Current Article

Maxine Waters Endorses Hillary Clinton [UPDATED x2]

By SusanUnPC on January 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM in Hillary Clinton

2nd UPDATE, MSNBC Video: Norah O’Donnell interviews Maxine Waters.

UPDATE: Here’s an op-ed in today’s Los Angeles Times:
Kennedys for Clinton
She stands for Democrats and for the nation, these family members say.
By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy

Via Time magazine’s Mark Halperin: “Defying the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism, Clinton scores the endorsement of symbolically and substantively potent superdelegate/California Representative Maxine Waters.”

P.S. I trust the Hypersensitive, Uptight People will notify Mr. Halperin of his use of the sexually charged word, “scores,” against a woman now! OMG! (See comments here for context.)

Via the A.P., Waters’ statement:

“At a time when the economy continues to worsen and so many of my constituents are losing their homes and their jobs, we need someone with the leadership and experience who can step in on day one to tackle the economic challenges our country is facing,” Waters said. “Hillary understands the daily challenges that people are facing and she will fight for them everyday she is in the White House.”

Sally

Why was this not broadcast coast-to-coast by the media? Because when Maxine speaks, everyone listens and the media is not into letting anyone speak positively about Senator Clinton.

And, they haven’t yet worn out the tape of Teddy endorsing BO.

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

It just broke, so hopefully the media will pick it up.

THEN there’s that there are many Kennedys — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend — who support Hillary Clinton. Something that somehow doesn’t get mentioned much.

Is there any more nauseating cable news television than Mike Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough piling it on for Obama and dissing Clinton at every opportunity? (Brzezinski should disclose, with every utterance, that her father is on Obama’s team and that she’s clearly a supporter.) Scarborough is just filled with bile. I rarely watch MSNBC any longer — the Clinton pile-on is too much.

mostest

But just think how sweet it will be if either, Obama doesn’t get the nomination or Obama gets the nomination and all the Rezko stuff comes out and he gets destroyed.. although that will be bittersweet because we will have a repub in the white house and the ironic part will be that in no small part the “progessive blogosphere” would have put the repub there.

Shirin

It would be far sweeter if neither Obama nor Hillary gets the nomination. Of the three top Dem candidates, Edwards is certainly the best one.

Nellie

I am on your side there.

simon

AstroTurf progressives support Obama, not real progressives.

Like orange nerfs.

Cee

(Brzezinski should disclose, with every utterance, that her father is on Obama’s team and that she’s clearly a supporter.)

She did. She also said her brother was working for someone. I think it was Romney.
http://www.despair.com/destiny.html Smilin’ Jim

It appears that we have a family feud in the making.

Teddy’s kid and Jackie O’s kid were with Obama when Teddy gave the ringing endorsement.

Meanwhile, in the LA Times, Bobby’s kids were weighing in for Clinton.

Elsewhere, Irish eyes were not smiling amongst the expat community. Evidentially Obama intends to stiffarm the Irish-American community and sent one of his foreign policy advisors (herself born in Ireland) to charm the editor of the Irish Voice. He was not impressed: Travel in South Armagh may be a bit dicey for the lad.

The representatives of the medial conglomerates gathered on the Charlie Rose Show last night to rehash the SOTU speech. It quickly segwayed into (1) the Kennedy endorsement, (2) an uncharacteristically sob sister rendition by ABC’s Raddatz on Caroline’s “Senator Obama is inspiring my children”, and (3) how Bill Clinton has turned into the antichrist.

I mention this for the singular moment of Zen which occurred when Evan Thomas noted that, like Halperin did following the New Hampshire surprise, that the press was coddling Obama and reserving the Brillo pad for Clinton. This is surprising to me because he has publicly indicated that he favors Obama.

He aptly noted there was a disconnect between the amalgam of the news conglomerates and the chattering classes and the rest of the country. He went as far to say that the heady Obama intoxication was limited only to the class of individuals that appeared on shows like the Charlie Rose Show.

The ultimate reality is that we are all watching the Pottsylvanian video that mesmerized the nation in The Bullwinkle Movie.
jammerbirdi

Is there any more nauseating cable news television than Mike Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough piling it on for Obama and dissing Clinton at every opportunity?

You obviously aren’t watching CNN, which seems to stand for Clinton? No! No!

col klink

I’m not sure the Kennedy endorsement will work out for Obama, in the end.

It seems to be rather trite, except to those Obama people, apparently, locked in their world.
http://papertigertail.blogspot.com Other Lisa

I say this as an Edwards supporter – I am getting so angry about the blatant sexist dynamic at work in this race that I am considering voting for Clinton in California if the vote looks tight.

Shirin

Forgive me Other Lisa, but that is as dumb a reason for voting as I have heard.

Frankly, I am sick of all the schoolyard nattering and yammnering and sniping on both sides.

TeakwoodKite

Shirin, Last I checked, not shaking the hand that is being offered IS an insult the good ‘ole USA.

In some circles it is considered a “smackdown”.

Why is Other Lisa’s intentions dumb? I am of the same mind. Not voting at all is dumb.

I agree that all the sniping is from the “formative years” school of behavior. I would not mistake the passion and reasons of one’s position for sniping. Democracy ain’t easy is it?

Shirin

TWK,

Refusing to shake a hand that is proferred by a colleague/opponent/fellow party member with whom one has to work, and will continue to have to work in the future, is not just an insult to the other person. It is shameful, not to mention stupid, behaviour, and shows oneself to be a rude, petty person. It is, quite simply, unacceptable behaviour.

