Current Article

Maybe Democrats Need to be Taught a Lesson

By Larry Johnson on January 26, 2008 at 7:29 PM in Current Affairs

After reading several comments from self-professed progressives and “staunch” democrats, bitching about the “divisive” politics of Bill and Hillary Clinton, I confess that there is a part of me that hopes these disciples of Obama get what they are demanding. The pissing and moaning about legitimate challenges to Obama’s record and story is unbelievable. And the viciousness of attacks being leveled at the Clintons, accusing them of race baiting, and savaging Bill Clinton for campaigning aggressively for his wife is insane.

The Clintons are challenging Obama on fair issues. Example, the fairy tale that Obama is a staunch opponent of the Iraq war is not borne out by his statements and actions since 2004. The fairy tale that Obama has been consistent on his health plan proposal is exposed by recordings of his previous statements in favor of a single payer system. And his so-called bold legislative history is laughable when the record of “present” votes and mistaken votes are assembled.

And trust me on this. There is more fodder that has not even been touched. And the Republicans will get a hold of it and Obama will fold. The honeymoon with the black Horatio Alger will be over by April. The press will tire of this “inspiring story” and will be ready to dish some dirt.

But hey. I am still listed as a registered Republican, so what do I know. Well, I know this. Obama is not qualified by any standard to be President. I left the challenge up the other day for his followers and disciples to explain why he is a “brilliant” man. Things look bleak for the Republicans right now and it is natural to assume that they will be slaughtered electorally come November. Maybe so. But Obama will not be able to sustain this crazy cult of personality. His lack of accomplishment and his mediocre record as a legislator will do him in. Anyone want to take that as a bet?

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

If today’s results are significant — they may well not be — then John McCain will win the White House.

Mark Larry’s words: And trust me on this. There is more fodder that has not even been touched. And the Republicans will get a hold of it and Obama will fold.

http://www.despair.com/doubt.html Smilin’ Jim

“then John McCain will win the White House.”

McCain’s odds at being President are slightly better than Obama’s on Betfair and Intrade.

Clinton is still the 2 to 1 favorite over both.

Steady there, troops.

http://www.despair.com/disloyalty.html Smilin’ Jim

Update:

Obama’s win just made McCain’s odds for President more favorable.

Beware what you wish for, the gods may have a sense of humor.

Cee

Bill has tried to ruin McCain by saying that John and Hillary are good friends.

http://www.despair.com/disloyalty.html Smilin’ Jim

“Bill has tried to ruin McCain by saying that John and Hillary are good friends”

You underestimate Slick Willy.

By stating that they were good friends and that the campaign between these two nominees would accordingly be more cordial, he de facto stated that the campaign between Obama and McCain would be a bloodbath.

Bill Clinton does not need to ruin McCain. McCain had already ruined himself with his unqualified support of Bush and the war. It hasn’t gone away you know….

Cee

You underestimate Slick Willy.

I haven’t underestimated him.

By stating that they were good friends and that the campaign between these two nominees would accordingly be more cordial,

The Clinton camp can’t have it both ways. They can’t criticize Obama for reaching out to the GOP while Hillary is good friends with McCain.

he de facto stated that the campaign between Obama and McCain would be a bloodbath.

Bring it.

http://www.despair.com/cluelessness.html Smilin’ Jim

Firstly, let us discuss Internet writing style.

It would be helpful if you would put that which you are responding to in quotes “”. It would also be helpful if you highlighted the text and activated the “i” button with your mouse to italicize it.

It is less confusing that way.
http://www.despair.com/cluelessness.html Smilin’ Jim

“The Clinton camp can’t have it both ways.”

Secondly, it has always been the Clinton’s strength to have it both ways.

To underestimate the brass neck of that pair is absurd to anyone who did not spend the 90′s in the mothership with Jackie and Elvis.
http://www.despair.com/cluelessness.html Smilin’ Jim

“They can’t criticize Obama for reaching out to the GOP”

Refer to my second point, the Clintons have the brass neck to do anything they damn well please. That’s how you overcome your opponent.

