consortiumnews.com

Clintons Plumb Absurd Depths

By Robert Parry
February 19, 2008

Like the Bushes, the Clintons seem to believe they have some special entitlement to the White House, and thus whatever they do to get there is justified. The two ruling families function with a monarchical air that is unique – or foreign – to the American experience.

George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have enjoyed wearing baseball caps emblazoned with “41” and “43” respectively, signifying their numerical claims on the U.S. presidency. It is still not known what articles of clothing the Clintons might embroider with “42” and “44.”

But like the Bushes, who bullied their way back into the White House by shutting down vote-counting in Florida in December 2000, the Clintons also seem to view their claim on the presidency as a right. Any serious challenger must be treated as a pretender guilty of the crime of insolence.

So, even as Hillary Clinton’s cornerstone argument – her “ready on Day One” superior management skills – has crumbled amid the wreckage of her inept campaign, she sends her surrogates out to attack Barack Obama over trivial matters, like whether he adopted a rhetorical argument that his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, once used.

Though politicians often borrow phrases – and policies – from one another, the Clinton campaign accused Obama of “plagiarism,” an over-the-top attack on his character. It didn’t seem to matter that Obama and Patrick had discussed the use of the phrasing and that the Massachusetts governor – an Obama campaign co-chair – wasn’t complaining.

Nor did it seem to matter that the substance of the Obama/Patrick argument was correct – that inspiring words can be crucial in rallying citizens in a democracy to join in an important cause or to overcome entrenched interests.

In her recent stump speeches, Hillary Clinton has demeaned the power of words to put down Obama, who clearly has an oratorical advantage. She said: “There’s a difference between speeches and solutions, between talk and action. I was raised to believe that actions speak louder than words.”

Responding to that argument in a speech in Milwaukee on Feb. 16, Obama said, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?”

In a way, of course, Clinton is right. Her recent action – dispatching her spokesmen to attack Obama’s character over trivial issues – does speak volumes. It underscores that the Clintons are prepared to sink to any depth and create bitter divisions within the electorate to secure what they regard as their entitlement, the presidency of the United States.

[For more on this topic, see the Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2008, or Consortiumnews.com’s “How Far Will the Clintons Go?” and “The Clinton Audacity.”]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1630004,00.html

I call myself a lapsed gonzo journalists (Hunter would be nuts by now!)
I was in journalism school reporting for my college paper during…watergate.
And these matters of attribution and accuracy and the just use of words…
they matter.

ALL the candidates “borrow” a phase here and there from each other.
By the end of a long day who knows where who heard what first.
Maybe candidates can claim to own a slogan. But it would be…wrong.

I’m MUCH less concerned about what Obama borrows
than what he TAKES full credit for.
For instance, inventing the concept of political…change.
Also the wheel. And I believe he discovered fire.
At least to hear him tell it.

The POINT is that Barry doesn’t just lift a word or phrase now and then.
He lifts WHOLE concepts, personas, social movements…fallen heroes!
The hard fought bloody wars and intellectual battles of a whole generation
And also the one that followed. The ones he says we don’t need…anymore.

Which I can’t help but take a bit…personally.
Maybe that’s why I don’t like him much.

A favored guy, barely bruised by a life that was really NOT that tough.
who presents these soaring tearstained heartrending words
of those who bled out in American streets in a troubled time before him
with HIS own byline.

That is Barack’s real plagiarism.

No wonder Obama requires…change…total slate wiping change.
Someone might figure out that ALL this stuff he spouts is a rehash
of far better braver men (and women!) than he is.
Who SAID it long ago FOR REAL and much better than he does.

As a weary old boomer who was around to actually HEAR those speeches
AS they were delivered by The Dead on black and white TV,

As someone who got tear-gassed in the streets with tens of thousands
for REAL change, my hope to vote for George McGovern.

Then wept all night as I watched him loose…a whole country…to Nixon

I’m still waiting to hear Barack, in his comfy climate controlled stadiums
say something to his legions of “hopefuls” that I…haven’t heard.
too many times by now.

Here’s one word he doesn’t use much. I think he finds it worthless..

History.

Hillary Clinton has been dismissed as inexperienced, and yes she wasn’t the President from 1992 to 2000, but she was right there. She was attacked as ruthlessly as, perhaps even more than, Bill Clinton.

And now get to watch Obama’s supporters and campaign repeat many of the Republican Talking Points while falling into the “Hillary is desperate and going on the attack”. “What will she do next, Willie Horton attacks?”

Yet it was an Obama enthusiast who went into the Hillary Clinton Rally and brought his, “get your candidate out of the race” crap today.

If you can show me examples of a Hillary Clinton supporter going to Obama rallies, invading the Obama forums to attack Obama, put ‘er up!

Ready on Day One, not figuring it out on the job. From January 2001 to September 2001, some folks now blame “figuring it out on the job” as part of their problem.

When caught — Obama lies.

That’s why we think Obama supporters act like a loony cult: because they cannot admit that their candidate has ANY foibles at all.

