[Don't Kill Bill]

Originally Posted by Pennypacker

We haven't been in a recession for the last 8 years. If you choose to frame things that way, then the Clinton terms could be blamed for 9/11 and the following conflicts. It is an overly simplistic view of things. Of course, the respective party hardliners love making those pitches to their sheep, so you might have a point.

I just remember the "its the economy stupid" comments getting Clinton's ball rolling.The economic data we get about the US on the news over here makes it look like a pretty grim run up to an election.

[Instant Karma]

Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Don't Kill Bill

Cal.

Thanks.What do the polls say the state of play is in Pennsylvania.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-240.html

Clinton has a 16 point lead.

[Frosty]

The 'first black president' has proved he was no such thing with his treatment of the likely second

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...08.barackobama

Alexander Chancellor

No president of the United States has ever attracted as much trust and affection from African-Americans as Bill Clinton. They felt comfortable with him, and he with them. More than any of his predecessors, he convinced them that he really understood and cared about them. Above all, he did not condescend to them. So at ease did he seem with America's black minority, so open and sincere in his defence of their rights, that Toni Morrison, winner of the 1993 Nobel prize for literature, chose to describe him as the country's "first black president".

But now the love affair is over, a casualty of the bitter battle for supremacy between Hillary Clinton and a genuinely black aspirant to the presidency. And the reason it has soured is not the predictable appeal of Barack Obama to his fellow African-Americans, but the disillusionment generated by the shabby way the Clinton camp has conducted its campaign.

It was Bill Clinton himself who started the rot by implying in his comments on Obama's victory in South Carolina that any African-American candidate would have won there, as Jesse Jackson once did - in other words, that Obama was just a marginal candidate who, like Jackson, garnered votes from African-Americans because of the colour of his skin. Not only was Clinton wrong about that, as Obama's support among white Americans has proved; he left many African-Americans feeling betrayed, their hero suddenly seeming no more than an old-time white politician exploiting racial prejudices for electoral gain.

Then there was Hillary's television advertisement about whom Americans would trust to answer the red telephone if it rang in the White House at 3am. The ad, showing vulnerable white children asleep in their beds, suggested that Hillary, with her White House experience, would be better equipped than her Democratic rival to protect them from danger. There was nothing overtly racist about this, but in the view of Orlando Patterson, a Harvard professor of sociology who has spent his life studying racism in America, it carried an unmistakable "racist sub-message".

Writing this week in the New York Times, he said that the ad played on the deep-rooted white American fear of the black man as a secret enemy. "The message: our loved ones are in danger, and only Mrs Clinton can save them," he claimed. "An Obama presidency would be dangerous - and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within."

Whether this interpretation is correct or not - and personally, I find it convincing - there is the additional fact that during the same weekend that the ad was aired, Hillary Clinton refused to quash unequivocally the rumours that Obama was a Muslim, even though she must have known perfectly well that he is not, or indeed to explain why it would have been so bad if he were.

All of this, however, palls before the grotesque intervention of her supporter Geraldine Ferraro, the former vice-presidential candidate. Ferraro (who was forced to resign from Hillary's campaign team because of her remarks) said in a press interview that Obama's success in the campaign was due to the fact that he was black. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said. "And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."

Obama retorted that he didn't think either his colour or his name could be listed as assets in his campaign for the presidency, and it would be difficult to disagree with him. Ferraro was obviously talking rubbish.

What she was also doing, as the Clintons had been doing less explicitly, was trying to undermine Obama's impressive efforts to rise above America's history of racial division and present himself as a unifying candidate. In their desperation to halt his rise, they have sought to persuade voters that he is trading on his blackness, whereas in fact he has been doing his utmost to transcend it.

The sad thing is that the Clintons are so terrified of losing their new chance of power that they are prepared to squander one of the finest achievements of Bill Clinton's presidency in order to prevail in the Democratic race. They don't deserve to succeed, and I hope they won't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, I enjoy this analysis.

[spinoza]

Originally Posted by Pennypacker

We haven't been in a recession for the last 8 years. If you choose to frame things that way, then the Clinton terms could be blamed for 9/11 and the following conflicts. It is an overly simplistic view of things. Of course, the respective party hardliners love making those pitches to their sheep, so you might have a point.

Technically, since second and third quarter 2001 - 6 and 3/4 years.