Now thirdly, the only touch Obama will feel from the GOP will be either around his neck, if he’s lucky, or around his scrotum if he’s not.

Rove’s Wall Street Journal article was just the first love tap.
http://www.despair.com/cluelessness.html Smilin’ Jim

“while Hillary is good friends with McCain.”

Lastly, what is overlooked here is that the real message is on the sidebands.

Bill Clinton was also saying that Obama is loathed in the Senate as an upstart yuppie reaching for the brass ring without serving his time in the trenches: He has no time in grade.

His only support is from people, like Kerry, who have a axe to grind for the Clintons.
You must have the support of the Senate for appointments and to conduct a foreign policy.

Jess Wonderin

When BO first burst on the scene, I was eager to fall in love . . . but as the facts of his Chi-town Political Games, lack of real accomplishments scared me – then “who me?” racism and mudsling followed by the whining titty-baby crying really lost me. Working for a slum lord hardly measures up to the early civil rights efforts of Hillary. But “present” is hardly standing for a principle and playing nice “Get-Along-Cowboys” with the RepubliCONs after the shit we’ve got to clean up, is not acceptable. We need a street smart, cut throat, kickin’balls, waterboardin’ son (or daughter) of a bitch to clean house. The RepubliKKKons and NeoKKKons will eat OS for breakfast and be ready to finish America for lunch . . .

Look what they did to war-hero-seasoned-politician John McCain in the Carolinas against Bush . . . OS will be a cake walk.

Cee

OS?

I think you’re wrong. Look at the results from this evening.

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

Those are outlier results. Jesse Jackson also won there in ’88 by a huge margin. I can totally see why the large black population in South Carolina would have powerful reasons to vote for a black candidate, but — as Larry says in his post above — that’s an atypical demographic for the population as a whole.

http://www.despair.com/disloyalty.html Smilin’ Jim

“Jesse Jackson also won there in ‘88″

’84 as well AIR.
CognitiveDissonance

Glad you mentioned that, Susan. The press has such a short memory that they don’t seem to realize that Obama is NOT the first black candidate for the presidency. And he has a LONG way to go to equal Jesse’s run. He has now won 1 primary and 1 caucus. Jesse won 11 in ’88. So there is absolutely nothing historic yet that he has done. He has not set any records. He is not the messiah.

And incidentally, less anyone think this is a world-shattering win, it’s not. Jesse won South Carolina with 55% in ’88. Obama has equaled that, but has set no records. I’m not trying to take anything away from his win. But I grow really weary of the idiocy of the press, and hate it when politicians are made into messiahs, particularly ones with such a thin resume.
Cee

I was talking about the white population vote for Jackson vs whites who support Obama now.

5% vs what 25-30% now?

Jess Wonderin

yea “BO” . . .

You missed my point . . . BO has NOT articulated ANY solution – “Change” is something a homeless person wants . . . I want some solid actionable plans and a record of accomplishments . . . I was referring to how BO whines about the Clintons (ignoring their Civil Rights track record of 35 years) when we all know that the Right is ready with such Rovan tricks that he will be crying all the way back to Chi-Town. Look how a real war hero was burned by them – both Kerry AND McCain!
Edwards actually has proposed better ideas but can’t seem to get past the “Obama Media Glo” – and please let’s not get too enamored with the Jackson numbers – it was a different time with turnout at about 50,000 in 1988 vs 530,322 this time – and Jesse had a much lower “approval” rating, branded as an “agitator” from the Left – hardly the Moderate’s Choice.

Jess Wonderin

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Jackson was running at a time when the “Great Statesman Reagan” had just won the “War” was passing the batton to George the First. Different times . . .

bob h

“I confess that there is a part of me that hopes these disciples of Obama get what they are demanding.”

You mean a McCain presidency, during which he expires from old age, leaving us with Ayatollah Huckabee or whatever creep gets the VP slot?
Sally

We have a radical left in the Dimocratic party identical to the radical right in the republic party. The republics will take BO on in their gentlemanly way and that will be the end of that. Hello, President McCain/Huckabee/Romney.

