepted money and venue from Ruppert Murdoch. She voted for the Kyl – Lie-berman Act……I’ll let others, if they care, add to this list. What really burns my ass is the smug and condescending manner in which you have lately been addressing those that do not share your zeal for Hill. So in closing, don’t bother with one of your passive-aggressive, looking down your nose, oh so much more clued in than the rabble quips. They never did anything but bore me. There will be many that line up to gush in agreement upon command. Gee, kind of reminds me of the Bushies. “If you don’t think like us you are oh so stupid”. Funny thing is , I don’t really care for Barak and I don’t hate Hill.. but I do loathe bullshit.

  • MEP

    Wish I had read yours before posting, would have saved me a couple of lines.

  • anon

    you forget, MEP, she has a “diary” at “daily kos”, and reads others, therefore, she knows more than you or i and, like the rest of the people there, feel free to as you say “talk down her nose” to people.

  • MEP

    Oh silly me. I forgot to gush.

  • anon

    EXACTLY. I guess I forgot to fall over flat on my face in sheer awe, myself.

    The reality of what’s happened to Hillary’s campaign and her poll numbers is entirely the inevitable consequence of all her baggage. The woman has a polarizing, at times checkered history dating back to the failure of the “brightest member of her generation” to manage to pass the DC bar exam and her consequent relocation to Arkansas to work for the Rose Law Firm as an influence peddler selling access to William Jefferson Clinton. She’s been a high-flying operator her entire life, riding on Clinton’s coattails, and Clinton the Lesser (the Shorter, that is) has been involved in shady money deals, failed policy initiatives, and controversies of all sorts.

    Her reality begs the question of how it is that her supporters can ignore the fact that, if she gets the nomination, the 2008 election will not be about 8 years of George Bush, but instead will suddenly be a referendum on Clinton Baggage. It’s not like her voting record or issue positions – to the extent that she’s been willing to tell anyone publicly about issue positions in detail – provides much of an alternative to the objective status quo under George Bush, anyway. But you add in all the baggage, and the fact that she is the NUMBER ONE HOPE for the Republican Party to turn out its base in droves and droves and droves in the general, and one is left wondering exactly what her suppporters imagine they are doing.

    If you ask me, the country actually needs a major clean break with the past, and by the past, I don’t just mean George Bush. I mean Bill Clinton too. And it is not comprehensible why it is that allowing the DLC to trot out yet another tepid soft-Republican candidacy is going to possibly effect any real change at all.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

    Oh dear. Everything in my post is documented. Which takes a lot of time and a lot of searching. I’d never include anything negative if I could not 100% verify it as factual.

    By the way, I have nothing against Barack Obama per se. We need to elect a president who will be ready to lead from day one, and who has the temperament for leadership. Those qualities I see in several Democratic candidates, just not in Obama.

    And I’ll admit I’m disgusted by the current piling on against Hillary Clinton by the media. There is the “herd” factor about the media. But, they’re going WAY out of their way to be negative while gushing over Obama, without REMEMBERING his own fallibilities.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

    You could go to Jake Tapper’s ABC News blog and bash him for making fun of Obama blaming his staff so frequently.

    I just wish someone would think to mention that while they’re in the midst of their lovefest over Sen. Obama. How quickly they forget.

    By the way, I can see your disagreeing with my post and explaining your points, but belittling me personally? That’s something I’ve not seen much here at NoQuarter — other blogs, yes — but not here.

  • anon

    Dear Susan:

    If you think that “piling on” is taking place, wait until the Repubicans get started. Your candidate of choice is their Number One best hope for turning out their base in droves and if you think what Poor Hillary is suffering now (the valid questions about her dishonest and cynical character, voting record, and vastly overblown “experience”) is bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

    It is difficult in the extreme to imagine what you see in Hillary that might correspond to any “temperament” for leadership. She basically strutted on stage imagining that big dollar PR and trotting out Bill Clinton was all that it should take for her to have a presidency she is entitled to. Even today, the reporters talking to her campaign staff write that they are most angry at Obama not because of any differences of opinion on belief or ideology, but because they feel that he is illegitimate as a candidate, not the insider Hillary is, and they resent the fact that he can “deny her the election”.

    I also can’t imagine how you see someone who has not successfully led at all in the last 25 years of her life as someone who is “ready to lead from day one”. The only “leadership” we have from Hillary is:

    * one disastrously mismanaged health care initiative, which failed completely and in which she alienated her core allies and then refused to show the public documents corresponding to her activities when ordered to do so by the Congress,

    * one miserable and short stint in the Senate where she balanced her time between rubber-stamping the worst of George Bush, and then running out to lie to the reporters about why. I’ll never forgive her for the worst moment of her career, when she voted to start the Iraq War, because she thought this would set her up best for her Presidential run in years to come, and then promptly rushed from the Senate floor and told the reporters “My vote today was not a vote for war, but a vote for peace …” This pathologically dishonest woman has repeatedly (and her husband takes the cake at it) based herself on voting against the basic interests of the public and then running out to tell the reporters that she didn’t really do it.