Why do I say it is dumb to vote for Hillary over the candidate you actually support just because you perceive sexism in some of the opposition?! Wouldn’t it be dumb to vote for Obama because of perceived racism?! Wouldn’t it be dumb to vote for a Jewish candidate because of perceived anti-semitism?

And all this time I thought I have been doing the right thing by voting or not voting for people based on their record and stated positions on the substantive issues that are important to me! Silly me. Guess I just don’t understand this democracy thing yet.

“I agree that all the sniping is from the “formative years” school of behavior. I would not mistake the passion and reasons of one’s position for sniping.”

Ummmmm – so it is the passion and reasons of their positions that has the sides taking personal pot shots at each other? How interesting. And all this time I thought ad hominem attacks weren’t valid ways of debating critical national and international issues. I really DO have a lot to learn.

“Democracy ain’t easy is it?”

Clearly, it is a whole lot easier than I thought.

TeakwoodKite

Thanks for thoughtful reply Shirin.

taking personal pot shots at each other

Thats what I meant to draw a contrast with. I took Other Lisa some what out her context
regarding sexism. I get cynical when I hear “vote for me and I’ll set you free”. but thats the manipulation and you are right; vote your vote. That is the bottomline.

Hypothetically, I am leaning for Edwards but was thinking if it goes to the convention floor, Edwards would send his votes to Obama. That, I am not into. Screwed up isn’t? What is really bent is that I would vote for Obama over any of these folks on the Repug’s ’cause voting for fear is a crummy way to live. Just to sayin’ that with all the back and forth going on “valid ways of debating critical national and international issues.” are a lost art. “Democracy ain’t easy is it?”
(Lost Art)

http://papertigertail.blogspot.com Other Lisa

Gee, thanks.

A little more context then: Clinton has been my second choice in the race because her positions on most issues are more progressive than Obama’s. I am not talking about foreign policy here, but on the environment, the economy and healthcare, her positions are markedly better than Obama’s.

Edwards is still the best on the issues overall, but I would rather see Clinton as the nominee than Obama at this point. The more I find out about Obama, the more uneasy I become.

And, yes, the sexism makes me furious, so I am reacting out of emotion here. Um, gee, not like anybody else on this board ever does that.

I’d appreciate a chance to at least clarify my remarks before being called an idiot. Thanks.

http://papertigertail.blogspot.com Other Lisa

As a p.s. – I know I’m not the most prolific poster here but I’ve said repeatedly that Clinton is my second choice and that Obama is my third, and why. Before I was holding firm to my vote for Edwards because of his stands on the issues. But the more this Obama bandwagon starts rolling, the more I am seriously considering a more strategic vote – and the sexism is IMO a legitimate factor to weigh. I’ve certainly grown up with it and seen the ways in which being a woman has limited my opportunities. I’ve done well and in most regards have made my peace with it. But watching this all go down…it reminds me how far we have to go in this country.
TeakwoodKite

Other Lisa: Please forgive ANY inference to you being an idiot. Tis I and my poorly formed thoughts. I did not think you were dumb in the least. I meant the opposite and meant to agree with your sentiment. As I said; Vote yer vote.

http://papertigertail.blogspot.com Other Lisa

TWK, I appreciate your comment and your clarification.

Shirin

Hey OL, I didn’t call you an idiot, I called the reasoning you presented silly – not even close to the same thing. For starters, one is an ad hominem comment, the other is a comment on the idea you presented. Lots of very, very smart people do lots of silly things for lots of silly reasons, even when they have every reason to know better.

Thanks for fleshing out the context. I DO understand the dilemma. With my priorities being foreign and military policy, I’m not sure whom I am more unhappy with between Hillary and Obama, and Edwards is only a bit better than they are. I won’t vote for either one of them because I feel more or less equally screwed no matter which one it is, I don’t really feel any particular affinity or antipathy toward either one. Edwards is the only choice from my point of view – better on domestic matters, and not quite as bad as the other two on foreign/military policy.

And by the way, what I was referring to as silly was specifically the idea of voting for Hillary just because you perceive there is sexism at play. That was the clear impression I got from your first comment.

It’s really too bad humans have not gotten past the point where someone’s race or gender is a big deal. I guess it won’t happen in my lifetime. Oh well. You live in the world you’ve got, not the one you wish you had.

http://papertigertail.blogspot.com Other Lisa

I understand, Shirin, and in part I was assuming that you knew more of what my “context” was.

But I will hold to my opinion that a vote made in part to counter rampant sexism is not irrational or silly. I’ll put it to you this way – I find it ironic that in a race with a woman, an African American and a white male Southerner, I’m supporting #3. If their positions on the issues were the same, I’d frankly rather see a woman or an African American man – because I think it’s healthy for this country to see that “leadership” is not solely the provenance of white men.

Of course their positions on the issues are not the same, nor are their personalities or levels of experience.

Shirin

If their positions were the same, or somehow I felt on balance they were equivalent, chances are good I, too, would vote for the non-white-male candidate.

And I was just thinking a few minutes ago that it is kind of ironic that the only ones I find I can bring myself to consider voting for in this election are white males.

And yet another irony is that there are a number of Arab-Americans in Congress and who hold or have held high positions in government, and for the most part I wouldn’t vote for them if they were running against Atila the Hun!