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

You hit on it. That radical left is as hard-headed as the far right. And they’re toxic people to be around. That’s one reason I avoid going to Daily Kos unless necessary.

otherlisa

Here’s what I don’t get: why would a “radical left” support Barack Obama when he is at least as centrist as HRC, if not more so? His environmental stands, statements on Social Security, economic stimulus and health care proposals are less progressive than HRC’s.

There’s a cultish element to his support that I find increasingly disturbing.

Nathan

That’s the most confusing part: he is the least progressive of the 3 Democratic contenders and yet people insist he’s the most liberal. He consistently runs a pattern of appeasing the right and dividing the left in terms of policy and rhetoric.

And now with the daughter of JFK endorsing him, that false image is sealed. I think he’ll get annihilated in the general election. Edwards was our best chance, Clinton our second best (the poor economy promised to help her candidacy) and now it’s rather likely we’ll be stuck with Obama. What does he have to even match up with McCain? At least with Clinton, she had a vigorous domestic policy, especially that economic stimulus plan to best McCain and could go toe to toe with him on foreign policy, Iraq.

Cee

Nathan,

The Clinton camp made that claim Obama was the most liberal/progressive. Don’t back away now.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign seems determined to convince Barack Obama’s detractors in the blogosphere that he is so a liberal after all:

Hillary’s aides point to Obama’s extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with “left-wing” intellectuals in Chicago’s Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants’ rights as subjects for examination.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/clinton_obamas_too_liberal.php

http://www.despair.com/disloyalty.html Smilin’ Jim

“That radical left is as hard-headed as the far right. And they’re toxic people to be around.”

And they are either absent or sulking on election day or voting for third party candidates. They don’t count.
liberalbuffet

Oh, for Gods bullshit sake!! LOL. And the world will come to an end if we elect a back man who is not perfect. LOL

Who are you kidding Larry?? You sound like George Bush who says if we dont elect a GOP war monger, we will all die at the hands of the “evil people who dont worship JESUS”. If Hillery is better than all of the others, then she will get the nom, if not, she will have to continue to work and help us with the friged up mess the Republicans have left us. Period. I like Hillery and I believe Bill is the BEST president this country has ever had, BUT, the world will not come to an end if she does not get in the WH at this point in time. Maybe it will take a few more years.

TeakWoodKite

Maybe it will take a few more ~~years~~ lifetimes.

it is natural to assume that they will be slaughtered electorally come November.

Fear is still the motivator, lies are still the delivery vehicle, a wounded critter when cornered is very dangerous. Assume nothing; because what is happening now is not natural. I don’t wish to kick the sleeping dog here, but the demographics of the vote South Carolina actually shows that racism is alive and well in this country. Our wonderful MSM made sure that it was and how do THEY answer to?

PS Karl Rove just ran down to the dungeon to consult with his witch Mortianna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood:_Prince_of_Thieves

Cee

Teak,

I recall when Hillary tried to scare us by mentioning England and Gordon Brown.

but the demographics of the vote South Carolina actually shows that racism is alive and well in this country

This is all about the future. Obama took 52% of the youth vote from non-blacks.
———————————————-
Obama kept it competitive with white voters and brought tens of thousands of new voters and young voters into the process. His usual coalition — younger folks, folks with college degrees — expanded to include voters of all income levels. This is key to Feb. 5.

7. Whether the racial prism through which South Carolina was viewed was, in matter of fact, the
fault of a concerted effort by the Clintons, the political establishment believes it to be so, and the Clintons face a huge perception problem. BTW: the margin of victory tonight could persuade folks like Ted Kennedy to shrug off their neutrality and endorse.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/the_bottom_lines.php

TeakWoodKite

I notice, not that I disagree with your point; you left out Obama’s role in what occurred.

Several good folks point to “guilt by association” as a method of assassination
I have never seen disproved the notion that “the content of someone’s character can be measured by the company they keep.”

For better or worse, these are the seas we are
sailing in. I for one don’t wish to set course for some political Bermuda Triangle and have our Constitution never be heard from again.

I would be reassured to have Chris Dodd get the VP regardless of how this battle of stereotypes plays out in the MSM in that “prism”.

