There are indications that the Clinton campaign may be entering, at long last, its fifth and final stage of grief.
Having been mired in denial since lo the new year; having released a veritable avalanche of cathartic anger; having explored every avenue of creative bargaining with delegates both super and small; and having met, suffered through and possibly conquered despair, there are signs of Clintonian acceptance peeping out of the bunker.
As Katharine Seelye of the New York Times observes: "It may not be apparent to the casual viewer of the news," since the broadcast media persist in airing endless loops of ratings-boosting footage that have surely traveled to the Andromeda Galaxy by now,
but Mrs. Clinton is no longer dropping negative bombs on Mr. Obama. She has shifted her attacks, some of them quite trenchant, to President Bush and Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee ... [although] as Clinton aides try to woo superdelegates, they are discussing the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Obama’s controversial pastor from whom he has tried to distance himself.
Well, hope is also comingled with the assorted stages of grief, and there's nothing wrong with that most human of characteristics playing itself out. The once-Clinton-leaning superdelegates themselves, however, being somewhat more realistically self-centered, have long since fast-forwarded through their initial stages of grief and are now acceptingly buddying up to Barack Obama -- one after another, nearly every day.
There could still be more "negative bombs," of course, some fantastic fireworks of despair let loose through vestigial anger and rage, but it's hard to imagine what political ordnance could yet be deployed that hasn't already been deployed. Plus, as Mrs. Clinton has reconfirmed, with every negative bomb hurled there's a price to pay in the bomb-thrower's own negative numbers. And hers couldn't get much higher before the common electorate screams for her deportation.
But if true -- if, indeed, Hillary is finally strolling on that peaceful tarmac of acceptance -- then there remains a long way way to go, perhaps, for many of Hillary's followers in their own aggrieved stages. For many still seem stuck in that first one of denial.
I have no scientifically arrived-at surveys to offer in support of this speculation; only the many snowflakes of Stage One that droppeth ungently into my inbox from Hillary's loyal troops.
And it was just yesterday that I realized a familiar refrain in these emails -- a certain and singular theme accumulating throughout the last few days; a theme of, "Just you wait, she'll show you, and then what'll you do when she has crushed the forces of empty-suit evil and she's back on top? Huh? What will you do then? you schmuck."
My first thought, of course, is that, well, I'd have a lot more material for columns that happily write themselves. Good God, I'm going to miss Hillary. Just like the political cartoonists who demanded of Richard Nixon that come hell or impeachable water he stay in office lest their well of inspiration dry up, there are scores of political commentators who have tried imagining life without Hillary, and it's hard. Very hard. It just seems so bleak, so barren, so unentertaining. But this is politics, so there's always another Nixon, or Clinton, waiting in the wings. So I take heart.
But back to the familiar refrain.
Wait, is always my second thought. I've read this "She'll show you" email before. How did it drop back in my inbox? And although the flurry of snowflakes has been rather recent, why does my memory of it seem so hazy, as though it came several months ago?
And then I realized the sad and awful truth. I had indeed read these emails before, except the "she" was a "he" and the senders were dues-paying constituents of that plucky little political chorus, the Paulites.
Months ago, after occasionally exploring in writing the bizarre psyche of Mr. Ron Paul and naturally declaring his hopeless journey at an abortive end, I would instantly be slammed by electronic reams of, "Just you wait, he'll show you. And what will you do then? you schmuck."
The poor dears. They were clearly cemented in classic denial, straining with fury and residing a long, long way from acceptance -- a point at which some have probably still not arrived.
But in collective response to all the recent missives of angry frustration and untreated discombobulation, all I can say is, take heart, as I must as well. And if Democrats play their cards right, it will soon be the McCainites in clinical denial.





Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
poor RedBaron
He reveals himself with his own words
Robertjones says HE's the one "trying to bring reason" to this blog. He's the one who is "searching for truth," rather than "name calling." He's the one who cares about protecting the Democratic Party.
Yet in the same breath, he calls RedBaron a "right wing nut," and "part of the Republican noise machine trying to destroy progressive Websites and the Democratic Party." He repeatedly (and libelously) labels me a "gay old man" a pedophile, a convicted criminal.