Shirin

PS: I am certainly sensitive to sexism and gender-awareness, and they are present in this election, just as racism and race-awareness are, but I cannot for the life of me see the kind of “rampant sexism” that some other people seem to be perceiving in this campaign. In particular I thought the accusations of sexism against Edwards over his comment following Hillary’s moment of vulnerability were nothing short of ludicrous, and I cannot help thinking that people were looking way to hard for it in relation to that incident.

In general, I think it is quite appropriate, and necessary to be aware of sexism to see it when it occurs, and to call people on it, but it is counterproductive to look so hard for it that you see it behind every bush and around every corner.
http://papertigertail.blogspot.com Other Lisa

I didn’t find Edwards’ remark sexist. A lot of the coverage, on the other hand…Chris Matthews at the NH debate kinda summed it up for me.
Shirin

Oh, well, Chris Matthews – come on! That guy is a racist, sexist, jingoist pig from the lunatic fringe.

If I hadn’t already told it so many times here I would tell you about the first – and last – time I ever heard him interviewed. I had never heard of him before, and it was so appalling that I have completely ignored him ever since. I won’t watch his show, and I won’t watch or listen to anything that he is on. I don’t know why so many otherwise intelligent people watch him. He is disgusting and sick.
http://papertigertail.blogspot.com Other Lisa

And yet he was the moderator in a crucial debate…

But yeah, he’s a big ick.
Kathy

It took 100+ years to get the vote and another 150+ years to find a woman with enough balls to run for president. I still remember the look on Obama’s face when he looked at Hillary and said “you’re likable enough Hillary.” I have seen that look all my life from men trying to reduce women to __________ (fill in the blank ladies. we have all been there). If Hillary does not win, it will be another 50 years before another woman will run. Just putting yourself out there takes so much courage, ego, self-esteem, and knowledge of one’s own soul. I admire Hillary so much. I hope young girls are watching and listening. This is the best life lesson for girls/women I have seen. Women can do and be anything they want, and Hill has proven that for all women. I would like to kick Kennedy in the butt, however, I think Hillary will triumph.
shirin

Hillary is not the first woman to run for the presidential nomination. A woman ran for it fifteen or twenty years ago.

As for Obama’s remark that Hillary is “likable enough” what evidence do you have that this was a sexist remark? As I recall the context of that remark there was nothing sexist about it.

And on what do you base the idea that if Hillary doesn’t win it will take another 50 years before another woman will run? I see no basis for that at all.

Shirin

You know, those Americans who vote based on who has the best TV ads, or the most charisma, or the best haircut – or just ’cause it’s about time a woman/black/Muslim/Arab/Jew/”Little Person” (or in the case of Bush, a mental midget) got elected may have something there! Sure does simplify the decision-making process, doesn’t it?

Cee

Refusing to shake a hand that is proferred… It is shameful, not to mention stupid, behaviour, and shows oneself to be a rude, petty person. It is, quite simply, unacceptable behaviour.

So we’re clear…Hillary didn’t offer her hand. So what if she did and it wasn’t taken.

You’ve got to be kidding! Would you have shaken the hand of Suharto? Pinochet? Mobuto Sese Seko?

Shirin

Gosh, Cee, you managed to remove some rather critical context from my comment! Here is what I wrote:

“Refusing to shake a hand that is proferred by a colleague/opponent/fellow party member with whom one has to work, and will continue to have to work in the future, is not just an insult to the other person. It is shameful, not to mention stupid, behaviour, and shows oneself to be a rude, petty person. It is, quite simply, unacceptable behaviour.”

That kind of changes things, doesn’t it?

Want to ask me again if I would shake hands with every evil dictator in the world?

Cee

Shirin,

If you had been in a position to work with those people I named would you have shaken their hands?

I think Hillary is pretty evil because of her Iraq vote. I would have avoided shaking her blood soaked hand in any way I could. Warning her off. Turning my back. Looking the other way. Whatever it took.
Call me a bitch. She couldn’t touch me.

shirin

“If you had been in a position to work with those people I named would you have shaken their hands?”

If I had worked with those people, I would not be the person that I am, therefore I have no idea what I would do.

“I think Hillary is pretty evil because of her Iraq vote. I would have avoided shaking her blood soaked hand in any way I could.”

LOL! Do you seriously think Obama, who has voted in lockstep with Hillary on Iraq, who has said repeatedly he does not know whether he would have voted for or against invasion, who has stated at least once that he was in complete agreement with Bush on Iraq, who clearly thinks military violence is a perfectly acceptable way to impose the U.S. will on other countries – including specifically Iran, and Pakistan, for god’s sake – and who, by the way, has virtually the same non-withdrawal Iraq “withdrawal” plan as Hillary, would refuse to shake Hillary Clinton’s hand because there is BLOOD on it?

“Warning her off. Turning my back. Looking the other way. Whatever it took.”

Well, you’d last about 30 seconds in the Congress or in any other government position. Look, there is a certain decorum that one follows with other people if one wants to accomplish anything, and that decorum is particularly critical in positions of power.

“Call me a bitch. She couldn’t touch me.”

As an ordinary citizen of the country, you could certainly get away with that kind of behaviour, and might even be justifiably praised for it. As a colleague of hers in the Senate? Not likely.

