As part of their kitchen-sink effort to set new lows for political indecency, the Clintons have now managed to transform the wholly unexceptional -- a run-of-the-mill political endorsement -- into a national spectacle.
First there was merely the exceptionally offensive as their own creation. One thinks, for example, of the Clinton camp's disqualification of its party's front-runner as commander in chief. Not even Joe McCarthy sank that low or wallowed that filthily within his own ranks.
Coincidental to that have been the Clintons' imaginative reformulations of what "win" means. With each passing primary (most of which counted) and bygone caucus (most of which did not), they issued regular updates on contemporary reality. Delegates counted, then delegates didn't. The popular vote was critical, then it wasn't. The "big states" were king, then only the cumulative electoral count counted. Stay tuned.
Most political parties have rules for this sort of thing -- determining who's ahead, that is. The Democratic Party does too, actually, but the Clintons are hoping the world will little note, nor long remember, what the party ruled so long ago. If they can just churn and muddy the waters long enough, so that disunity and disorientation become the norm, then perhaps all that stuffiness about preset conditions will go the way of a Green convention.
Now -- to pick up where we started -- they force feed us the unexceptional as the spectacular.
Poor Bill Richardson. He weighed and pondered, evaluated and brooded, and finally issued an endorsement. Nothing remarkable about that, right? Happens every day, every race, with nary an explosion of outrage and vilification. Such endorsements swiftly pass into the history books and voters' receding memory. No big thing. But poor Mr. Richardson weighed not the unique fury and calculated looniness of tactical Clintonianism.
It began much like the aftermath of any other political rebuff. "One adviser ... described Mr. Clinton as more philosophical than angry about it." Then high tactical-muckamuck Mark Penn chimed in with rather commonplace nonchalance, "play[ing] down the importance of the Richardson endorsement, suggesting that the time 'when it could have been effective has long since passed.'"
But of course Mr. Penn said that only because he knew it not to be true. He's one of our new barometers of truth. If he within the Clinton camp says it, something's fishy and a whopper of a storm must be brewing.
And sure enough, after a brief interlude of agonized huddling, the Clintons finally unleashed Frothy Dog Carville to deliver in scandalous terms what respectable tacticians always suppress with diplomatic restraint. "An act of betrayal," cried James on national television. "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."
And what did Carville's biblical outrage accomplish? Ah, there's the rub, for the Clintons. For it only highlighted in the press their most absolute of tawdry desperation; it was like waving the flag of surrender, without the actual surrender to follow. As the New York Times soon reminded us:
On their own, endorsements in contests like this — with two such well-known candidates — do not necessarily move votes.... But the audience now is less primary voters than superdelegates — uncommitted elected Democrats and party leaders — whose votes will be critical in helping Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama get the 2,024 delegates needed to win the nomination.
And Mr. Richardson? Well, he's "the 62nd superdelegate to endorse Mr. Obama since Feb. 5, compared with fewer than five who have moved into Mrs. Clinton's column since then." He is also now a short-list vice-presidential pick, who's also now as bloodied as Barack Obama, thanks to a leading ... Democrat.
All of which surely has that 63rd superdelegate somewhere out there thinking, I've had about enough of these bomb throwers. This intraparty madness must stop, or there won't be a party left to call home.
Only a few days ago most everyone concerned was content to proceed with business as usual at least through Pennsylvania. But the Clintons are, perhaps, now short-circuiting that comfort zone through their own electrifying offensiveness.
At this point, the number of Democrats whose endorsements could shake the race is down to Al Gore, the former vice president and presidential nominee; John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who dropped out of the race last month; and Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker. Aides to Mr. Edwards and Mr. Gore said that they did not expect either man to endorse anyone in the immediate future, if at all. Aides to Ms. Pelosi said she was unlikely to endorse at all.
But Ms. Pelosi doesn't need to; she has already unofficially endorsed Sen. Obama. That leaves only John and Al. And every passing day of forced Clintonian disunity increases the odds of that yet-named 63rd superdelegate saying, sooner than anyone expected, enough is enough.
There's an ancient observation from the Tao Te Ching that, for once, might have benefited the Clintons more than anything related in their cherished copy of Machiavelli's The Prince(ss). To paraphrase: The harder one grasps for something, the farther it slips from one's reach.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
More info on Clinton's membership in religious right-wing cult
For more info about Hillary Clinton's membership in the secretive, right-wing, fanatical Christian group called "The Family" and "The Fellowship," see Lisa Gans' article on Huffington Post, called, "A New Divinely Ordained President: The Hand of God or the Silence of the Press?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-gans/a-new-divinely-ordained-p_b_93425.html
Destroying the party
From the beginning of her campaign, Hillary Clinton gave me the creeps, but I really couldn't identify the reasons. Then the nastiness and undermining began, and I realized at least part of it is that she seems to have such a drive to win at any cost, she has lost her integrity. In addition, she seems to be a chameleon who can change according to the setting.