I think the words of this John Bircher make it clear just who is the "bully and bigot."
How about communist?
How about English?
The John Birch Society troll writes:
"You are so dimwitted that it is hard to believe that you never post anything that you know about, and just try to be clever at name-calling."
Putting aside the troll's mangled and confusing syntax, he has unintentionally employed two negatives.
He probably meant to say, "it is hard to believe you ever post anything you know about". While it would be nonsense, at least it would be grammatically correct nonsense.
As for the rest of the troll's sentence, "it is hard to believe that you ... just try to be clever at name-calling,," I'd have to agree. It's not just hard to believe, it's demonstrably false.
So Robertjones, listen up! Go away until you learn to write English.
haben Sie Mitleid für assholenick
Ublicherweise war Robertjones wahnsinnig
"Ublicherweise war er wahnsinnig, aber er hatte lichte Momente, wo er nur dumm war."
Aie pitié de assholenick
Ten piedad de la idiota
Thank You
Wasted....
FU
all we are saying is . . .
I am simply asking that Obama supporters try to talk about what is good about Obama, rather than what they hate about Hillary. However, I see by your diatribe supporting Vetta's Rove-induced prejudices and your screaming put down of me, that your intent is to continue the hate all the way to McCain's inauguration. What a pitiful fool you are.
Troll-drivel
Notice how the troll proves Red Barron's point. He says he is "simply asking that Obama supporters try to talk about what is good about Obama, rather than what they hate about Hillary."
A review of Robertjones' screeds will show barely a word about what is good about Hillary Clinton. They're all sleazy attacks on Obama and the Democrats and independents who support him.
And notice how the troll ends his protest against negativity and insults: "What a pitiful fool you are."
The funniest trait of trolls is their utter transparency.
I am for the Democratic Party
This poster and RedBaron and other Obama supporters are totally incensed that I would have the temerity to suggest that they "try to talk about what is good about Obama, rather than what they hate about Hillary". I wonder why they get so mad when I ask them to be positive about their candidate. Could it be that they can't express any valid reason to be FOR Barack Obama. They all scream that I am not putting up talking points to support Hillary Clinton, even though I have told them over and over and over and over and over that I am not speaking as a supporter of Clinton. I am interested in the political process and putting a Democrat in the White House next year -- whomever is the nominee of the convention in Denver in August.
Of course, Andy is retarded and can't make cogent arguments in an adult conversation, so all he can do is call people names like "troll" when he doesn't understand what they are saying. Troll is a term (that has been applied to Andy time and time again) for old gay men who hang around gay bars and try to feel up the young guys. Have pity on him. He is no longer allowed to leave his house (and must wear a police monitoring device) because of stalking young men. Now he just stalks me on Buzzflash.
What a poor pitiful fool Andy is.
A Traitor in the Camp.........
RJ---
First of all, you're either intellectually dishonest, or delusional,(or both). What you have done is inoculate (and insulate) yourself from ALL probable attacks by claiming some supposed 'moral high-ground' where you are neither for Obama OR Hillary--well by inference, that puts you out the conversation. And being so 'detached' from EITHER side---all you have done is criticize BOTH sides (or, at least, the side you oppose), under the pretext of 'interest' in the process---this is bull-shit, and you know it.
You claim "my interest is in seeing the primary campaign completed", yes, but FOR WHAT ULTERIOR PURPOSE? TO WHAT END? You said, " letting the voters (rather than the noise machine) decide who the nominee will be." For reasons I've discussed elsewhere--that is the VERY campaign tactic I despise about ALL you closeted ROVIAN bigots. YOU ALL are COUNTING on this campaign to drag out indefinitely, and you're hoping that those of your kind 'will see the light, marshall up the fools, and systematically undermine the Obama campaign---ANYWAY YOU CAN. And THAT, my friend, is STRAIGHT out of the Karl Rove/Rush Limbaugh disruption campaign, you're so fond of attaching to someone else. YOU abide by his tactics more than anyone else here.