[crappycraperson]

Originally Posted by Frosty

The 'first black president' has proved he was no such thing with his treatment of the likely second

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...08.barackobama

Alexander Chancellor

No president of the United States has ever attracted as much trust and affection from African-Americans as Bill Clinton. They felt comfortable with him, and he with them. More than any of his predecessors, he convinced them that he really understood and cared about them. Above all, he did not condescend to them. So at ease did he seem with America's black minority, so open and sincere in his defence of their rights, that Toni Morrison, winner of the 1993 Nobel prize for literature, chose to describe him as the country's "first black president".

But now the love affair is over, a casualty of the bitter battle for supremacy between Hillary Clinton and a genuinely black aspirant to the presidency. And the reason it has soured is not the predictable appeal of Barack Obama to his fellow African-Americans, but the disillusionment generated by the shabby way the Clinton camp has conducted its campaign.

It was Bill Clinton himself who started the rot by implying in his comments on Obama's victory in South Carolina that any African-American candidate would have won there, as Jesse Jackson once did - in other words, that Obama was just a marginal candidate who, like Jackson, garnered votes from African-Americans because of the colour of his skin. Not only was Clinton wrong about that, as Obama's support among white Americans has proved; he left many African-Americans feeling betrayed, their hero suddenly seeming no more than an old-time white politician exploiting racial prejudices for electoral gain.

Then there was Hillary's television advertisement about whom Americans would trust to answer the red telephone if it rang in the White House at 3am. The ad, showing vulnerable white children asleep in their beds, suggested that Hillary, with her White House experience, would be better equipped than her Democratic rival to protect them from danger. There was nothing overtly racist about this, but in the view of Orlando Patterson, a Harvard professor of sociology who has spent his life studying racism in America, it carried an unmistakable "racist sub-message".

Writing this week in the New York Times, he said that the ad played on the deep-rooted white American fear of the black man as a secret enemy. "The message: our loved ones are in danger, and only Mrs Clinton can save them," he claimed. "An Obama presidency would be dangerous - and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within."

Whether this interpretation is correct or not - and personally, I find it convincing - there is the additional fact that during the same weekend that the ad was aired, Hillary Clinton refused to quash unequivocally the rumours that Obama was a Muslim, even though she must have known perfectly well that he is not, or indeed to explain why it would have been so bad if he were.

All of this, however, palls before the grotesque intervention of her supporter Geraldine Ferraro, the former vice-presidential candidate. Ferraro (who was forced to resign from Hillary's campaign team because of her remarks) said in a press interview that Obama's success in the campaign was due to the fact that he was black. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said. "And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."

Obama retorted that he didn't think either his colour or his name could be listed as assets in his campaign for the presidency, and it would be difficult to disagree with him. Ferraro was obviously talking rubbish.

What she was also doing, as the Clintons had been doing less explicitly, was trying to undermine Obama's impressive efforts to rise above America's history of racial division and present himself as a unifying candidate. In their desperation to halt his rise, they have sought to persuade voters that he is trading on his blackness, whereas in fact he has been doing his utmost to transcend it.

The sad thing is that the Clintons are so terrified of losing their new chance of power that they are prepared to squander one of the finest achievements of Bill Clinton's presidency in order to prevail in the Democratic race. They don't deserve to succeed, and I hope they won't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, I enjoy this analysis.

Prof going on about the phone call having racist undertones is bollocks though.

[MikeUpNorth]

Originally Posted by crappycraperson

Prof going on about the phone call having racist undertones is bollocks though.

Yeah I see what he is saying, but don't buy it myself.

[Don't Kill Bill]

Originally Posted by Instant Karma

Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.




Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

So the Republicans vote for Clinton and get her nominated.The Economy collapses and the republicans get a kicking.Clinton becomes president because the republicans hate her.Now that would sting a bit,I imagine.

[manufanatic]

Originally Posted by Instant Karma

Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

This dont suprise me but even with this obama won more delegates in Texas won by over 100k votes in Mississippi.


This really proves that Hillary is just more of the same. Seems the Republicans like the current state of affairs in this country. How deluded can they really be?

[manufanatic]

Originally Posted by Cal?

Right, so under every scenario, Hillary would win more delegates in those 2 states but you 2 think they should be 50/50... a real comeback from the "democratic" process you've been harping on about...

If the nomination is given to Obama by small margin, you not only have driven away the hispanics who don't like Obama, the old women who won't vote for Obama, now you've succeeded in driving FL (one of the vital states in a general election) to the McCain column.... great idea.

I tend to disagree Obama would be very competitive in Michigan as he was in Wisconsin and will be in indiana.

Florida with a chance to revote he would certainly cut into hillary's margin of victory.