Cee

LOL! Do you seriously think Obama, who has voted in lockstep with Hillary on Iraq,

He didn’t vote for the war and spoke out against it. I’m finding more and more that I won’t post here that makes me think we’d see a different policy.
That and the cheap shots from the opposition have influenced my choice.

“Warning her off. Turning my back. Looking the other way. Whatever it took.”

Well, you’d last about 30 seconds in the Congress or in any other government position.

Have I ever said I would run for office?

http://www.evergreenpolitics.com shoephone

Umm… putting Hillary Clinton in the same league with either Suharto, Pinochet or Sese Seko is so over the top I can’t even come up with a clever response.

I think I’ll go fix that double vodka now.

Cee

Shoe,

Fix it. I’d like one as well. My mine up with pearl onions.

A millon dead Iraq citizens and Hillary played a role in their deaths.

http://www.evergreenpolitics.com shoephone

Cee – I’m low on pearl onions. Have lots of oilves on hand though.

I’m not any more tolerant of HRC’s vote on the AUMF than you are. But the comparison to dictators who blithely ordered the torture, disappearance and deaths of thousands, if not millions, of their own citizens is still in a very different league.

I’m all for accountability. Hyperbole? not so much.

http://www.evergreenpolitics.com shoephone

And anyway, the AUMF vote is not the reason Obama snubbed her. He did it out of sheer pettiness.

shirin

Yup!
Cee

After everything her campaign and surrogates have said and done I’m beyond caring.

This tells me more about Hillary.

What people forget about Clinton is that she is basically a Republican at heart. She campaigned for Barry Goldwater once upon a time and even canvassed poor neighborhoods in Chicago looking for “vote fraud” by Democrats. She was president of the College Republicans at Wellesley. In 1968, at the height of America’s most intense cultural debate in a century, she only abandoned the Republican Party because it backed Dick Nixon instead of her favorite, Nelson Rockefeller.

Which is ironic, because as a presidential candidate herself, Hillary has basically run exactly Nixon’s 1968 campaign. Her stump speech from the get-go was all about the “invisible Americans,” a nearly word-for-word echo of Nixon’s revolutionary “forgotten Americans” strategy of that year. Like Nixon, she was targeting a slice of the electorate that had chosen to stay on the sidelines during a cultural war and secretly yearned for someone in the political center to restore order; it’s no accident that Hillary was on the opposite side of every issue that sent lefties to the streets in the Bush years, from the war to free trade to the Patriot Act.

Her much-reported line about Martin Luther King needing LBJ to complete his “dream” was just another salvo in that effort, a subtle message to the public that the “change” she talks about so incessantly is only legitimate when it comes from the inside. Lest anyone think this is a fanciful analysis, listen to what Hillary wrote back in the day, in her senior thesis at Wellesley, which looked at the work of a Chicago community organizer named Saul Alinsky, who had offered her a job. “I agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” she wrote, “but we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t.”

Ironically, after Alinsky’s death, the man who carried on his legacy as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago was none other than Barack Obama, who took a $13,000-a-year gig similar to the one that Hillary turned down.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/75233/?page=entire

shirin

No kidding, Shoephone. I was kind of blown away by that!

And where is Chris Vosburg now?!!!

TeakWoodKite

If offerd;they would get the “power grip” which is peculiar to bass players and one they would remember. However, since they are all dead and gone they are unlikely they will offer.
There’s more to body language than a hand shake. I have always been taught never to turn your back on your advisary no matter what. This is in the picture as well and what I have observed during the “debates” which is a stretch to call them that.

simon

Perhaps Lisa is saying Obama is sexist, misogynist, and she reads it in his behavior.

And that is behind her reasoning for the Clinton vote.

A lot of us see this quality in Obama, his attitude, his gestures, just an enraged prissiness, you know?

With all due respect, you sound like the men who tell us AA’s are equal, women, too, therefore affirmative action is no longer needed.

Shirin

With all due respect, you are wrong.

CognitiveDissonance

This is definitely a MUCH better endorsement than Teddy was for Obama. The Teddy endorsement reeks of hypocrisy. Many of us haven’t forgotten Obama’s demeaning words about Kennedy a year ago, that he’s an old man without a spine. Nor his constant meme that it’s time to turn the page and get some fresh faces. So what does he do? He gets one of the oldest, most liberal democrats to endorse him. Anyone smell a rat with that? Maxine, on the other hand, is an exciting progressive voice, one that is well-loved in California.

Mr.Murder

Kennedy was part of the 98-0 vote for the AUMF as well.

Somehow he’s an authority on war opposition now.

http://www.evergreenpolitics.com shoephone

Mr. M – Are you thinking of the first Patriot Act vote? That, I believe, was unanimous (sadly). But the AUMF was opposed by 23 senators, one of whom was Kennedy.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Mr.Murder

[edit] House of Representatives
On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee – D-CA).

[edit] Senate
On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig – R and Jesse Helms – R).

The Iraq war resolution is what he opposed, I confused that with the initial AUMF vs. terror.

(Redirected from Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.
Not to be confused with Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991.
“Iraq Resolution” and “Iraq War Resolution” are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War.

The Iraq resolution was the one that the CBC opposed for the most part.

The 23 who opposed included an Independent and a Republican.

WMD and Al Qaeda were the links to justify the war, the former a negative, the latter less than tenative.

Major apoligies for getting the voting confused, others have used the argument”they voted for the AUMF, I didn’t.” Yet everyone voted for the AUMF. Only 1 opposed, between the two Legislative bodies. Twelve combined abstained.