Why do I say this? Because you stated, "they get so mad when I ask them to be positive about their candidate. Could it be that they can't express any valid reason to be FOR Barack Obama. They all scream that I am not putting up talking points to support Hillary Clinton, even though I have told them over and over and over and over and over that I am not speaking as a supporter of Clinton. I am interested in the political process...."---So lets see, when some are positive about Obama--you attack them. When asked about YOU supporting Hillary, you claim neutrality. And can't clearly define what your purpose (and interest) is---"in the political process". What the hell ARE you about----RobertJones??!
Go back and look at the entire body of YOUR input---it has been TOTALLY critical of ALL those (like VettaKIng)--who speak non-threateningly, yet positively, about Obama---and the very FIRST statement out of your mouth--is one of criticism. The evidence of your bias lies in the fact that all those who support Hillary--assume YOU are one of THEM. You HIDE behind your rhetoric, and then want to claim neutrality behind some presumed "non-affiliation". This makes YOU a coward and a bully---in my opinion.
When you add it all up--you support neither candidate, attack innocent supporters of Obama, (like Vetta), DON'T support Hillary, and by extention--her supporters,---argue with various posters you disagree with, abide and agree with the self-destructive notion of Hillary's protracted campaign, and, DO NOT positively commend either candidate---because of your 'impartiality', and yadda, yadda, yadda.....
So it goes back to my original supposition about you----you're nothing but a stinking Rovian, bigoted plant---disrupting any positive discourse about Obama OR Hillary. Whether it be from us---or P.M.---whose thread you seem so fond of--so the question still remains---WHY?
I was for Dennis Kucinich
You must actually BE Karl Rove
Which part of Vetta King"s post [cited below] do you consider to be "non-threateningly, yet positively, about Obama"?
The problem with the Hillary supporters
Submitted by VettaKing on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 6:40pm.
I have never hated Hillary. I still don't hate Hillary. I always liked her more than her husband. But here's the problem. I hear Hillary supporters calling Obama Jim Jones, an empty suit, a racist against white people (even though he's half white), a covert muslim, and whatever else I am forgetting at the moment. The reason I support Obama over Hillary and have since the beginning is simple. She supported the Iraq war and he opposed it from the start. She supports cluster bombs and Obama doesn't. She supports naming the Iranian military a terrorist organization and Obama doesn't. On top of that I feel like her husband was only a mediocre president and I would like to see someone new in the white house. I don't understand what is so hard for Hillary supporters to understand about this. The name calling is ridiculous and the voters of America have agreed. Barring Obama being found with a live boy or a dead girl there is absolutely no realistic way for Hillary to beat Barrack in Delegates, Popular vote, or states won. It would be better for the party and the nation if we could just get on with this thing and let Obama go after McSame. My opinion of Hillary and to an even greater extent Bill is declining as the nomination campaign goes on. I am not the only one who feels this way.
SURE, YOU CAN CALL ME KARL, IF..........
I can call you ROBERTA, for now; but I reserve the right to call you more colorful (and ACCURATE) ones after that! Ya know, I think Askolnick DOES have you figured out. You DO make a lot of subtle, homophobic references--(along with that little weasel--Yman)---I would have thought at your age you would have gotten over your little sexual perversities by now.
But, to the task at hand: You wrote:
Which part of Vetta King"s post [cited below] do you consider to be "non-threateningly, yet positively, about Obama"?
The problem with the Hillary supporters
Submitted by VettaKing on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 6:40pm.
I have never hated Hillary. I still don't hate Hillary. I always liked her more than her husband. But here's the problem. I hear Hillary supporters calling Obama Jim Jones, an empty suit, a racist against white people (even though he's half white), a covert muslim, and whatever else I am forgetting at the moment. The reason I support Obama over Hillary and have since the beginning is simple. She supported the Iraq war and he opposed it from the start. She supports cluster bombs and Obama doesn't. She supports naming the Iranian military a terrorist organization and Obama doesn't. On top of that I feel like her husband was only a mediocre president and I would like to see someone new in the white house. I don't understand what is so hard for Hillary supporters to understand about this. The name calling is ridiculous and the voters of America have agreed. Barring Obama being found with a live boy or a dead girl there is absolutely no realistic way for Hillary to beat Barrack in Delegates, Popular vote, or states won. It would be better for the party and the nation if we could just get on with this thing and let Obama go after McSame. My opinion of Hillary and to an even greater extent Bill is declining as the nomination campaign goes on. I am not the only one who feels this way.