    Her’s is the kind of “leadership experience” that we can do quite better without, thanks.

    Besides, I don’t like having an American War of the Roses and its time to have choices on the ballot besides Bushes and Clintons. I don’t support family dynasties for the head of state office.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

    Imho: The Republicans are saying that Clinton is their “Number One best hope” because they want to rid themselves of Clinton now in order to get the weaker opponent in Barack Obama. (I’m not saying that Obama is a weak person; he is not. I am saying that he has not had the tough schooling that the Clintons have had — which is why I included the Whitewater story in the above post.)

    The Republicans know that Sen. Clinton and her campaign are highly experienced in fending off attacks in a national general election whereas Sen. Obama has never won a hard-fought race on any level, particularly nationally.

    No matter who it is, it will be utterly brutal. Some people handle that well, or learn to handle it well. Some by temperament or experience are not prepared for such brutality. That’s one reason I highlighted Sen. Obama’s passing on blame to his staff, as Jake Tapper noted. That’s not an effective deflection. He got away with it for now because there are so many candidates, it was during the summer mostly, and there are only a couple states intently focused on voting now. But, when it’s a two-person national race, he won’t get away with it, the press will hit him hard for it, and voters will be turned off.

  • http://NoQuarterUSA.net Larry Johnson

    Folks,
    Being shitty with Susan without arguing the substance of her points will piss me off. Susan’s piece is documented and replete with specific examples. Argue the substance please.

  • TeakWoodKite
  • anon

    Susan: when yesterday, Hillary made a member of her campaign apologize for attempting to smear Obama over drug use, and then denied any connection to the smearing herself, was that an “effective deflection”? It looks to me exactly like what you are going after Obama with, and it only took place this week.

    The Republicans may or may not be saying that Hillary is their number one hope. I, for myself, am saying that, because I believe a priori that it is not just true, but that it should be obvious to any mentally functional American over the age of 25 who didn’t tune out the last 15 years of our politics. The Republicans, in taking on Hillary:

    a) have experience dating back before 1992, including her and husband’s well-known baggage as well as a laundry list of whatever dirt and deceit that fairly crooked couple has tried to bury over the last several years,

    b) a voter base that, when it comes to Clintons, only knows one thing, and that is that they HATE Clintons. The otherwise dispirited and demoralized Republican voter base will react as a bull with a red flag bearing the letter “H” on it being waved in its face if she is the candidate, and many of them will come out to vote instead of staying home if that is the only way they can try to stop another Clinton from getting into the White House.

    Finally, Republicans aside:

    c) Hillary and Bill both deeply turn off a large number of liberal and leftist voters who (rightfully)) perceive them as being dishonest shills for special interests at odds with liberal agenda goals and values, and many of these liberal and leftist voters, faced with a ballot that says something like “Giuliani vs. Clinton”, will simply stay home and tune out the election or, possibly, work to get another independent candidate who actually represents liberals on various state ballots.

    In other words, while its true that Obama (whom I do not favor myself) has not won a big national election before, it is also true that neither will his Republican opponent have won such an election before, and it is finally extremely true that Hillary is a candidate who will turn out the Republican base in numbers while discouraging liberals from coming out in numbers to vote Democrat.

    Her supporters really need to detach themselves from the PR IV feed and smell reality in its pure form. The Clintons are the wrong baggage train to bring back around.

    Besides, out of the last 2 presidential elections, George Bush won both against Democratic candidates who were also presented to primary voters with the “experienced winning big elections” or “electable” canard, and both lost to the lightweight dimwit from Texas and his crazed confederates.

    Furthermore, Bill Clinton himself only really won one election on his own, and that was ’96. His victory in 1992 was entirely due to H. Ross Perot.

    Which is, to say, that the electability of Clintons itself is at best a unproven hypothesis and more likely just another PR canard, an image, that the Hillary campaign wants to use to play the “electability” game again, a game that has cost the Democrats dearly in every election of the 21st century.

    Why are these obvious notions so difficult for her supporters to grasp?

  • MEP

    If you read what I posted I was not talking about the substance or her documentation. I should have labeled it my opinion which I do now . I stand by my statements and observations.

  • camera guy

    Larry: Your site is a good and useful one. There is a lot to value here.