Actually, it’s not an act, it’s a strategy, act the saint, but be the devil, or a mediocre 70’s version thereof.

Really, people are earning good money, telling Obama this, how to act, what to say.

They just don’t do it very well, if they could only see themselves.

This was why Hillary recently made such a big deal out of having her plan ready on Day One, and Obama’s people poo-poo-ed the idea, that they have all the time in the world to get things ready and rolling. Apparently, Obama doesn’t know recent history either. The GOP will slaughter him before he gets out of the gate (if he even is able to beat McCain).

I admit Clinton is capable of playing tough and loose (it’s called being a smart politician). Why can’t Obama supporters admit he does too? That’s why we think Obama supporters act like a loony cult: because they cannot admit that their candidate has ANY foibles at all. That is deifying him, that is crazy, and that is dangerous.

If I thought he were as bad a politician as some of his supporters think he is, then I’d REALLY worry. Putin will run circles around him as will the EU. They have their own agendas (just like the Republicans do) and no amount of kissing their asses is going to change that!

I can appreciate wanting to defend your candidate when you see him attacked, but denying the experience and substance are important or that he has aspirations appears beyond naive. He’s a sweet talker… we get it. Now what? Or as has already been asked, “Yes We Can — Do What Exactly?”

If some of his idealistic supporters see that he is just a package of generic change politician, perhaps they will stop and consider what they are supporting and why. If the inspiration is poll-tested packaged speeches which have been used before, how is that a positive change from the status quo?

Seems like it could be worse than more of the same to me.

You lose respect for the Clintons because of a free speech ridden blog? You’ve said everything now. Why look at the Thomas Archive when I can simply read FreeRepublic, er DailyKos, er NoQuarter, er TPMCafe, er….

You act as if Susan and Larry work for the campaign. This is the key to your distortions. But do as you wish, you haven’t helped your candidate a bit with this lump sum distortion. I’ll vote on March 4th with more and more conviction. Welcome to the Political Process.

just feeds his and others criticisms of base level sniping. I’m hoping he’ll use his critical thinking skills, you will, I will, and we will learn tons from this vibrant interaction.

not jumping your shit, just feedback.

Many have done this, it is being ignored I guess, but I’ve read at least 100 articles to this direct issue, and that is what lead Obama to even use the “just words” tag.

Obama is using buzzy phrases to fire up his base…but when they are rehash and in fact line for line, its viewed as cheap BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING it was cheap. And I’m one of them. It was cheap, he looks fake. And I didn’t need YouTube to show me, I was watching it on CSPAN on Sunday 2am. He was all “just words” trying to be coy and sarcastic…but it wasn’t original, it came off as a pander to his base. But if he was trying to get me to vote for him, it not only didn’t work, it created more of a chasm.

Sorry some don’t like this reality, but it is reality none the less. Perception is reality. I see him as Fake, and you haven’t done much to demonstrate how it isn’t fake. Making excuses of “well Patrick was ok with it” won’t serve the Obama campaign, smearing me as a Republican Talking Point Water Carrier…that ain’t going to get my vote…and then topping it off with Change and Yes We Can…and you can’t get a vote at all.

He’s a fake trying to pander to my discontent with Washington. But since I interact constantly with Congress it doesn’t sell because I know how much of a clusterfuck it is in Congress. Obama isn’t going to change that. Nice try.

Its a damn shame too, because I don’t want to tear Obama down. I want to hope for extreme change. But this chant ain’t getting me any closer.

Can some of us view with our own eyes? Si Se Puede!

When I go to a rally and the slogans get going, I’d hate to go back and find out that the campaign staff used that in a whole different race and simply popped it back out on me. It feels like watching a concert and finding the artist is Lip Synching. Hey Milli Vanilli, how much did those concert tickets cost?

Is it now not Plagarism because Patrick is fine with it? Red Herring. When I saw him say this Saturday, I already knew it was not his. And this isn’t the first time I’ve listened to such an old tune.

I don’t like fakes, and if you think he’s not fake then vote for him. I happen to think Hillary has a bit of a fake exterior after so many years of being in politics. But when she speaks on the campaign trail the level of bullshit in her speeches would be about the same as Obama’s, if he weren’t additionally trying to put butter on top of the bullshit, adding some sugar and syrup, and dropping the occassional, “Yes We Can.”

All politicians who promise massive reform like these two should be held in suspicion simply because we know that the bureaucracy and political games get in the way of most of them. But if one is going to elevate himself or herself as the Real Candidate of Change, History shows…thats bullshit unless its for the worse.

There are always changes, but “bringing change to Washington” is old, folks. Easy line to say, hard to realize.

Its not a vague denunciation of you, I’m not vague when I say, “You Attack, then claim you are above the game. Bullshit.”

When you say Susan and Larry are pandering, you insult their integrity to call it as they see it because you disagree. Then when others agree, they are discounted too. Either way, you are the only one who sees clearly, understands clearly and cannot pander. Give me a fucking break. I’ve read your comments around here, you aren’t that stupid.