Just read the high-lights, Genius!! These comments are rather typical for the course of Obama supporters, "I'm FOR Obama, because Hillary has DONE this or that..."--THAT is political discourse and her opinion! Being an Obama supporter---I find them to be positive (and correct)statements.
Now, you insecure Repug----YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU FIND SO THREATENING ABOUT THEM ???? You need to find another argument, because you've worn this one out--ad nauseam!!
How 'bout TRUTHFULLY answering some of ASK's allegations----without the defensive slurs---NOW THAT would something NEW for a change!
Please Karl not Roberta
Gay by birth, Fabulous by choice!
FIGURES........., ANITA !!
No wonder you're so homophobic and iealogically confused, and by extension, see the same in all others....
You're about as sure,(and secure), in your own sexuality---as you are in your obscure, vague, political views.
At 70 years old.....I would have thought, by now, you'd have come to terms with this, but thats YOUR conundrum---I STILL want to know what are your TRUE INTENTS HERE....
besides a campaign of discourse and disruption----ANITA ??
robertjones2001, the delusional poster of buzzflash
When in doubt, call me names
Do you have any time in your preciously busy schedule to tell me the bill number where "Barrack voted to ban cluster bombs and Hillary didn't"?
Nor do you know anything about Obama or his voting record. For instance,
4/1/2008- Worries about One World Order and a North American Union have been "ginned up by the blogs and the Internet," Sen. Barack Obama told a Lancaster, Pennsylvania audience in a stump speech as he continued his tour through the battleground state. The Illinois senator also defended the recently re-authorized Patriot Act. Responding to a question from the audience, asking whether he was a member for the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many allege is leading a move toward one world government, Obama said: "I don’t know if I’m an official member. I’ve spoken there before. It basically is a forum where people talk about foreign policy. There is no official membership. I don’t have a card, or you know a special handshake or anything like that."
The troll just tipped his hand
Not only is Robertroll a Repugnican wearing an ill-fitting donkey costume, he appears to be sympathetic to (if not an actual member of) the extreme right-wing John Birch Society.
The troll says that "many allege [the Council on Foreign Relations] is leading a move toward one world government."
His accusations are taken right out of John Birch Society diatribes. The racist society has long ranted how the Council on Foreign Relations is part of the secret plot to overthrow the United States government and form a "new order" under an evil one-world government.
This is the group that supported apartheid in South Africa and here in the United States. It vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Movement and the passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s.
Here's an example of the craziness of this right-wing hate group. It's a crackpot rant against Planned Parenthood, the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, and other groups involved in the promotion of family planning. It begins:
"One of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century, now accepted without question by much of the world’s "educated" populace, is the fraudulent contention that the earth is terribly overpopulated with humans."
And it ends: "And the leader of those 'major enemies of unborn children, women and families' is the United Nations, supported by major funding from the U.S. government."
You've got to read their stuff to believe anyone can be so crazy as to argue against the availability of family planning information and safe and affordable contraception.
"The UN War on Population"
Now for some truth about what the Council on Foreign Relations is: It's an 86-year-old, non-partisan and independent think tank. Many U.S. Presidents have given talks at FRC forums -- including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Among the current Board of Directors are Clinton's former Secretary of State Madeline Albright; Bush's former Secretary of State, Colin Powell; noted TV broadcaster Tom Brokaw; former Republican governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman; and many other American leaders of different political persuasion.
And Robertroll's political persuasion has just become a lot clearer. He's not just a Repugnican, he's sympathetic to the crackpot conspiracy theories of the John Birchers. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a card carrying member of the lunatic fringe group.
about the Council on Foreign Relations
About the John Birch Society - [very sinister]
Members come from all walks of life and are active throughout the 50 states on local, regional and national levels.