    That said, when I see a piece of similar length, breadth, and detail exploring the potential downsides to a Hillary Clinton presidency, I will believe Susan is being honest and unbiased. Until then, while she is doing this very thoroughly, there are numerous other notes in the scale being left quite unplayed.

    A deeply researched hit piece is still a hit piece, after all.

    With that, I exit this particular discussion. It leaves an unpleasant, sour aftertaste.

  • http://www.food4humanity.org HoosierHoops

    This fellow isn’t buying another 4 years of the Clinton 2-Step

    Well what was the matter with Clinton Step 1?
    ( except for the monica thing )
    He was a great president IMHO who really got things done when no one said he could do anything.
    I really really liked Bill..If Hillary doesn’t win the nom..no prob. I’ll support our nominee 100%.

  • TeakWoodKite

    While we are “talking” about these two people we have 600,000 backlogged veterans disability claims. Who is going to take care of that disgrace? What can we agree on? How about who ever gets elected will either allow the Status Quo to continue or take concrete steps to CHANGE it for the better for those who are standing under an umbrella “seeking shelter from the storm”. Who here thinks it is shameful to see homeless veterans, some newly arrived from the current fiasco? Most importantly, which candidate will not use the trust we place in them as a blunt instrument to once again cancel the constitution they swore an oath to protect? If and when you go to the polls, take as many people as you can fit on your mule and get ready to stand in line a long time. We can all agree that politics is a blood sport and we can allow no quarter to our impending demise?

  • PrchrLady

    Susan, thank you for continuing this discussion of the candidates. As we both know, I started as an Obama supporter, and then after much thought and listening to others, decided that I didn’t think he would be my choice for president. I gave a lot of thought, and still do, about Clinton, although she is not my first choice. either. If either of them win, I will support them, regardless.

    I read what you wrote, and yes, it shows Obama’s immaturity on the political landscape. Some day, I think he might be a future candidate for national office, with the right grooming and given a learning curve. He might do well as a VP candidate.

    I also read anon’s and MEP’s comments, and I have heard much of this in other places. While I won’t deny whether all of it is true, or not, I do know that hearing them also gives me pause in thinking about both Clinton and Obama as heading the ticket.
    I think most people in the republican camp that I have talked to hope either one or the other of these two become the candidate. For many of the reasons MEP laid out above.

    Also, anon and MEP, Susan is an excellent writer and editor. I for one am very thankful for her efforts and hard work. I am sure that you are as passionate about your chosen candidate as she is of hers. The folks here are often in disagreement about issues, and we are used to people challenging us with facts, to get down to the truth. Some of us are still working on our writing skills, and we leave room for growth. Your comments to Susan about her writing, and choice of topic, may not have been meant to be mean spirited, but it did come off as such. As for choice of topics here on NQ, I think she can choose whatever she wants. After all, she is the Editor, and a damn good one at that…

  • justsomeone

    Pun-jab Gate? Please! Obama was alluding to more tech jobs getting outsourced to India not raggin’ on India or Indians. It’s sad that its gotten to the point where a political canidate can’t even bring up the critical issue of PAC funding or outsourcing without being accused of zenophobia. I guess keeping decent paying jobs state side is simply politically incorrect. Yeah & Hillary “can’t really remember much except lots of charts & graphs” about the NAFTA debate. That “Loud Sucking Sound” wasn’t loud enough for her. I don’t have a problem with a woman president, just not that woman this time.

  • Bill Keyes

    Comment by anon..
    “….and the fact that she is the NUMBER ONE HOPE for the Republican Party to turn out its base in droves and droves and droves in the general, and one is left wondering exactly what her supporters imagine they are doing.”

    This, all you Hillary lovers, is the exact truth. I have nothing against Hillary but the simple fact is that if you want to win the WH next year Hillary is not the candidate. In fact a Hillary nomination is a GUARANTEE that no matter who the Repug nominee is the Repugs will keep the WH and probably take back the Senate.

    Why because the Repugs could make their base vote for the devil if the wanted too, but the Democrats will never unite behind Hillary or probably any of the leading candidates.

    In fact the Democrats rarely ever unite behind any candidate. I have said for years that the only time Democrats win anything is when the Republicans screw up so bad that some moderate Republicans decide to vote Democratic. When was the last time any of you decided a Republican candidate was better and voted for them instead of the Democrat?

    Try to put next years election in perspective for a minute. The country is just if not more polarized than it was in 2000. So do you really believe that either side is going to switch and vote for the other?

    So where are the votes going to come from to give a majority to the Democrats?

    The answer is simple..THEY AREN’T.

    The plain and simple truth is that there in no way in hell the Democrats are going to win the WH next year. They simply do not have the votes and there is no way they are going to get them.