PS No Joke. I was spell checking my post(New Rule) and it wanted to change ‘Obama’s’ to ‘Osama’s’. Wierd.
Nathan

The fear card is when you use lies, exaggeration, or false links. She did neither of those things. She raised a legitimate issue. When Obama discussed possibly invading Pakistan did you say he was fear mongering or dealing with a pressing concern?

Cee

Nathan,

She pulled a Rove stunt. Since they had warnings two weeks prior to the attack, why wasn’t more done to stop them?
Did someone want to whip Gordon into shape?

I don’t agree with Obama on Pakistan and I haven’t seen shy about saying so.

Hope

I agree with you Larry. Well, bring it on I guess. Obama is just asking for it.
Hope

Susan, I can’t stomach Daily Kos.

As someone who lived in San Francisco for 20 years, I can tell you, you don’t want to live with the ultra left. They are the thought police of the politically correct. There is no room for dissent whatsoever. They are the counterpart of the far right, one and the same and they are too stupid to understand that the world doesn’t revolve around their ideology.
Rick

Larry ….

Gary Wills’ OpEd in today’s NYTimes should be read by all.

No more co-presidencies. Our nation has suffered thru 7 years of the Cheney/Bush Junta, and needs to return to the founders’ design. I would feel good about supporting Hillary, but for the strident intrusion of Bill. She, on her own, would be a very good president. IF she can’t be elected ON HER OWN, I can’t be comfortable supporting her. Our country can’t tolerate dynastic politics.

CognitiveDissonance

This is just such silliness. Why do men always assume that a woman’s husband is the one who is really going to be in power? Talk about sexism!
chris

Co-presidencies….how presumptive and almost ignorant of the role of the “first lady” in the last several decades. Eleanor Roosevelt was the VP? Nancy Reagan was VP? or “co-president”?

Was Hillary “co-president” or is Laura Bush “co-president?”

Nobody is “elected” on their own.
If she is elected will you give it to her as hers, or will you only see the Bill she’s with?

If she cannot run simply because her husband was once president, then screw this goddamned democracy and its sexist roots. If you are suggesting that because he is now speaking up, she must remove herself from the race, then screw this goddamned democracy and its sexist roots.

I agree that we cannot tolerate “dynastic politics”, tell that to the Goddamned Bushs.

I heard the niece of Benezir Bhutto has called for an end to “dynastic politics” after her son was appointed heir apparent to her political party. Its up to that party to decide they don’t want this path, and I support her in the principle. But should that party say, No, he wants to, and we support him….then so be it.

And yet again she isn’t allowed to simply be married to the man she married, you want her “on her own” and since she isn’t “on her own” from your limited perception, you “can’t be comfortable supporting her”.

Fine, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Gooliani have quiet little bracelets…er…wives….that won’t utter a freakin peep! Cast your vote that way.
shirin

Come on, everyone! Am I the only one who remembers how much Hillary was part of Bill’s campaign? Am I the only one who remembers hearing repeatedly that if you elected Bill Clinton, you would get two for the price of one?! And how the objections to the First Lady acting as “co-president” were flying fast and furiously then, too?

chris

Exactly shirin.
The blatant sexism is disgusting.

priscianus jr

“But hey. I am still listed as a registered Republican, so what do I know.”

Perhaps that explains the total lack of objectivity of your posts re Hillary and Obama. You haven’t taken into account the well-known fact that SC is one of the most racist states in the nation, and Obama’s percentage of white voters, though apparently low, WAS TWICE WHAT ANYBODY EXPECTED. Also the turnout in the SC Dem primary was far higher than that in the Republican one.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5AoiCZ8XMsY7J79TDtg_nFl06pwD8UDVH480

So actually this bodes very well for Obama’s support in the South, and looking around the country, Obama’s support comes far more from whites than blacks.