I have no problem with aggressive politics, and I don't find assertive, ambitious women to be offensive. In fact, I believe women need to be assertive and ambitious. I would love to have a woman as president. I do find it offensive that commentators too often refer to the candidates as "Hillary," "Obama," and "McCain." There's an incredible amount of sexism still alive and kicking in America. That's why I'm so disappointed in Senator Clinton.
Clinton's "if I can't win, then I don't care if it's a Democrat or not" behavior is just not acceptable to me. That Bill Clinton is still praising McCain, and that Hillary Clinton would compare McCain favorably to herself as opposed to Obama is beyond the pale. It's inevitable that the Democratic candidate, once selected, will face a barrage of viciousness, defamation, and whisper-campaigns from the Republicans, but the Clintons have given them a head start with their unscrupulous tactics. How does, "Even Obama's Democratic rival has said that he is not as fit for the presidency as Senator McCain" sound? It sounds like a perfect Republican campaign slogan to me!
At one time, I had planned to vote for either Democratic candidate. Now I actually agree with the Clintons on one point: they are, indeed, much more similar to McCain and the Republican party than they are to Obama. If the Republicans win in November, it will be easy to trace the fall of almost inevitable victory back to the undermining of the party by the Clintons during this divisive campaign. If Obama is not on the ticket, I'm not sure for whom I will vote, but I am sure of one thing. It will most definitely not be Hillary Clinton.
They're in denial
OK, the gloves now come off...
Now Hillary's done it. She gave an exclusive interview at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and denounced Sen. Obama for not leaving his church:
"I think given all we have heard and seen, he [Rev. Wright] would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend," she told the newspaper editors.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_558930.html
So Clinton has now chosen to play the religion card on top of the race card? Then it's time we take a good look at HER religious association. Many of us have been biting our tongue. But she's opened this can of worms herself.
For more than 15 years, Clinton has been a member of a secretive Capital Hill group of right-wing Christian zealots, known as "The Family," and "The Fellowship." The group is dedicated to removing the separation of church and state and allowing the United States to be governed more consistently with the Gospels of Jesus Christ.
Contrary to our Constitution, they believe the United States is a Christian nation and therefore should be governed by those who follow the word of God, as written in the Holy Bible. Not surprisingly, most of the members of this secretive group are Repugnicans, including many of the most anti-democratic thugs, like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, and George Allen.
Check out last year's Mother Jones article on Hillary's long-time membership in this secretive, cult-like group of religious fanatics, that include the likes of Rich Santorum, the anti-gay bigot Sen. Brownback, James Inhofe, Tom Coburn, and George Allen. Among other dubious distinctions, Inhofe is a leading global warming denier. Coburn is a gay basher and Medicaid fraud, who once tried to pass legislation that would have required states to make public people who tested positive for HIV infection! George Allen is the right-wing creep who lost his re-election bid after racially slurring a member of his Democratic opponent's staff.
Some of these right-wing fanatics tried to pass the "Constitution Restoration Act" in 2005 that sought to prevent the US Supreme Court from ever ruling again on separation of church cases!
It appears that Hillary Clinton views her Presidential destiny the way George Bush does - it's the will of God. Those who oppose them are opposing the will of God.
Just a couple of paragraphs from the Mother Jones article:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
"Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or 'the Family'), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to 'spiritual war' on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has 'made a fetish of being invisible,' former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan."
"The Fellowship's long-term goal is 'a leadership led by God—leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit.' According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular visitor to Coe's Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance."
Unlike Barack Obama's church, Hillary's religious group is not open to the public. There is a reason for such secrecy. We need to take a good, hard look at the kind of right-wing, unamerican beliefs that are being promoted in Hillary's secretive religious group.
Why Would Anti-Choice Fellowship Accept Pro-Choice Clinton?
Conspiracy theory?
Excuse me, this is NOT a "conspiracy theory." It's a well-documented fact.
Did you bother to check out the information I provided before dismissing it -- based on nothing but your desire not to believe it?
Did you bother to click the link to the quoted article in Mother Jones?
If Mother Jones is not a good enough reference source for you, there's also Wikipedia, The Atlantic Magazine, and other respected sources that document Hillary Clinton's membership in the radical, secretive Christian-political group.
Clinton Crony Owns Tabloids Printing Anti-Obama Smears
Not quite right
No, Roger Altman does not own the American Media tabloids. However, he is the principal owner and co-CEO of the corporation that controls American Media, Inc.
You need to read that Skeeterbites report more carefully. Roger Altman is the founder, chairman, co-CEO and principal owner of Evercore Partners. Evercore Partners has a controlling interest in American Media, Inc.