United by a strong belief in personal freedom and limited government, plus a sense of duty, members of The John Birch Society have educated millions of Americans on the appropriate role of government. Using educational and concerted action tools of a wide variety — including local lobbying, distribution of literature, email campaigns, news conferences, petitions, and more — members have played a continuous, pivotal role in halting legislation and federal policies that threaten the independence of our country and our people.
For almost 50 years, the Society has educated and informed its members and others, who have worked together to bring about major changes in national policy. Activity at the national level is guided by the organization's home office in Appleton, Wisconsin.
A national network of local chapters initiates communications projects and implements the programs outlined in the monthly JBS Bulletin, the member newsletter. Activity at the local and regional levels is guided by professional Field Coordinators who provide the benefit of their knowledge and experience.
Explore our website, learn more about The John Birch Society, consider joining, and then work with us to help fulfill our mission:
To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.
THERE IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE---JUST LIKE A 'B' MOVIE!!
RJ----you're being somewhat disingenuous----when you write:
" For your information, the truth is that Hillary will probably be ahead in the popular vote when all of the primary contests are over. No wonder Obama folks want the voting to stop before their victory reasoning goes down the tubes."
You know as well as I,that THATS EXACTLY why we rage about it as we do. Theres NO DOUBT that she possibly WILL pull off the popular vote thing---if she's allowed to keep spewing nazi-like lies and mis-information.
You guys are a piece of work. You see the game shes playing as acutely as we. Yet, you want to sit back and sound like some sage, or griot, who has been 'blessed' with some special insight or wisdom.
Stevie Wonder can see what Hillarys doing---SHES RIGGING THE GAME NOW, RATHER THEN GRACEFULLY LEAVING, by a slash-and-burn campaign-----and you know it. Its obvious that Hillarys appealing to a large segment of the American population who are under-achievers, poorly-read, highly-sensitive, easily-misled, and greatly fearful of ANYTHING that does not fit within their paradigm. While the other half of this SAME GROUP is even MORE PARANOIDIALLY afraid of ANYTHING representing CHANGE! They abode in the Republican Party, dutifully listening to Rush tell them EVERYDAY, to cross lines, VOTE DEMOCRATIC---and disrupt, otherwise safe (and predictable) elections. THESE two groups (OF ONE MIND), yet, separate parties, are what ---you, Hillary, and nearly everyone of you devious, lieing snakes hope to accomplish. You, sir, are no democrat! What you are is a 70 year old fearful, scared BIGOT--and Obama represents all you fear!
You and your ilk will NEVER admit to any racial under-pinnings to your vile plans, but YOU KNOW, when you make these little coded statements like that--THAT is PRECISELY---what you're implying. THIS IS WHY I detest Hillary, and growing to feel the same way about folks like YOU! I AM SO TIRED TO THE VEILED RACIST-BASED VOTING PATTERNS DISPLAYED BY THIS SO-CALLED GROUP CALLED 'WORKING-CLASS VOTERS'---its these people and their ignorance that gave us 8 years of Bush rulership--and look where THAT got us. He made them feel SAFE within their secluded little world. Lets get real---and call it what it is----a bunch of insecure, racist, red-necks who would ,NEVER vote for a BLACK MAN like Obama. He represents everything they hate. Hillary knows this--and so do YOU! But what you'll all do to assuage your guilty consciences---is chalk it up to POLITICS, and a well-played STRATEGY, and whatever else you freaks jerk yourself off with. Thats why the Clintons are FLAGRANTLY saying---'He can't win"---no, not when the plan is to marshall this band of fools together to amass behind her.
Yet, if ANY of us call you out on this despicable behavior;....call you out for the specious subterfuge that it is; you wanna cry about someone going ad-hominem on you. It finally makes sense why you all--against all reason--want to ride this out as long as you can--you need the time for the hate to set in. For the poison to congeal. for the coded messages to taint the remaining atmosphere of the last 10 primaries. I see now why Askolnick---reems you at every turn---he "read" you for what you are----scum!! You should have left this party and joined your Republican counter-parts when the rest of the 'Dixie-crats' jumped ship.