    It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference whether Rudi Guillani porked his mistress in the back of a police car or what any of the other leading Repug candidates have done, the Republican faithful will unite behind whoever the party leaders ultimately let win the Repug nomination and then they will as anon said come out in droves and droves and droves to vote for the Repug candidate and READ MY LIPS…None of them will vote for a Democrat, so the numbers will essentially be the same and the Repugs WILL win the WH.

    To be quite honest about if Hillary is the nominee they won’t even have to steal it.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

    Susan,
    I really don’t see Obama as the GOP’s choice. Clinton probably is because of all of Bill’s baggage. Nor do I see the MSM giving Obama a pass. Although they’ve been doing that with GOP candidates. For example: Beyond the blogs, how much play has Giuliani’s $ties$ to domestic spying companies received in the MSM?

    Right now, Obama and Clinton are almost tied for the nomination. I don’t see how giving Obama “tough love” is going to help him or us if he wins the nomination?

    I’m not saying I support Obama or Clinton…but I do support whoever wins the nomination and that includes Obama. Cause I’m thinking about the Supreme Court, education, healthcare, the economy, ending the Iraq war, preventing war with Iran, stopping torture and domestic spying, restoring habeas corpus, ending the unitary executive and facing a global warming crisis and environmental disaster. None of those things will happen if we shoot ourselves in the foot. Aiding the GOP by trashing someone who may be our future hope.

    None of the Dems are perfect! But they’re still a lot better than the GOP candidates.

  • justsomeone

    So anon, who are you backing?

  • TeakWoodKite

    Anon: Regarding Hillary’s connecnection to Blackwater

    the US of Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, the Hillary campaign maintains via Mark Penn, Hillary’s right-hand man, the closest connections to Blackwater, USA, of any candidate in the race, regardless of party

    Got a link?

  • TeakWoodKite

    Mark Penn’s PR firm apparently works both ends of K street. Charles R. Jr., is the one who dressed up for Blackwater.

    A Bio for Charles R. “Charlie” Black, Jr., Chairman of BKSH & Associates

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_R._Black%2C_Jr.

    A brief history of his company.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BKSH_%26_Associates

  • peg

    i am undecided (and i live in an early primary state!!) so i like to read different perspectives on the candidates. thank you, SusanUnPC.

    i think about the next Supreme Court judge:

    if Hillary wins the Dem ticket, i will become a “one issue” voter — womens’ rights. there’s not much more that is appealing to me about her. as much as i’d like to see a woman in the WH, ….

    i’m leaning towards Richardson because his experience in foreign policy. he is the only candidate who said (his answer on question 10)the we should join the International Criminal Court — ah, heck, i don’t know!

    the answers from Clinton , Edwards, and Obama found here on Global Solutions’ website

  • ybnormal

    Susan, in contrast to the uncalled for vicious bile spewing from a few in this post, I’d just like to say there continues to be many others here, including myself, who appreciate you for who you are.

    You are a genuine honest sincere and basically nice person, and don’t deserve these personal attacks, simply because you research and write something in the interest of encouraging discussion.

  • ybnormal

    To those small minded smac talkers farting away at length here:
    If you really think all your empty ranting fluff is actually worth something, go ahead and try to publish it somewhere and see how far you get. In the meantime, quit wasting space on a perfectly good weblog.

    The last thing we need is to turn yet another weblog into yet another character attack venue.

  • TeakWoodKite

    I would like to echo ybnormal. Thanks for the effort.

    I hope this a fair question to ask. You posted this a few threads back and I have been wondering what the history of this subcommittee has been. It seems that this chair is important. I believe Hillary made some news on the Armed Services committee asking if there was a plan to leave Iraq. What has Obama done if not in the formal setting or executive session.

    You can’t even find it listed at his Senate Web site, but Sen. Obama is the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee. That subcommittee oversees “U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relations with the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

  • TeakWoodKite

    This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.

    Abraham Lincoln

  • bob h

    In 2004 the good people of Iowa gave us a candidate who they thought could win because of his war record, but who turned out to be disinclined to fight back when it counted.

    Now they seem set to give us a candidate who is peddling a fantasy vision of bipartisanship, one who may make us feel good about ourselves as Americans, but who in the end will just give us eight years of a Republican ayatollah.

  • lester

    this is the least substantial topic I’ve ever read on this blog. punjab gate?

  • Cee

    Sen. Clinton could have said something similar about Bill Sheehan’s remarks. Instead, while she pointed out that she did not know about or authorize Mr. Sheehan’s remarks

    I don’t trust Hillary and now I don’t believe that this line of attack wasn’t planned.

    Desperation.

    I say this as someone who was a supporter. Yesterday I was thinking back to when I agreed to give a press conference to throw my support to Bill when he was running the first time. I remember how much I looked forward to a time when she would run.
    Times have changed.