CognitiveDissonance

Wrong. Look at the exit polls in each of the primaries/caucuses to date. His percentage of the black vote has been almost identical in each. Check out Anglachel’s Journal. She has a number of posts that go into these exit polls.
bmobley

I disagree. We all seem to assume that he will “get” all balck voters, or at least the vast majority of them. I think that is a divisive fact rather than good outcome. If the voters of America can’t vote on a candidate on that candidates record or statements of intention, we are indeed sunk.
Did you see Meet The Press this morning? His explanation of the much blogged about statements on “Reagan” were both weak and (to me) disengenuous. He is still trying to explain what he “meant” by those statements. But anyone who watches that tape can see that the remarks are intended to be complimentary. And he can’t “explain” them without adding whole lists of things that he “meant”. I won’t comment on his supposed “brilliance”, but I will say that if he truely meant what he now says he meant, his command of the English language has been vastly overstated.
I will vote in the primary for Edwards, because of his health care plan. That is the over-riding concern for me. I have Grandchildren and Greatgrandchildren who do not have, nor can they afford, health insurance. I don’t think it really matters who we vote for though, the “powers that be” are not going to play dead while any prisident takes away their “honey pot”. Be it health care, getting out of Iraq, or the economy. So, in the general election in November, I’ll vote for any Democratic candidate and hope Edwards will be included in any Democratic administration we get.
I don’t think we need to worry about McCain beating BOB or Hillary or Edwards. In fact, I think thats the worst way to pick a candidate, trying to figure out which is the most electable. Thats how we got Kerry in 06. Although if Ohio had not had a crooked election system, he would have won by a rather small majority. We need a land slide to accomplish what we need to do and frankly I can’t imagine that after 8 years of GWB it wont be one. But you never know.

TeakWoodKite

Regarding Obama’s appearance, he was also asked about his relationship with Rezko. It was the opposite of what he said in the debates. Now “Rezko was friend I have known for 20 years”….To have him go from 5 hours to 20 years in 72 hours..mmmm I didn’t know him then I did?

One thing I have been watching is which Dem candidate is mindful of “anything you say can and will be used against you” by rethugs in a court of public opinion were the facts don’t matter.

Jess Wonderin

Just wait until the Rovean Slime machine heats up . . .

Rezko contribution 3x Obama’s claim . . .?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article

Obama referred to in the Rezko Fed inditment?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article

and that’s just in the Chicago Sun Times . . . easy pickings.

priscianus jr

Democrats have already been taught a lesson. They learned it the hard way: “No more Clintons, thank you.”

Hope

Priscianus what do you mean exactly? In what way have Democrats been taught their lesson and have learned the hard way? On what, specifically, do you base your statement?
chris

yeah…what have you based this on? Easy to say, but can you provide proof of this?

http://snunes.blogspot.com Susan Nunes

I don’t think Obama will be the nominee. Hillary Clinton has already started planting doubts in voters’ minds about Obama’s suitability as president thanks to her Rezko remarks of the other night.

I truly believe he will go down in scandal, but even if he doesn’t the odds of his winning the nomination are not good.

South Carolina was a fluke with its heavy African American vote.

If Obama did win the nomination, we would be looking at the first 50-state blowout in American history. John McCain wouldn’t have to get out of bed in the fall to beat Obama.
http://snunes.blogspot.com Susan Nunes

I hate to burst the Obama supporters’ bubble, but Republicans FAR, FAR outweigh Democrats in South Carolina. It is one of the most Republican states in the United States.

Obama couldn’t win anything except D.C. in a general election.
http://groundedinreality.blogspot.com Bruce

I don’t think Bill is helping Hillary any by going on the attack. It’s bad form for a former president to get too involved in these things and I think tonight proved that Bill is hurting more than helping.