I don't know what I detest more---the Repugs for all they represent....or vile, hidden little bed-bugs like you....sleeping among us and pretending to be human.
Jack Nicholson, Adam Sandler ...
"Anger Management" (2003). Check it out.
Seriously.
whoa! SLOW DOWN, chill out!
The problem with the Hillary supporters
Hillary----How do we Love Thee--Let Me Count the Ways-------
Vetta: You wrote:
" It would be better for the party and the nation if we could just get on with this thing and let Obama go after McSame. My opinion of Hillary, and to an even greater extent, Bill is declining as the nomination campaign goes on. I am not the only one who feels this way."
You got that RIGHT! Have you noticed how Hillarys 'game-plan' is to keep us so deluged with the CLINTONIAN MESSAGE that, in the last few months, there has been VIRTUALLY NOTHING discussed in terms of policy, goals, etc. She has kept her financially-challenged campaign in the news EVERYDAY FOR THE LAST TWO MONTHS--with no more then HER MESSAGE being the ONLY issues discussed. Its appalling. And most have not even perceived it.
If the media simply did their damn job and reported true facts--you'd see that there are SO MANY who feel like you--that you'd think you were standing in a crowded closet while in the middle of the desert! HOW has she done this? You wrote a few items on how the Clintons have changed, well allow me to help you count the ways.........
1) Hillary & Bill, as well as all their surrogates, WHINING their way thru the whole primary process, incessantly, day, after day, after day. 2)Hillary constantly advocating John McInsane, while admonishing Obama. 3) Running a racially subliminal campaign in Penn. with the 'working-class' voters (code: WHITE voters). 4) Her arrogant, failed attempt to 'force' health-care reform. 5) She has conducted her campaign with unbridled hubris, secrecy and dishonesty. 6) Her recent,increasingly friendly relationship with FOX and the right. 7) Also, aligning herself with Richard Mellon Schaife---to get him to write unfavorable accounts of Obama. 8) Voted, as ALL know by now, for the war in Irag. 9) Supported NAFTA--then LIED about it. 10) In Bosnia, claimed to be ducking 'sniper-fire'---then lied about it. 11) Approved a campaign of 'kitchen-sink' strategy--then lied about it. 12) Mis-represented Obama's capabilities and HER presidential 'readiness'----then lied about it. 13) Mis-represented Obama's Illinois voting record--then lied about it. 14) At first, wouldn't involve herself in the Wright scandal--then raised it, a week later, to distract from her Bosnia fantasy. 15) Implied Obama was nothing but 'an empty suit'; and 'a speech'--then lied about it. 16) Insinuated only she (and McInsane) had crossed the mythical 'threshold test' for the presidency. 17) Fantasized (again) about her role in the Ireland Peace accords--then lied about her role. 17) Voted for the use of genocidal 'cluster-bombs' against Iraqi citizens. 18) Voted to give congressional authorization to Bush's insane war-mongering; an enabler. 19) Rec'd questionable campaign funding from munitions and the health-care industries (theres an oxymoron). 20) allowed, and stood by, as Bill played the race-card in primary after primary--while repping HER CAMPAIGN. 21) Allowed, and authorized, various minions (Ferraro, Johson, Rendell, Cuomo, et.al) to racially marginalize Obama. 22) Sent Black subordinate, Clever, out to keep the racial issue alive on the eve of the Penn. primary. 23) Has played the gender-card, (and tears), whenever it was expedient. 24) has horribly mis-managed millions of dollars of campaign funds--($1200.00 for exam, on dought-nuts) 25) Has been reluctant to pay outstanding debts in her campaign. 26) Has failed to pay the insurance premium on employees in her campaign. 27) Has garnered a reputation of 'get your money first, before you provide a service' on her campaign. 28) have 'hi-jacked' the campaign with inordinate demands to the DNC. 29) Petulantly stomped her feet and demanded two extra debates when she thought it served her purposes. 30) Dismissed her Hispanic campaign manager the day AFTER she secured the Hispanic vote in Texas. 31) Told Hispanic radio stations in Calif. that Richardson was her VP choice, thus, inciting the Hispanic vote there (also part of the tension now). 32) Violated her own word by petitioning and soliciting the delegates in Florida and Micjigan. 33) Broke her own word to withdraw from the race--if she lost Tx and/or Ohio---SHE LOST TEXAS. 