The Iraq Resolution, its Authorization, is what the quote refers to.

Sally

Other Lisa, misogyny is the only reason for the devotion and support of BO who is a big nothing. The all-boyz Club will not let a woman in their male domain even if it takes a present-day Civil War to keep her out. They are hiding their sexism behind their trumped-up charges of racism. If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be laughable that the Clintons are being described as racists by the sexist mobs to try to hide what it’s actually all about–no women allowed.

Shirin

I don’t think misogyny is that much of an issue at all. I think human beings find it easier to be blindly enthralled than to think, and analyze. They prefer the excitement of the sizzle to the substance of the steak. Obama apparently has some kind of star quality that people are attracted to, and they have decided he is their new messiah.

TeakwoodKite

their new messiah.

Annointed “their new messiah” …

Oh well, so much for the Sumeraians.

Fred C. Dobbs

Me, neither. I’m more of a Good Old Boy than you might imagine, but I fail to see a particular role for Upper Body Strength in being POTUS.

It is as it always was: the Winner is who gets there Firstest with the Mostest.
Kathy

It’s all about being a woman. The sneers and giggles on all the pundits faces are proof of that. They will be rubbing their hands together next when they talk about Hillary.

shirin

No, it’s not all about being a woman. Try broadening your collection of pundits (hint: stop watching the likes of Chris Matthews and O’Reilly – I NEVER pay attention to them, and I am far happier for it.)

It’s really a poor tactic to make every little thing about sexism (or racism). It diminishes the credibility of complaints when there really IS serious sexism.

Juan Betancourt

from wikipedia…

Waters was named in 2005[4] and 2006[5] as one of the “most corrupt” members of congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They said, “Her ethics issues arise from her exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son.” They said that Waters’ daughter Karen charges other politicians to appear on mailers sent to constituents in Los Angeles showing her mother’s support for the politician. Karen has received $450,000 in fees from this endeavor and Waters’ son Edward has received $115,000. Waters’ husband Sidney benefited from his wife’s connections with his hiring as a political consultant by a firm, Siebert, Brandford, & Shank, seeking government investment. Sidney Williams earned $500,000 from this consulting, which consisted of introducing Siebert to politicians his wife had supported. Sidney and Edward Williams also benefitted when they won a contract to run a Los Angeles golf course, with the decision made by a county supervisor who had won a close race after Waters’ endorsement and from which they made financial gain of between $140,000 and $400,000.[6] Citizens for Ethics says this violates House ethics rules for family members’ financial gains.

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

The 2005 Republican-controlled congress must have jumped on this like ticks on a dog when it appeared that September.

The vengeance of DeLay’s heirs appears singularly unreported.

Mr.Murder

Yeah, it’s strange the DoJ didn’t act either, not like Rove discouraged them from going after Democrats. There’s no there, there.

As for CREW, Melanie Sloan is like a lifetime crush for me. She was Sen.Schumer’s Senate Judiciary Subcomm.Counsel during those days the GOP was witch hunting President Bill Clinton.

She has amazing focus and is one of the sharpest persons I’ve ever seen on the go in the course of testimony and questioning. Always on her toes, from the times I was fortunate to see her work done.

If I’m not mistaken she’s familiar with our blog founder and others we’ve discussed here, a former Ambassador and his lovely wife, former employ of the Company call her Counsel.

It’s hard to imagine CREW not giving a valid criticism of a Democrat if she’s still there, and had editorial input.

Back to Waters:
One editor fled the LA Times after time away, to Chair the Pulitzer Committee and award a fellow employ, he’s since gone to Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, the paper has struggled to settle into a style since.

They’ve gone through four editors in three years. After I addressed the second link referenced by CREW, the LA Times has pulled it. The other primary link referenced CREW and vice-versa, as Waters made statement of record.

[30] See Chuck Neubauer and Ted Rohrlich, “Capitalizing on Clout: Capitalizing on a Politician’s Clout,” The Los Angeles Times, Dec. 19, 2004. In Chuck Neubauer, “Group Lists ‘13 Most Corrupt’ in Congress,” The Los Angeles Times, Pg. 26, Sept. 25, 2005, The Times cites a 2006 report by CREW, which in turn cites the Dec. 19, 2004 article as one of its primary sources. Furthermore, the only other source cited in the CREW report (See Dana Milbank, “Lowering the Bar for Government Ethics?” The Washington Post, Dec. 31, 2004.) was written based on information compiled from The Los Angeles Times articles.

If the other link was available the LA Times could clarify. Seems strange they would pull it. Their reporter mostly breaks stories on Democrats, his equivalency efforts on Republicans appear quite after the fact. He did claim to be the person who broke the Abramoff story, an item I’ve discussed on other links.

To the extent he described NaftaSib’s involvement with them, and lobbying interests with Al Qaeda ties who were on that flight with DeLay, while we had troops deployed in situations they could be subject to fire by the lobby interest’s allies in Kosovo and Bosnia, that would be another link and thread topic entirely.

Mostly what I gather is he phishes items on Democrats and runs with it. He has made some other contributions to the recent topics, most notably initial fluff stories about the Obama campaign.

Could it be that Obama camp is feeding this guy stuff along the lines of what we see him do with Politico and by osmosis from there, Drudge?