  • JoeCHI

    Great post. I just discovered your blog via Taylor Marsh.

    Now I’m your newest fan!

  • Cee

    You made me look too. Jesus wept.

    4.1 Working for Repressive Regimes

    Nigeria
    B-M flacked for both the Nigerian Government and Royal Dutch/Shell during and after the Biafran war. Reports of instability and genocide at the time had hurt Nigeria’s international image, they hired B-M to discredit these reports[24].
    The relationship continued long after the Biafran war. From 1991-2 the Nigerian military junta paid B-M’s lobbying subsidiary, Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly (acquired in 1991) over $1m in fees[25].

    Indonesia
    After the invasion of East Timor around 200,000 people, one third of the population were murdered, the Indonesian government has also been accused of genocidal policies against the peoples of Irian Jaya, amongst many other human rights abuses. In 1996, BM was hired by the Indonesian government to clean up its image[26]. B-M does however deny handling the issue of genocide in East Timor.

    Argentina
    BM worked for the Argentinian military junta led by General Jorge Videla, which seized power in a coup d’_tat in 1976. B-M’s job was to improve the country’s international image and create the impression of stability to attract foreign investment. During Videla’s reign, 35,000 people ‘disappeared’ and thousands of political prisoners were tortured. Videla is now serving a life sentence for murder.
    Harold Burson commented that, “We regard ourselves as working in the business sector for clear-cut business and economic objectives. So we had nothing to do with a lot of the things that one reads in the paper about Argentina as regards human rights and other activities.”[27]

    Saudi Arabia, et al.
    B-M has worked for a host of regimes with appalling human rights records including the notoriously repressive and corrupt government of Saudi Arabia, the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, and the governments of Sri Lanka and Singapore[28]. Three days after the September 11th attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, in which 13 of the 16 alleged suicide bombers were Saudis, Saudi Arabia again hired B-M to ensure that its national image remains untarnished[29].

    http://www.cwatch.webbler.co.uk/?lid=395

    And

    http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1996Q1/silicone10.html

  • Cee

    Susan,

    I don’t see anyone gushing over Obama. When I posted the article about the Hersh speech it wasn’t an endorsement.
    I did so because he made a good point about the need to change the face of America to appeal to the world.
    Who else stands a chance of winning and can do that?

  • Retired

    I just couldn’t resist posting the below link on the Hill-A-Copter. No comment, I’ll leave that to you.

    http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/hillary_clinton_set_to_whir_ac.html

  • anon

    This was headline news several weeks ago. It has also been explored beyond just reporting by a number of authors. I am not going to do your Google for you.

  • anon

    OK, you did some footwork. Here is a VERY good article.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/berman

    Please keep in mind that Blackwater is the LEAST of the sins of Penn’s firm. The firm, B-M, even did PR work for the Argentine military dictatorship that was throwing dissidents out of helicopters into Rio Plata.

    This is Hillary’s right-hand man.

  • anon

    I am less happy to see that Hillary’s PR machine has infested this web log. Taylor Marsh is basically a career Clinton retainer, but this web log was previously a very intelligent and informative source for an insider’s views on Middle East and foreign policy issues. Now it has been transformed by “SusanUnPC” into yet another site for Hillary campaign talking points regurgitation.

  • anon

    Did you notice that the entirety of Susan’s very lengthy post against Obama was really nothing *but* character attacks?

    For my part, I seldom read this web log anymore. It used to be so very good when it focused on matters of Larry Johnson’s expertise. However, in recent months, it has simply become a “daily-kos”-like “diary” for one person’s momentary thoughts or views on the presidential election horse race.

  • Bill Keyes

    Good link retired….

    I have been trying to point out how much the Clinton’s are hated by the right wing which is why a Hillary nomination will GUARANTEE the Repugs retaining the WH.

    Issues are not going to decide who wins the WH next year, most people don’t give a shit about the issues,they just want to have some stability and enjoy their lives.

    All the negative campaigning turns most people off, on both sides of the aisle.

    In the end they will reluctantly go to the polls and vote for someone to assuage their guilt.

    In most campaigns today the winner is the one who best convinces his supporters, not that he is the best for the job or the best qualified, but that a vote for his opponent is bad because he once smoked dope in college. So he who digs up the most dirt wins.

    So who will win in what will be probably the most divisive, dirty tricks campaign the world has ever seen?

    Why the masters of slime, headed up by none other
    than Herr Karl and his band of merry men.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

    Just added an UPDATE at the top of the post.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

    I “dated” Richardson’s candidacy last spring and summer, and also joined his mailing lists to keep up on his campaign. He’s a highly qualified candidate. He moved up in the polls, but I don’t think he’ll get his “Huckabee” moment. I saw some problems, but won’t get into those here …

    Like you, one of my bottom lines is the Supreme Court.