Ice Queen
Richardson Knows Clinton & Chose Obama - End of Story.
I'm hoping President Carter will soon endorse Obama
I'm hoping the Jimmy Carter will announce his support for Sen. Obama soon. It's no secret that Carter has little fondness for the Clintons. And President Carter has expressed great admiration for Sen. Obama's intelligence, character, and leadership.
When they were in the White House, the Clintons treated Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter disgracefully (while courting favor and friendship with the first President Bush!)
I was at a couple of meetings with Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter when the worst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal came out. His disgust over the disgrace Clinton brought to the Presidency was palpable.
Many have said that Jimmy Carter is the best ex-President the United States ever had. I agree. I hope he'll endorse Barack Obama sooner rather than later.
Clinton Strategy
Not bloody likely
This is such a far fetched scenario. Sen. Obama would never hand the nomination over to Clinton to prevent the Republicans from winning again -- because handing the nomination over to Clinton would virtually guarantee the Republicans victory in November.
Have you seen how high the percentage of American voters who dislike and don't trust Clinton?
Dream on, but believe me, this is one nightmare that will never happen.
Makes no sense
Enough is Enough
Andy, I don't NEED "Saints" - just menches
Andy, I don't NEED "Saints" - just menches
Tell me what company you keep, and I'll tell you what you are...
Baffled
More Than a Bit of Common Sense
Enough is Enough
You are projecting your own hatred of the Clintons on to them.
Grow up.As for poor Bill Richardson ;read "My Country Versus Me"by Wen Ho Lee if you want to know about "Poor Bill"
Jilted lovers
Too much is too much
Andyod, you're projecting your own hatred of all things progressive onto those who write for this progressive web site.
Grow up.
As for poor Bill Richardson, we never heard a single negative word about him from the Clinton camp until he announced his support for Sen. Obama. Bill and Hillary had been fawning all over him.
Now, like Hillary's hatchet man, you've suddenly discovered that Richardson does not walk on water. The guy who was Bill Clinton's Superbowl buddy two months ago is now the devil incarnate.
Andyod, you're as transparent as the water Gov. Richardson does not walk on. LOL!
One of your best BuzzFlash commentaries
So if Richardson is Judas
One of your best! Thanks, it needed to be said, again.
The Clinton's know that this is over. They have known since Super Tuesday. They are not thinking of us in the Democratic Party, and they certainly are not thinking about America. They are not thinking about what will happen to this country, if a Republican is President and gets to stack the Supreme Court with more Neo-Con Judges, which will be the death of our Constitution Rights, if not the Constitution itself.
They are thinking 2012 or 2016. Crazy! She started out with 50% against her and it is now up to 55% or more. If she blows this for Democrats this time, which she is on the line of doing, her permanent negatives will be close to 80%+. She will NEVER become President. Right now, she should be worried about keeping her Senate seat.
I would be happy to have this couple (?) exit stage right and leave us all better off with their being off the political stage. President Clinton has damaged his legacy and I bet his speaking fees and calendar will be greatly diminished. I know, I would not pay to go hear him speak. Actually, you could not pay me to do it.
I love this country and it saddens and maddens me to have these two people not love it as much as I do. Pure greed is not a Democratic Party ideal. We are supposed to be the party that cares and puts others first.
President Clinton and Senator Clinton, show us that you are the ones who truly love this country. Step out of the race, today. Do It Now!
I for one will work to retire the humbug from the Senate
I for one intend to work hard to retire Hillary from the Senate, should she run again.
Unlike her over-sexed husband, the harm Hillary has done to American politics and society outweighs any real benefits she has contributed.
Much like George W. Bush, her lofty claims of accomplishments are little but outlandish exaggerations and lies.
For years to come, the video of Hillary "ducking sniper bullets" on the Bosnian airfield will draw as many snickers as the video of Bush strutting on the aircraft carrier in a stuffed, protruding crotch flight suit and standing "heroically" beneath the "Mission Accomplished" sign.
Bush and Hillary, two humbugs separated at birth.
Clinton needs to quit NOW!
Report the church to the IRS
Closed Primary's!
With no switching once the other Party has a nominee. How un-American can you get! Have they no morals? Shame on them!
I am outraged that these Americans' would do this and saddened. But what makes me cry, is that Hillary would not read this for what it is and bow out. She knows that these Republicans will not vote for her come November and so she is destroying our country, in the hope that she will come back in 2012.