In any event, I’d rather see CREW follow up on this, or have the LA Times clarify. Burden of proof and all that, with their constant shuffling. One of their recent editors was quite accomplished in liberal ranks for reporting, to see the praise given him online.

Maybe it was the usual September GOTV spike. A story sharply aimed to wage equivalency. One Democrat had some business success, so the other twelve scandal plagued republicans were evened out by her family’s private pursuits.

There’s some room for ambiguity on the statements of record as well. It’s difficult to see the extent to which they are supported since the LA Times chickenhearted its way out of the major link.

They’ll probably put it out there again in its entirety, challenged or not.

BTW, Waters did co sponsor Cheney Impeachment. That may be a pretty strong check to the balance of her being on most of the Oversight functions by Committee.

In other news Barack, don’t make a woman mad when you can make her a friend. We’ll see how this plays out. Pass the popcorn.

Alibe

So was John Murtha, my Congressperson. Is it a coincidence that people who are against this war are now corrupt??? Like the GOP Reps are not corrupt. This is just BS! How convienient that a couple of the most outspoken War critics are labeled from some “unknown group” as most corrupt. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! Sounds like a republican tactic.

Cee

They aren’t unknown. Sigh…

Sakol alerted Hillary and her staff about the newly forming group and its need for “Democratic progressive money.” The hope was that CREW would prove to be a perfect counterbalance to Judicial Watch, the corruption watchdog that had tormented the Clintons with lawsuits and press conferences throughout the 1990s. Hillary’s pollster and strategist Mark Penn became a director and vice president of CREW. “CREW could do things the senators couldn’t do,” Sakol said. And once CREW’s charges “were out in the press,” Sakol noted, other people could cite the findings of the group, which was usually portrayed as nonpartisan in news accounts. CREW played a significant role in unearthing several congressional scandals, including helping a retiring Democratic congressman from Texas to file a complaint against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Cee

Juan,

Tsk, tsk. I like Maxine. I hate that this kind of stuff is being brought up.

The Clinton campaign tactics have been to divide and conquer. This endorsement is the fruit of that.

LandOLincoln

“Tsk, tsk. I like Maxine. I hate that this kind of stuff is being brought up.
“The Clinton campaign tactics have been to divide and conquer. This endorsement is the fruit of that.”

Say what? Maxine Waters endorses an old friend and colleague, and of course it’s somehow a result of Clinton campaign tactics…to divide and conquer?”

Cee

Gender against gender.

Hillary said herself that her tear worked to sway women.

simon

Clinton?

Divide and conquer?

With Maxine as Thor the Viking?

Good, babe, I can use it.

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

Redux: The Mysteriously Elusive Los Angeles Times Investigation

The Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington do list Maxine Waters in their September 2005 report.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/24122

Rep. Maxine Waters: The report cites a December 2004 Los Angeles Times investigation disclosing how members of the congresswoman’s family have made more than $1 million in the last eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that Waters has helped. Before publication of the Times investigation last year, Waters declined to be interviewed, but said of her family members: “They do their business, and I do mine.”

Check out the LA Times website, kiddies. No such report exists or at least none that was true enough for the paper to stand behind.

Since she was elected the next year her constituents thought it was bullshit as well.

Now, for the entrepreneurial minded amongst you, I have a take-home test. How much can an extended family of nephews, nieces, daughters, sons, uncles, aunts, etc. earn over the eight years that the allegedly corrupt million was accrued?

Say Waters supports the Girl Scouts and her niece sells Girl Scout Cookies. Book’em Dano.

Cee

Jim,

Sorry to say that I just found the LA Times article.

The husband, daughter and son of Rep. Maxine Waters have business links to people the influential lawmaker has aided.
By Chuck Neubauer and Ted Rohrlich
Times Staff Writers

December 19, 2004

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters’ family members have made more than $1 million in the last eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that the influential congresswoman has helped.
http://www.haitipolicy.org/content/2766.htm

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

I do stand corrected. My archive search using the aurhors, Chuck Neubauer and Ted Rohrlich, turned it up.

The truth of the story was judged the very next year by her constituents.

Maybe they were in on the Girl Scout Cookie deal, too.
Mr.Murder

Waters contested their electoral process in Haiti, as have other world transparency institutions.

Pushback and all that.

She didn’t burn that bridge, she honored the naming of Wyclef Jean as “honorary ambassador” there as well.

Is it illegal for your daughter to run a PR firm and do direct mail? Is it wrong to pay a firm to help your election chjances through legal forms of advertisment?

An 80% voter turnout, the last time I heard a campaign doing that of recent was in South Carolina for Barack Obama. Imagine that. Sounds like she has a lot of voters who believe in her.

That’s a part of the process.

It’s hard to separate business success from associates. I’m not one to stop her if she get 80% of the vote, that would be the job of her constituents to decide upon.

Now, dealing with bond ordiances and subprime loans may be another story in today’s market. On the saurface these look to be on the side of regular business. But, with the way liquidity is going now, let’s hope for their own sake they’ve diversified.

I’ve yet to see how her items compare to Rep.Wheldon’s. She didn’t ket set to see the Taliban with Rep.Dana Rhorbacker, did she?

Did she take millions in defense contractor loans for HI homes like Randy “Duke” Cunningham?

She’s taking casino money, but has she also bribed churches fighting casinos with Ralph Reed’s help fromthe Christian Coalition, then played extortion on her initial donors like Abramoff was doing along with DeLay?