34) Broke her own word NOT to approach or solicit Obama's committed delegates---then did just that. 35) Has falsely fostered the mathematically impossible notion--she still has a chance to win. 36) Her and Bills refusal to release the Clinton library donation records. 37) Her and Bills refusal to release CURRENT fiancial and TAX forms. 38) Her and Bills warm, and cozy, relationship with senior Bush's family. 39) Her and Bills illegal corporate financial dealings overseas. 40) Her and Bills campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch, Wal-Mart and others on the right. 41) Her lies about "35 years of experience" to be President. 42) Her bogus claims about her commitment to the Childrens Defense Fund--she worked there less than a year. 43) Her and Bills promotion of, and passing of, the disasterous Welfore to Work Law--that put thousands of FAMILIES homeless, and on the street. 44) The recent praise being lavished on her by the FOX news channel (at Obama/s expense), 45) The recent...............
Well, you get my point. Who else but a CLINTON, could have orchestrated ALL OF THE ABOVE, and still be viable with a rabid, vain-glorious bunch of self-serving sycopahants yelping and nipping at everyones heels to do as they say...or they'll bring down hell-fire and the whole temple upon us. Some of whom have no more connection to her then to merely see her elected as the first woman President---to the detriment of everything else. It would be sad---if it wasn't so Damn infuriating.
You must be hearing voices . . .
You are either dreaming or delusional. Unless these "Hillary supporters" are known only to you, I challenge you to name just one "Hillary supporter" who has said any of these things. Just because Obama supporters make unfounded charges and untrue hateful remarks about her, doesn't mean that the vitriol is a two way street. You are right that the name calling needs to stop, but Obama supporters are the ones who spew the hate all over the Internet -- Buzzflash included.
For your information, Obama may say he would have voted against the war, but he was not in the Senate to do that. And he has voted in favor of funding the war every single time he has had the opportunity since he has been in the Senate. The Senators were given much stronger, secret information that led them to vote the way they did.
No one "supports cluster bombs" except maybe Dick Cheney.
There is plenty of information to assume that Hillary will surpass Barack in popular vote at the end of the primaries. Neither candidate can amass enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, so the convention will be brokered by the super delegates. There is good reason to believe that Hillary Clinton will be the eventual nominee. Will you be able to get over your hatred in order to support putting a Democrat in the White House next year?
Hillary only voted aganst BANNING cluster bombs!
No one "supports cluster bombs" except maybe Dick Cheney.
name the bill
More noise from the John Birch Society troll
Click for the Roll Call Vote on the U.S. Senate's web site.
Clinton had to weigh the benefit of saving thousands of children from being killed or crippled by American forces against her political ambition. She chose her political ambition. It's time for American voters to choose to retire the Clintons from public office.
er, excuse me.......calling RobertJones...........
Here, RJ, is a typical example of what I mean about you-----you call folks out on 'cite this', or 'tell me where you found that'.....
But, where's your reply when you're called on it?
So, calling OUT....RobertJones!! APB on RobertJones!!! Anybody seen RobertJones???
I think I saw him tonight
Not sure Red, but I think I saw the blockhead tonight at a Klan meeting in Skokie, Ill.
He was wearing a sheet, but I'm pretty sure it was him, since his big blockhead doesn't fit very well in the cone-headed cap of the Klan.
I'm sure he'll be back ranting here soon enough.
Klan is restricted
Interesting, but more importantly ...
... how did your meeting go?
Not mine, yours
Not mine, yours. I was watching you guys through a remote camera.
Was Robertjones with you or was that another big blockhead under the sheet?
Do you make a habit ...
... of watching men in sheets through remote cameras? I thought you weren't supposed to do that anymore ...
Does it make a difference because these guys have clothing on under the sheets?