    And — YES! — women’s rights. I’m very afraid that the only people, these days, who remember how tough it has been for women, are the women old enough to remember. The men mostly don’t remember (and many on the right are deeply resentful of women’s rights). Sen. Clinton remembers. Thank god.

    Too many women these days are too young to know how tough it was. That’s why I made my daughter watch AMC’s “Mad Men” series this summer, set in a NYC ad agency in 1960 — it’s in reruns now. Great drama.

    It tore me up, though, to watch it. Because it reminded me of all I experienced personally, and saw happen to other women, as I was growing up and in my early professional life.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

    Thank you. That is kind. I rather expected some negative comments — but on the substance. Not personal.

    For example, it’s fair to bring up Mark Penn’s various clients, although it’d be a big stretch to say Sen. Clinton endorses those clients … then we’re getting into conspiracy theory territory. And there’s that, as the moderator of the PBS Iowa debate on Thursday pointed out, some of Obama’s top advisers worked for Pres. Clinton.

    I just added an UPDATE. It not only bothers me that Obama’s campaign staff got their smear so wrong — and that they attacked the spouse, not the candidate — but that they also dished it to a ‘winger like Drudge who never vets what he gets — if it’s negative, he just tosses it up and doesn’t care if it turns out to be false.

    Imagine, for a moment the UPROAR there’d be if Sen. Clinton’s campaign had issued some dirt on Michelle Obama. Oh lordy — it’d top every TV news story for days. But not this exact same instance, against Sen. Clinton’s husband.

    There’s INEQUITY here in on how these stories are covered, and that really bugs me.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

    Yes. I’ve been wanting to find some time to dig into that more. I will try. Remind me.

    NATO seems particularly important at the moment because of Afghanistan. Btw, BBC World News reported that two NATO soldiers died yesterday. They regularly report NATO soldiers’ deaths. And they also do excellent reports on conditions in Afghanistan.

    It was so weird that I couldn’t find it listed at Sen. Obama’s official senate Web site. I looked through the pages that list his committees and all of his news releases. I also used his site’s search engine. Nada.

    I also wonder when was the last time his campaign touted his chairmanship … perhaps they’ve dropped that one because it’s been pointed out that he hasn’t done anything.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Anon regarding I am not going to do your Google for you.

    The internet is a dangerous place. I think it comprises a large portion of the “echo chamber” and I very much like to see where folks get the information they are basing thier positions on.
    That said I have enjoyed learning from the attribution links on this site and the thought provoking insite of people I might not always understand.

    The first thing I did after reading your post was “footwork”. I want to thank you and Cee for her post regarding this.

  • Michael Lafferty

    Susan, you offered his observation regarding Mark Penn and Senator Clinton: “… it’s fair to bring up Mark Penn’s various clients, although it’d be a big stretch to say Sen. Clinton endorses those clients.” I disagree, as silence is assent.

    I suggest that it is no more or less a stretch than to tie Mayor Giuliani to the effectively ‘secret’ client base of his law firm or consulting firm. While Senator Clinton may not be a member of Penn’s firm, it is a fair characterization of their long relationship to say that the relationship is not otherwise demonstrably different than that of Guiliani’s to those of his law and consulting partners.

  • Cee

    Susan,

    She hasn’t handled this well, IMHO. Who were the two people who sent out the email saying that Obama was a Muslim cell member? Rove plants?!?
    Where were the warnings and discipline after that? Geesh!
    I spoke to an undecided person this morning who is now leaning towards Obama and is attending a fundraiser this afternoon for him.

    This is getting ugly.

    UPDATE 12/14: Before this story even broke publicly, the Clinton camp had been sending out whispers about it to media outlets. Thomas Edsall at the Huffington Post wrote a few days before the story broke:

    On Monday morning, Hillary Clinton’s campaign included a cryptic, somewhat ominous, note in an email to journalists and supporters:

    Something to Chew On: Respected columnist David Yepsen notes that “it’s important for Democrats to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Clinton’s negatives are well-known, Obama’s less so. Any shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements in Obama’s past will be exploited by Republicans in the fall campaign if he’s the nominee. It’s best for Democrats to vet them now.”

    The Clinton campaign email did not spell out Obama’s “shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements,” but other Democratic activists have quietly received messages from Clinton allies pointing in the likely direction. Those messages provided a link to an Iowa Independent story by Douglas Burns headlined “The Politics Of Obama’s Past Cocaine Use.”

    http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/video-evidence-that-attack-on-obamas-drug-use-was-deliberate/

    The title of this post comes from a reply here at Jack and Jill.