Personally, I think either Hillary or Obama (or Edwards for that matter) would be head over heels better than anything the Republicans have to offer. But it looks like we are going to have a brokered convention anyway and the superdelegates are going to get the final say. As I understand it, most of the supers will support Hillary, so let’s not make too much of a deal about what is happening right now since it probably doesn’t reflect the final outcome.

http://OUTRAGEDBUTNOTSURPRISED bama_barrron

so bruce you think it is bad form for a former president to speak out about “things” … let me remind you, the role of the former president has evolved over time and bubba is far from the first former president to speak up about day to day concerns. i think it was the media who decided how an ex-president should behave … they created the politically correct standard as it were.

if you want to quibble with my reasoning, i suggest you read some history. you will find, bill is not just being a bore. LOL

mgm

One important ingredient in Obama’s blow out SC win is the media. MSNBC has spent the better part of the past two weeks vilifying Hillary Clinton unmercifully, and CNN has been only marginally better. Tonight’s MSNBC coverage was pure vitriol with not a single talking head other than, of all people, Pat Buchanan, being less than ghoulishly gleeful about Clinton’s loss. There’s no question that it’s taking a toll. The effect of a constant bombardment of anti-Clinton comments and snickering should not be underestimated. The corporate press was instrumental in the defeats of Gore and Kerry…and it well knows Clinton will be harder to beat in the general election than Obama. But what to do about it?
LuigiDaMan

President McCain will win in a landslide if Obama is the Dem choice. The dark side is literraly licking their chops, they can’t believe the good fortune they’re having – the Dems seem on the verge of committing suicide. Obama is unelectable in the U.S.

But, put that aside. Being anti-Iraq is a helluva lot easier in 2008 that it was in 2003. I know. I was one of the few (the only, as far as I could see) who was against invading Iraq from Day One (or would that be 9/11?).

You were considered a patriot if you supported the war in 2003 and a traitor if you were not. Hillary voted the way most of Congress did and the way most ‘Mericans felt.

Well, you guys were wrong: Invading Iraq was a bone headed move. But that’s easy for you to see and Obama to chant FIVE YEARS after the patriot fervor gripped the country.

Therefore, in my mind, how HRC voted in 2003 is unimportant. How quickly she will be able to turn this ship around is more important to me.

I don’t project how Obama will do in office because President McCain will kick his ever lovin’ Kumbaya ass in November.

shirin

1. Hillary Clinton did not merely vote for the aggression against Iraq, she helped to sell it, and she was an enthusiastic supporter of it, and continued to oppose withdrawing until about a year or so ago when the polls made it clear that she would not win the nomination unless she started singing a different song.

2. Have you taken a good, careful, thorough look at her “withdrawal” plan? It is little more than continued occupation by other means. (And Obama’s is almost identical.)

Sometime-CIA-Defender

We do need to be taught a lesson. And that lesson is Edwards gets the nomination come February 5th!

But seriously, I am hearing the exact reverse from Obama supporters who think the Clintons are criminals, dishonest, etc., etc. Same exact shit only from the other side. Is Rezko really any more serious than Hsu? Although Rezko did some bad things, Obama did also help create some housing in Chicago that was quite livable. But I agree with the Boston OpEd that Susan quoted earlier: please, please, let’s get the dirt NOW rather than when the GOP operatives get a hold of it and it’s too late to change nominees.

I don’t want Obama to get the nomination because he thinks it’s fine that Bush pardoned Scooter Libby. I don’t want Obama nor Clinton because neither seem to be doing anything about Sibel Edmonds (in fact, this seems to be the DNC’s official position: just let it go). If treason goes uninvestigated and unpunished, we are screwed. The Neocons will be back (back again, that is — Iran-Contra — the effing reason I decided to quit the GOP and not to go into public service in 1983! I would not even vote again until 1996).

Finally, I think Edwards is the strongest on the real issue: preserving the Middle Class. Without the Middle Class, the US ain’t gonna be worth living in.

Cee

I don’t want Obama to get the nomination because he thinks it’s fine that Bush pardoned Scooter Libby.

This isn’t true.

I agree with you on the Edmonds issue and the rest. We’ll be living with the SOS.

Clinton ran a robocall against Edwards in South Carolina. Perhaps Edwards will throw his support to Obama.

shirin

I don’t want Obama OR Hillary to get the nomination because neither of them plans to get the U.S. out of Iraq. They both plan to continue the occupation indefinitely, albeit with a smaller force and different means.

I also don’t want Obama OR Hillary to get the nomination because they both plan to increase the size of the military, which would not be necessary if they intended to withdraw completely from Iraq, and refrain from forcing the United States’ will on other countries by means of military violence.