I voted for edwards along with over 225k floridians they wont all go to her.

If you want more of the same vote for her and watch all of the division in washington get worse.

[jasonrh]

Originally Posted by Don't Kill Bill

I just remember the "its the economy stupid" comments getting Clinton's ball rolling.The economic data we get about the US on the news over here makes it look like a pretty grim run up to an election.

John Kerry claimed in 2004 that we had "the worst economy since the Great Depression". Chuck Shumer (a very high profile Hillary Clinton supporter) has compared Bush to Herbert Hoover.

This is a key element of the Democratic Playbook against an incumbent Republican, although for once there is actually a great deal of cause for concern.

[jasonrh]

Originally Posted by manufanatic

This dont suprise me but even with this obama won more delegates in Texas won by over 100k votes in Mississippi.


This really proves that Hillary is just more of the same. Seems the Republicans like the current state of affairs in this country. How deluded can they really be?

These insane retards think that they are better off running against Clinton.

The fact is that this is driven by Rush Limbaugh's damaged ego when McCain got the nomination in spite of 3 hours of invective every day for two months. His pride is hurt, so he's trying to prove how clever he is with his grand strategy.

If Clinton is the nominee, she will do anything to win. Limbaugh will then blame McCain, who he hates anyway, and absolve himself from any blame.

When you have a chance to put the stake in the vampire, you don't decide to wait until tomorrow to do it. The Clintons are political vampires who suck the blood out of the country for the sake of their own need for power.

[Red Dreams]

Originally Posted by jasonrh

These insane retards think that they are better off running against Clinton.

The fact is that this is driven by Rush Limbaugh's damaged ego when McCain got the nomination in spite of 3 hours of invective every day for two months. His pride is hurt, so he's trying to prove how clever he is with his grand strategy.

If Clinton is the nominee, she will do anything to win. Limbaugh will then blame McCain, who he hates anyway, and absolve himself from any blame.

When you have a chance to put the stake in the vampire, you don't decide to wait until tomorrow to do it. The Clintons are political vampires who suck the blood out of the country for the sake of their own need for power.

...well put....Clintons are dirty fighters...Obama imo would be a more straight forward fight for McCain.....

I actually think HRC, who I'm sure is behind the pastor story....may have damaged Obama pretty good here....he is supposed to give a major speech on race tomorrow......

all very interesting....

[Don't Kill Bill]

Originally Posted by jasonrh

These insane retards think that they are better off running against Clinton.

The fact is that this is driven by Rush Limbaugh's damaged ego when McCain got the nomination in spite of 3 hours of invective every day for two months. His pride is hurt, so he's trying to prove how clever he is with his grand strategy.

If Clinton is the nominee, she will do anything to win. Limbaugh will then blame McCain, who he hates anyway, and absolve himself from any blame.

When you have a chance to put the stake in the vampire, you don't decide to wait until tomorrow to do it. The Clintons are political vampires who suck the blood out of the country for the sake of their own need for power.

Sorry but I am not buying this.If ever you get a steak you eat it straight away.Of that I am certain.




With regards to the voting for Clinton issue.It is a very dangerous game to play.If she gets the nomination the momentum will swing.Is there any running mate she could choose to offset the resentful black supporters not turning out,other than her current opponent.

[Frosty]

I find it strange.... throughout the nineties, all the slurs against the Clintons were the fault of the Republicans.

Now she is fighting dirty against a fellow Democrat, all of a sudden the Clintons have been nasty pieces of work all along. This does indicate that the Republican 'slurs' may well have all been true.

Or am I reading this incorrectly?

[crappycraperson]

Originally Posted by Frosty

I find it strange.... throughout the nineties, all the slurs against the Clintons were the fault of the Republicans.

Now she is fighting dirty against a fellow Democrat, all of a sudden the Clintons have been nasty pieces of work all along. This does indicate that the Republican 'slurs' may well have all been true.

Or am I reading this incorrectly?

Democrats have dug themselves into a big hole.
One one hand, they have exposed Obama as the hippy child he can be portrayed as, on the other Clinton as everything that is wrong with politics. While McCain is developing a reputation as someone who is in the middle. Even though if Mccain gets elected, nothing would really change. It would be like another Bush reign.

[Instant Karma]

Originally Posted by Red Dreams

....he is supposed to give a major speech on race tomorrow......

Text of his speech -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us...&ex=1206072000

It may have been an honest, frank and insightful speech but is it over for him?