    NMP asked:

    The larger question for the hankerchief heads, as you like to call them, supporting Hillary Clinton is will they join her in effectively using a Wille Horton on Obama…using the unjust incarceration of mostly Black men as a wedge issue to scare White folks against Obama?

    I have written about Hillary Clinton’s stance AGAINST retroactivity with regards to drug sentencing HERE.

    Here is the money quote from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic:

    Campaign aides have said that Obama’s support for retroactivity in drug sentences would kill him with tough-on-crime white independents. But the Supreme Court, in a 7 to 2 decision yesterday that included Antonin Scalia, endorsed the view that judges could ignore sentencing guidelines when handing down prison terms for distributing crack versus powder cocaine, and a Bush administration panel today voted seven to nothing to impose retroactivity.

    Now, her choice puts her to the RIGHT of SCALIA. It’s going to be on the backs of Black Men and Women – who are the ones disproportionately incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. She’ll prove her ELECTABILITY by proving how many BLACK FOLK she can keep locked up.

    First scaring the White folk in Iowa with the Obama is a Drug Dealer smear, then once she’s won that, have her Handkerchief Heads, come front and center, about why Black folk should vote for her, after she’s vowed to keep standing, one of the most obvious and blatant examples of Racial Disparity in the Justice System.

    We must suffer through this racist BS when it comes from a Republican.

    But, I’ll be damned if I’m going to suffer through it from a Democrat.

    I.am.NEVER.voting.for.her.

    PS- And, don’t forget, that not one, but TWO folks have had to resign in Iowa because of the Madrassa LIE.

    http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-hillary-clinton-trying-to-willie.html

    But I’m not only a Republican For Obama, I’m a Republican Against Dirty Politics and I was mad as hell about Bill Clinton’s comments on Charlie Rose, comparing Obama’s experience with not only a TV commentator, but a plumber. How much more disgusting can this get?

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/15/113440/41/612/422462

  • Cee

    I’m disgusted and the democratic and one republican candidate who will really do something to address your concerns DON’T HAVE A CHANCE IN HELL OF WINNING!
    Why is that?

  • Cee

    We all can disagree without being censored here. Appreciate it.

  • Cee

    No. He used and maybe sold blow. LOLOLOLOL!

    Not to be confused with blow jobs.

  • Cee

    The link to Sargent aren’t working for me.

    We’ve just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton — that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.

    This is slimey. They knew Clinton would campaign for her and this may work to turn off some everything relating to 9-11 is sacred knuckleheads.

  • TeakWoodKite

    That is the 10 trillion dollar question isn’t it?

  • Cee

    We’re shallow and easily led people.

    I mentioned earlier than my ideal ticket would be Feingold and Hagel.
    They could win. Have any ideas why they aren’t running? System too corrupted?
    Btw…I got a Christmas card from the Hagel family.
    Beautiful kids that look nothing like him!

  • Taters

    I heard Tucker Carlson on bloviatin’
    Ed Schultz’s show last week – say that he appreciated Obama and that he would be a good choice for the Dems, as opposed to Hillary, whom he hates…
    Best to all, in evil Hollywood for the weekend.

  • http://www.food4humanity.org HoosierHoops

    If you think that “piling on” is taking place, wait until the Repubicans get started.

    oh, i can’t wait..let them stand and defend the last 7 years..A high school student could lay waste to them in a debate..
    and the old iraq war vote? Christ..I thought you guys were somewhat competent..We could have accomplished the mission 3 1/2 years ago with Saddams capture, Not disbanding the army and leaving the country with international support. ( international support..you Neoconer’s didn’t have a clue )
    You lied, destroyed UN support, undermined the inspectors and rushed to war with a minimum force with no clear plan or objectives..Believe me..you’ll never get another chance like that again…
    Next question Wolf…
    ( Swish!)
    Gosh.. i hate piling on like that…

  • http://www.food4humanity.org HoosierHoops

    Oh Anon:
    It used to be so very good when it focused on matters of Larry Johnson’s expertise. However, in recent months, it has simply become a “daily-kos”-like “diary” for one person’s momentary thoughts or views on the presidential election horse race.

    oh for goodness sakes..Larry posts insightful stuff here on a constant basis..We cover intellegence, politics, Personal views, international Views including alot about the Middle East, Europe and homeland security.
    You just want a one trick pony.. Write about anything you wish and people will engage you on that subject..If it was just Larry most of us couldn’t keep up ( he shows mercy that way )
    There is a great community here so join us in a well balanced discussion of world events…

  • http://www.food4humanity.org HoosierHoops

    Welcome JoeCHI
    You’ll find alot of great stuff here..And alot of great people..
    Again, Welcome and please drop in again.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

    Here’s Taylor Marsh, from her story yesterday, “Obama Slings Sex to Combat Drug Story“:

    It should be a clue that whenever Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are saying nice things about a Democrat, Barack Obama in this case, you can bet they’re kicking each other under the Fox “News” anchor table, gnashing their teeth at the red meat to come.