Cee

Hillary voted the way most of Congress did and the way most ‘Mericans felt.

They were all fools and should have known better.

So much for her experience.

shirin

And what’s Obama’s excuse, Cee, for voting the way most of Congress has on Iraq ever since he has been in the Senate?

Silver

Everyone keeps complaining that Bill is hurting Hillary by his “divisive attacks” on Obama. I say, “Rubbish!” For one thing, the issues he brings up are not only on target, but he has had to resort to being a megaphone because the media and bloggers are not doing their job (with the exception of this site and a few others). This is due to Obama’s “teacher’s pet” status. If Bill did NOT stand up for Hillary, then everyone would be complaining how “weak” the Clintons are. (Remember how Kerry blamed for allowing himself to be swift-boated??) Hillary can’t say negative, but true, things about Obama because she gets attacked for the tiniest things—like not congratulating Obama properly after SC. And someone please tell John Edwards to get that smug and sanctimonious expression off his face everytime he chastises the other candidates for bickering. (If he were first instead of third, we might see him do a little mud wrestling as well.) Thank God Hillary DOES have Bill standing up for her and bringing up issues that need to be looked at.
Also, I keep hearing pundits talking about the momentum from SC carrying across the country. Excuse me, but I live in the Midwest. Today is the same as it was yesterday, and you will not change prejudices and conservative opinions that I’ve grown up with my entire life simply because a heavily black populated state gave Obama an overwhelming victory. And most people couldn’t care less about what Caroline Kennedy thinks. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but people here are too busy working to put food on the table to care about what an idealist thinks who’s never had to worry about health insurance or job security.
One final thought, I continually heard the majority of bloggers talk about the MSM biased coverage of the Bush administration,or rather LACK of coverage, during his presidency. That’s how we got into the mess we’re in. But I’ve learned throughout this election coverage, that they’ve cherry-picked their news coverage as well. Truly, they are just as bad. With the exception of a few web sites, I don’t think I ever would have heard anything positive about Hillary during this entire process.
justsomeone

Larry, if you vote in the Republican primary please consider voting for Ron Paul. We all know he can’t win but he brings some viable issues to the table that none of the major canidates are highlighting & warrant further consideration, especially in the area of privacy & personal liberty.
Joel Parkes

Let’s not forget that Larry Johnson by his own admission has a horse in this race, and that he at the moment is not happy.

The Dems are not the Republican’ts – there is no “Eleventh Commandment” during the primaries (For those not in the know, the Republican “11th” is thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.).

IMO, very little of this Dem bickering/bitch-slapping will matter when the nominees are selected NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE. The Dems have all the issues, most of the important governorships (no vote-tampering this time, boys and girls), lots more money, and will benefit from the widespread destruction visited upon the Republican’t Party by Dubya and his crew.

It’s still the Dems’ election to lose. I admit, given their history that such a thing is always possible. But this time I think it’s pretty damn unlikely.
TeakWoodKite

no vote-tampering this time, boys and girls

Is that an admonition? or are you really saying it won’t be as bad or worse than it has been the past or more recently as Brad Friedman ,Bev Harris, Susan Pynchon and many others have attempt to document in NH and SC?

All due respect to you, I do respect Mr Johnson’s views and service ;but WTF do I care if Larry Johnson is happy or not?
Rick

larry et al ……….

My problem with Bill Clinton is solely that he was Republican-lite, not a progressive, but highly pro-corporate.

What our nation sorely needs now is a new FDR and a ReNewDeal. 27 years of governance by right wing ideology has caused the disaster wrought upon America and the world. The NewDeal reforms saved capitalism and America. Now, we are faced with socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for the masses. America must return to our values, or in a generation, there will be a new flood of illegal immigration – into Canada.

The Republicans have turned the U.S. into a declining power …. both economically and militarily. And we have been morally dwarfed. Where is our new FDR?
Independent

I do know that after eight years of Dubya there will be NO repubican President even if Jesus Christ were on their ticket. Repubicans are the all time fail boat.
Pingback: Obama Would Have Voted For the Iraq War | TaylorMarsh.com