The one thing that a black man called Barack Hussein Obama didnt need was his patriotism and committment to the country repeatedly called into question (His wife's comments about being proud of America for the first time, 'God damn America' from his pastor). Especially not when he would be up against a genuine war hero.

[olesmyhero]

I was just about sick of all the coverage of his speech yesterday. Whenever I'd switch to the news channels all they would talk about was his speech. Ten hours of speech coverage. I hate the media sometimes.

[Frosty]

http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...dentally_leaks

[manufanatic]

Originally Posted by olesmyhero

I was just about sick of all the coverage of his speech yesterday. Whenever I'd switch to the news channels all they would talk about was his speech. Ten hours of speech coverage. I hate the media sometimes.

The speech was brilliant but i see your point

[jasonrh]

Originally Posted by Don't Kill Bill

Sorry but I am not buying this.If ever you get a steak you eat it straight away.Of that I am certain.




With regards to the voting for Clinton issue.It is a very dangerous game to play.If she gets the nomination the momentum will swing.Is there any running mate she could choose to offset the resentful black supporters not turning out,other than her current opponent.

I'm such a fat bastard I ate the stake and then had Draculbobs.

Nothing like a bit of sun-seared vampire with some potatoes and a garnish of garlic.

[jasonrh]

Originally Posted by Frosty

I find it strange.... throughout the nineties, all the slurs against the Clintons were the fault of the Republicans.

Now she is fighting dirty against a fellow Democrat, all of a sudden the Clintons have been nasty pieces of work all along. This does indicate that the Republican 'slurs' may well have all been true.

Or am I reading this incorrectly?

No, you're not.

We was right all along. They are dirt.

I've had those who spent 15 years supporting the Clintons no matter what now admitting to me that yes, we were right, and yes, they distracted us from the real things that needed to be accomplished. I started this message including a list of those things, but it took up half of the post.

We spent an entire decade in siege mode, all for the sake of a couple of crooked manipulative sociopathic power freaks.

The difference is that the media (who are mainly liberal) chose Clinton because it was better than a fourth Reagan term. Leftists in the media and the Democrats then found out that they had sold their souls to the devil, and there was no salvation in sight.

The reason the mainstream media (aside from ex-Clintons in the media, like George Snuffaluffagus) are flocking to Obama and now exposing the Clintons is because like a battered spouse who suddenly meets a new caring man who will protect her, they finally have the guts to bolt from their abuser.

Also, there has been a huge end to the stranglehold that a dozen or so media outlets had over the public 20 years ago, meaning that information which starts off on the internet, radio, or YouTube now end up plastered all over the place forcing the mainstream media to cover the stories.

At first this was a right wing phenomenon, but ironically it was the Clintons who took it into the internet in a real and significant way via MoveOn.Org.

The process begun by anti-war activist throwing Terry McCauliffe and the Clintonistas under the bus at MoveOn.Org by the Howard Dean crowd will be completed with an Obama nomination.

The King is dead. Long live the King.

[jasonrh]

Originally Posted by olesmyhero

I was just about sick of all the coverage of his speech yesterday. Whenever I'd switch to the news channels all they would talk about was his speech. Ten hours of speech coverage. I hate the media sometimes.

I was a lot more sick of the coverage of those sermons in a 24/7 loop.

An entire career of fighting for social justice and leading the most powerful black church in the country summed up by Sean Hannity in 45 seconds of clips.

I still fail to see what the fuss was about some of the comments. The eight that are harped upon by the Self-Righteous-Pompous-Middle-Class-White Brigade only actually contain one falsehood that is arguably truly offensive, and even it needs to be placed in context.

1) "He did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky...he was ridin' dirty" - true. The Clintons have long tried to encourage racial division for the sake of their own political aims while having no desire whatsoever to actually help the black community. Bill's sole reason for the claim to being the first black president was his being a serial adulterer who wasn't very well liked by David Duke.

2) Supporting the Black Work Ethic - and? The black community needs special support from black organisations because it isn't like anyone else is going to do it. Like, say, Geraldine Ferrarro or Hillary Clinton.

3) "God Damn America!" - much ado about nothing. In the context of his speech about social inequities it makes total and perfect sense. It is a condemnation of ignored disparities between the average American of colour and the average white American rather than an active call for God to set his wrath down on the nation.

4) "The US of KKK-A" - again, so what? He's making the point that America still has had huge racial problems, and he comes from an era that actually had an active KKK.

We had a former Grand Dragon of the KKK (basically the leading sheet-wearer/cross-burner/lyncher of a whole state