    I see this too — the conservatives on John McLaughlin’s PBS show last night did the same thing, speaking fawningly about Obama and his message of “hope.” That should make every Democrat worry.

    By the way, Taylor Marsh’s article gets into an Obama superdelegate who wrote to the Denver Post about Bill Clinton: “”Every Democratic candidate in Wyoming will be painted with that same liberal, big-government brush. We will also be the target of the locker room jokes that rightfully belong to Bill Clinton.”

    Marsh also notes — and this also worries me because I live in a small community that will not approve or dismiss this part of his history, when he said he was in a “haze” all the time:

    I can’t wait to hear Wyoming’s reaction to Obama’s drug confessional to high school students, with the added chapter from his book that he was once on his way to “junkie.” Never mind that this was never about helping the kids and teaching them a lesson, but instead meant to inoculate Mr. Obama on his past so he could run for president.

  • Cee

    Who in the hell is giving these candidates advice? First Obama, now this after what voters have gone through with Choice Point, the voting machines and the Ohio scandal?!?

    Matthew Segal, Gambier on the 2004 election in Ohio

    “In this past election, Kenyon College students and the residents of Gambier, Ohio, had to endure some of the most extenuating voting circumstances in the entire country. As many of you may already know, because they had it on national media attention, Kenyon students and the residents of Gambier had to stand in line up to 10 to 12 hours in the rain… it is a disgrace that kids who are being perpetually told the importance of voting, could not vote because they had other commitments and had to be put up with a 12-hour line.”

    I can’t believe it!!

    They must want republicans to win.

    Published on Friday, December 14, 2007 by Politico
    Young Activists Furious With Clinton, Dodd
    by Ben Adler
    Many youth activists are furious with the campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) for suggesting that college students who did not grow up in Iowa should not caucus there in January – and they are delivering that message both publicly and privately

    Yepsen himself admits that it’s legal for any student at a four-year college in Iowa to vote. The Iowa secretary of state posts information on how students can caucus from their campus address.

    But the Clinton and Dodd campaigns seized on the opening to appeal to older Iowans’ potential resentment of Obama’s support from young people by issuing statements echoing Yepsen’s sentiments.

    And Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) said the Obama campaign was “tamper[ing] with the caucus.”

    Then on Monday former President Bill Clinton waffled in response to a question at Grinnell College in Iowa about whether Sen. Clinton wanted Grinnell students from out of state to caucus for her.

    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/14/5823/

  • TeakWoodKite

    My guess,Fiengold and Hagel saw the writing on the wall and saw it would not be wise to be in a race with the current field…and expect to get any traction. Hagel is connected with Diebold and Fiengold would have to compete with a crowd that are tripping over themselves currently. Fear creates shallow and easily led masses. We live on borrowed money and pay intrest with borrowed time. Why should we create wealth when it is so easily stolen?

  • JoeCHI

    Hoosier here, too. Born and raised.

    IU B.S. and M.S., too.

  • Rob Gard

    So Mark Penn’s firm represented some unsavory characters. That doesn’t mean that Hillary supports those actors. If I were to select only lawyers who represented clients who I liked and with whom I agreed, I would be compelled to pass up some of the best legal minds of the country. I’m not saying that Mark Penn is brilliant, but Hillary can’t be painted (tainted) with the same brush, and the issue is different from Rudy’s in that Rudy is the one representing and making money off his clients. Hillary is not representing Mark Penn.

  • Thinker

    Well it seems like this ellection is being fought on the real issues: the character of the incumbant.

    Who cares what they are going to do in office, as long as they are not a druggie, racist, homosexual….er pardon I got that wrong. That’s ok these days, now its paedophile.

    If you have illicit, adulterous sex in the oval office we will call you “a very popular former president”. The moral stock of the American people (sic).

    On a side issue, I don’t feel we are going to have too much hope stemming social promiscuity after a coke sniffer and a sex fiend as presidents, Susan ;)

    Do as you’re told as we do as we like.

  • Marjorie

    Susan, your article is well-researched, well-written, and a pleasure to read. When I finished, I read the comments on it. Had I read the same article? Confused, I reread your article. It was still well-researched, well-written, and a pleasure to read. Nothing in it indicated you were describing a something static, but rather one phase of an ongoing political campaign. You caught up on the history and captured the current stream at a particular moment. Nice work.

blog comments powered by Disqus