She has over 100% voting record for a lot of causes important to women or liberals, including for the environment. In California that would be a traditional conservative, voting in the interest of land conservation. That would be libertarian as well, voting for personal rights to decide personal decisions.

I’d say she’s got a pretty balanced approach in those regards. More people would fortunate to have that kind Representation.

Let’s hope for contiued success her way, the same writer who is trashing her can’t keep all of his stories on the paper database, for liability concerns. He regularly goes after Democrats including the Clintons, and he has done fluff stories on Barack.

I’d say her endorsement of Hillary is beyond a good choice for Democrats and her constituents. It’s a form of kinship. They’ve been targeted as successful women, by the same guy, in the media. Here’s a chance to show support for each other.

Oh, one more item. Ditto on that Cheney Impeachment, Maxine!
Mr.Murder

Thanks, the original story must have been dumped, wouldn’t show on the search entry.

But a lot of other entries on it show now…

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

If you search the site, you only get recent results. There is no link to the archive search in the results. Yet another website designed by Elmer Fudd.

You have to scroll down and look in the left sidebar frame under “Settings And Services”.

Once you do that, you can get the story for four bucks or put your trust the nice folks at the Haiti Democracy Project.

Haiti Democracy Project?

Albe

I am shocked by the vitriol displayed by the Barack Obama supporters. I am sick that they felt justified in Booing Bill Clinton at a rally in watching the South Carolina returns. Imagine the media explosion if the Clinton camp had booed Obama? It would have been over for Hillary!! She and Bill have to constantly flatter Obama or they are labeled racist. And when they say something nice it is twisted and turned into a racist remark. Obama never says anything nice about them. He snubs Hillary at the SOTU speech and is given a pass by the media and then explains it away by lying. He is “troubling”. His supporters seem too much like some of the Goppers who attack Hillary every chance they get. And Bill too. It is scary. And uncivilized. And unreasonable. It is antithetic to Democrats and belies Obama’s claim to be the one to bring us together. If this is any indication of bringing us together, then maybe he needs to look in the mirror and get off his high horse and be more fair. I hate hypocrisy.

Cee

Albe,

Have you been paying attention long?

Listen to Glenn Greenwald

Sunday January 27, 2008 07:31 EST
Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina
(updated below – Update II)

I’ve thought most of the criticisms of the Clintons’ campaign, including the role played by Bill, have been overblown. Given the standard level of campaign rhetoric, and particularly considering the bile that will be launched towards Obama from the currently pro-Obama right-wing noise machine if he’s the nominee, most of the “controversial” comments have been rather mild, standard election fare, generating interest primarily because it was coming from the Clintons.

Beyond that, it seemed most of the efforts to inject dramatic racial conflict into the contest were media-driven rather than an intentional Clinton strategy. And all of the grave concern over how Bill Clinton is sullying the majestic glory of his status as an ex-president — all because he is, as anyone would, actively and aggressively campaigning for his spouse — has struck me as silly and slightly pompous.

But the last few days have changed my view on those matters substantially. The Clintons’ strategy has become increasingly trashy, even ugly, and yesterday’s remarks by Bill Clinton — in which he pointedly compared Obama’s candidacy to Jesse Jackson’s and thus implicitly (though clearly) dismissed South Carolina as a state where the “black candidate” wins, followed up by the Clinton campaign’s anonymous branding of Obama as “the black candidate” — reeked of desperation. Here’s how Clinton fan and loyal Democrat Anonymous Liberal put it:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/27/clinton/index.html

Alibe

And why is being compared to Jesse Jackson such an insult? Doesn’t Obama have Jesse Jackson Jr. as a campaign advisor? Clinton was just spinning Hillary’s loss to help her. Big Deal!! Obama and his supporters are just big babies. They dish it out but cry racism at the drop of a hat. Give me a break. This is standard political fare, not racism. It is up to Obama to counter that remark, not cry and Boo Bill Clinton. I love Jesse Jackson and his son too. But being compared to him who also won South Carolina is no big deal. Obama has injected ageism and sexism. But it is up to Sen. Clinton to blunt that. Not boo Obama and slam his supporters as being sexist and age bigots. She doesn’t whine and snub him and gloat.

Shirin

Actually, no, Jesse Jackson is not involved in Obama’s campaign. I believe that Obama has asked him to keep his distance.

As for why it should be such an insult that Bill Clinton compared Obama’s NC success to that of Jesse Jackson – it seems like a reasonable comparison at this stage of things, and I don’t see a bit of racism in it under the circumstances.

I don’t like Jesse Jackson. He is an opportunist. Haven’t been able to stomach him ever since he staged that trip to Baghdad for a photo-op that made it look like he had done something to free the hostages that Saddam had already announced he was going to free.

Alibe

I said Jesse Jackson Jr, the Rep from Chicago, is an advisor to Obama’s campaign. Check it out! NOT Jesse Jackson the father.

Alibe

Actually, Jesse Jackson Jr is Obama’s Co-Chair of his campaign.
shirin

Ah – OK. My error. Thanks for the correction.

Cee

Albie,

Bill tried to diminish the win and you know it.

shirin

Cee, yes, Bill tried to diminish the win. So what? This is electoral politics. It’s what people do in electoral politics – in fact, it is one of the nicer, kinder, milder things people do in electoral politics.

Cee

You acknowledge what he’s done. Others don’t.