Or maybe, she will be McCain's VP. The only reason that I can come up with for her continuing in this primary. She and Bill will say, to unify the country, we are making this supreme sacrifice. Vote for McCain/Hillary: two qualified Commander-in-Chiefs, two people who love this country, and we really love each other, we are great friends and during the time I have been in the Senate, we have voted the same. Remember, Hillary was raised a Republican, worked to get Republican's elected and only changed when she fell in love with a Democratic boy, who had political ambitions. Check out her voting records, she votes with the Republicans. And not just on her War Vote. She voted for cluster bombs and yet says she cares for the children. She voted to keep landminds and says she cares for the children. She lies! She just got caught in two lies, the NAFTA, (I was always against it, except when I worked so hard to get it passed) and her vast foreign experience, (Ireland and Bosnia, ducking, while standing straight up and standing still).
If McCain does this, (remember, he thought about joining Kerry last time, although he lies about it now), he might want to watch his back.
PS: As I thought about this, it just hit me that this idea (which I admit was a bit tongue in check), actually makes some sense about what Hillary and Bill have been saying and doing. Why have they both been building McCain up so much? And tearing Senator Obama down so much? Many have stated that she seems to be campaigning for McCain: McCain and I have already passed the CoC line, McCain and I both love our country...... add your own lines that you remember her saying.
Closed primaries
Not to pile on
As usual, what Andyod posts is false
As usual, what Andyod posts is not true. If the Democratic contests were closed and winner-take-all, Obama would still lead in the pledged delegate count.
If Rush Limbaugh had not been able to send his dittoheads to vote in the Texas primary, Clinton would not have won that state's very close popular vote. (Although she won the popular vote with the help of cross-over Republicans, she still lost in the delegate count.) Obama would have an even bigger lead in pledged delegates than he does now.
But none of this hypothetical second guessing matters because this is NOT how the Presidential nominee is chosen. The nominee is always the candidate who wins the highest number of delegates. Period. The rules do not allow any the substitution of any other "measurement" for picking the nominee.
All the pathetic whining from the Clinton camp is sickening. They no more have a case than do we Democrats in claiming Al Gore won the 2000 election because he won the popular vote (although he won the Presidency because he won the electoral vote). George Bush was the fourth person in US history, who was elected President even though he did not win the most votes (the others were John Q. Adams, Rutherford Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison.)
Although many of us believe the Constitution should be changed to eliminate the electoral college, until that happens, only the number of electoral votes matters in electing a President. That is the rule established by law. And the rule backed by law for picking the Democratic Presidential nominee requires choosing the candidate who has the highest number of delegates.
It's a sore loser who wants to change the rules when she realizes she can't win. And those that echo her whining complaints are the sore loser's losers.
So be it!
Even if Florida and Michigan were counted, against all rules which all candidate pledged to (although Hillary broke those rules. You were not suppose to campaign in those States, NOR PARTICIPATE! All the others took their names off the Michigan ballot, but Hillary. They tried to do the same in Florida, but they could not, because of some Republican rule. Even so, "No choice stated" almost beat Hillary), Hillary still would not win.
If they held new primary's, she might be okay in Florida, but in Michigan she would lose big. So the best they could do is do a 50/50 split. But that would be rewarding States for breaking the rules. Can you imagine what the next primary's would look like, if all States did what they wanted, then demanded that they don't suffer the price for doing so?
Rules are rules. Truth is truth. Let's play by the rules and tell the truth. We have had 7 year of breaking all the rules and not telling the truth. Americans' want this changed. That is what we are all going out and voting for.
Each Party's membership should be the ones who decide whom their nominee is. Not Independents, and especially not Republicans. This is who we, as a whole, believe will bring about the changes we see are needed in America. Which is vastly different than the same old Bush/Cheney issues, with McCain taking us into four more and up to 100 years of it.
If the DNC sets up the primary/caucuses with such a messy schedule and a few states get to decide who the nominee is, then you are stuck with that. Change the rules. But wait until this season is over. No rule changes in mid game.
I live in the most populace state in America, and by the time it has gotten to our primary, it has always been decided. Is that fair? We rarely get the nominee we believe will be the best President and we are left with the ones you all have chosen. Not great choices in the past. This year, we have at least come up with a winner, who can beat the Republicans in the Fall. See, change is good. But we can make it better, next time.
Have all the States vote on one day or have four primary/caucus dates, one a month starting in January, with big, little, east, west, south, north on each date. Don't count the votes until the last one is held. Then we would get the one that was not decided by what had gone on before, nor what the MSM has decided for us.
We need to have a voice in what the DNC decides. It is not working very well as is. Democracy is messy. But it sure beats the hell out of anything there is.
We can make it better. But, we need to right now fix this mess we are drowning in. The Super Delegates need to step in right now. Bill and Hillary are destroying our chances for winning in November.
Bill and Hillary are showing us what it must be like in their marriage. Messy. Get a room or better yet, get a court room and get on with the divorce. You can fight over who gets your daughter. But quit fighting over us. Most of us don't want visitation rights with either of you.