Alibe

I still wonder why the Obama supporters are so vicious in hating the Clintons. Obama, himself, is so eloquent, but he is never magnanimous. He always has to get in a dig and a bitch slap. He ain’t no JFK.
Alibe

We only dispute the remark of Bill Clinton as being nasty or racist. It was just political in the most mundane way. So what! It shouldn’t engender the nasty, mean spirited attacks by Obama and supporters that it has. They are the dividing element in the process. Not the Clintons.

shirin

Both sides have been divisive.

That ugly derisive, prolonged laugh that Hillary has unleashed a few times on Obama and others is far more potent a poison than anything anyone has said to date.

This is electoral politics. Neither Hillary’s nor Obama’s side has been above reproach.

Mr.Murder

I’d consider a Jesse Jackson comparison to be a compliment. Measure the whole of his career and there’s been more positive change enacted, than negative.

That said, MLK would have shut DC down with a protest and general strike several years ago by now.

None of the guys out there right now measure up.

We’re lookingh for another JFK or MLK, they’re gone. That era’s gone. The new model isn’t about one leader, it’s about thousands of peers connecting through new media.

simon

How can Greenwald make this judgement of Clinton, in the absence of a concurrent analysis re: Obama’s tactics, ie slamming democratic efforts to fight the early neocons, embracing Reagan and tacitly allowing Donnie McClue to gay bash, among others?

What would one term this consistent stream of Obama attacks on issues dear to the democratic heart? I would swear Obama was a republican plant, if I didnt know better.

Divide and conquer (albiet for the fan boy crowd, which seems highly attracted to Obama)? How has Obama’s strategy affected the democratic party, and how will it play in the general election, if Obama were to make it that far, ie what has he inadvertently exposed of himself through his tactics, his weaknesses? Why didn’t Glenn take an even handed look at Obama’s positions, and actions?

Amateur bias? Lack of journalistic integrity? A shill?

How can Greenwald even BEGIN to understand Clinton, get a clear picture of the truth, without first trying to understand Obama’s motives, pimples and all?

What a simple minded analysis on behalf of Greenwald — just shot his credibilty to shit.

Isn’t he a lawyer, shouldnt he KNOW better?

Don’t eat too much of the Obama food, Glenn, it makes you fat.

Jeez, all those bloggers off on a tangent right out of the gate, they’ll never be taken seriously.

Mr.Murder

Greenwald considers himself a conservative, I do believe.

I’ve bought a book of his as well.

Granted I disagree as well, his argument lacks consistency. He applies the rigorous standard to the Clintons.

Mr.Murder

He *only applies.

By all means be a skeptic, but do so evenly.
simon

Conservative or not, I wont give him a second thought, anymore, I used to read him on occasion.

Unable to recognize personal bias is very telling, the press loves to gaze upon itself through the candidates.

Whining about media treatment of Bush, the bloggers turn around, join the party, and do the same for Obama, white wash.

Cee

More on the Waters…

I understand that the Obama campaign has moved on to a new way of doing things. They aren’t handing out any walking around money. Is that so?
I don’t think it was a coincidence that Rev. Calvin Butts endorsed Hillary after an earmark awarded him some $800 grand.
Follow the funds..

Don

And was it a coincidence that Obama gave Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson $10,000 each from his HOPEFUND PAC? Then out of the blue, they endorse him.

Yea, a new way of doing things.

TeakWoodKite

I was wondering why a nubie senator would be trailing. That was all to much to believe that she did it for sincere principles…all 10k of them you say? But why her? she a nubie…oh I get it…no It can’t be that blunt could it? I really don’y wan’t to say what I’m thinking. What does she bring to the table? OK, I know, the state voting machine, but since images are the topic…and we are talking about Missouri.
The perception of stereotypes…

Mr.Murder

There’s a ton of dirt on Blunt.

That seat is being taken and everyone knows it.
It’s not exactly a big chance to be taking there, and it is a wise future investment for Senate pull.

McCaskill is a solid, professional, politician as well.

That’s a good move on Obama’s part IMO.

simon

He BOUGHT their support.

Did he use laundered money, too?

Mr.Murder

Rep.Waters started the interview making certain to compliment the abilities of both candidates.

That was a classy move.

It’s strange to see us either laud or debase her statements when she’s essentially saying either pick is good from her perspective, but Hillary is best suited to meet the challenges we now face.

Then again if Waters is that bad, maybe the things she said in support of Barack are corrupt as well.

Nice of the Obama staff to give that guy copy and steer stories that way when the writer treated Dems poorly as he’s done.

simon

Speaking of classy, the AP is reporting John Edwards is now out of the race.

Good work, John, and thank you for refocusing the debate, highlighting the plight of the poor, and reminding us of our priorities, the voiceless are at the very least, acknowledged. I hope there is a role for you in democratic politics, you help rebuild our faith in government, the next democratic administration will need you. It was a relief to finally have a place to discuss issues, as opposed to watching the press gaze upon itself through Obama, say, and Clinton.

I’ll continue to donate, FWIW, the debt must be enormous.

So I guess I need me a Clinton ’08 bumper sticker.

Working voters need a candidate who can empathize with them, and we all need a candidate capable of understanding geopolitical complexities. That ain’t Obama.

Elena

Why does someone discriminate black? I don’t think love is just belongs to white. I’m a black and but my hubby is white. We met at blackcentury.com which tell us love is color blind. Our love proved this. I hope each one will not discriminate blacks.