Support an honest ban, not some weasely pseudo ban
The text of the amendment as introduced to the Senate by Sens. Feinstein & Leahy reads:
By prohibiting the bomb's usage "in or near" permanent or temporary settlements and groups of refugees and nomads, the amendment seeks to ban the cluster munitions practically anywhere people might be without actually having the guts to ban the munitions altogether. The amendment would also encourage opposing forces to hide in populated areas and use civilians -- particularly mobile civilians like refugees and nomads -- as human shields against our anti-personnel weapons.
It's a bad amendment in that it would have brought new dangers to innocent civilians in military actions against insurgents and terrorists, particularly in urban settings -- the most likely kinds of warfare we will be seeing in the future. It's also cowardly in that it seeks to implement a ban by pretending it is only trying to help innocent civilians, while maintaining to the public that it wouldn't really restrict the military in its operations.
But, hey... it makes for some great soundbites, doesn't it?
Speaking of being "honest"
The amendment that Hillary Clinton and Republicans defeated would have banned the use of these child-killing weapons in civilian areas, while still allowing them to be used in non-populated areas.
Human rights groups throughout the world want these terror weapons banned - for a damn good reason: 40 percent of people maimed or killed by cluster munitions are children.
Cluster munitions disperse large numbers of toy-like bomblets over wide areas. Many of the deadly bomblets do not detonate and become anti-personal land mines. The colorful "toys" lie around begging to be picked up by children. When children pick them up, they explode. Thousands of children around the world have been killed by U.S. cluster munitions. Many thousands more have had their arms or legs shredded, suffered permanent brain damage and/or facial disfigurement.
For years, the U.S. has been making, using, and selling cluster munitions around the world. Millions of acres of the world have been seeded with these toy-like land mines. If not banned outright, these weapons should be banned from use where children live and play.
As for the dishonest argument that banning their use around civilian populations would encouraged enemy forces to hide in populated areas, that's exactly what fighters in guerrilla wars already do.
Guerrillas do not need cluster bombs to encourage them to hide and fight among the people, because they ARE of the people. Their battle ground is and always will be the neighborhoods and villages in which they live and work.
When are right-wing nuts ever going to learn that you can't EVER win guerrilla wars by killing a country's children and other non-combatants? All they ever do when they kill children and other non-combatants is turn farmers into dedicated guerrillas.
After America's Vietnam shameful defeat and Russia's equally shameful debacle in Afghanistan, I thought we would have learned. Apparently, right-wing nuts of any country are incapable of learning such lessons. They believe they make their own reality and are therefore immune to lessons from history.
Actually there may never be
Hillary's self-inflicted wounds
BUT!...She's Been the Belle of the Ball !
Rob, you make a good point when you say:
"Hillary's negative campaign tactics causing greater harm to herself than to Obama ...." and..." most damaging of all was Hillary's endorsement of John McCain"...
I agree; the former statement should cause some pause with any TRUE Progressive, but the blatant betrayal latent in the latter point should be the final damning evidence needed by ANY Democrat wondering if its plausible to continue supporting Hillary.
And theres the rub. Hillarys cabal seems to NEVER have grasped the notion that she has sold down the river---everything meaningful to them.
In addition to this snub, she has used them like three dollar whores; pimping their beliefs, and hopes, and dreams, to continue her maddening pursuit of impending battle with imaginary wind-mills. Hillary has never seemed to figure out that her obstinancy in pursuit of a BAD cause, is but, a thwarting impediment to Obama's constancy toward a GOOD one.
And look what it has spawned. Her followers think, that, NOW is their time, they have been repudiated and rebuked by 'the boys', and somehow, they are more 'entitled'; somehow, its their 'denied privilege'; that more is DUE them....then ALL the others who felt as steadfastly, and rightly, committed to Kucinich, and Edwards, and Richardson and Dodd...and all the rest. They too, had justification to stay.
After all, their candidates , more realistically, brought more substance, more credibility, and less hubris than Hillary. BUT THEY LOST. And when they did, these leaders didn't manipulate their followers, or the media; they did not virulently poison the body politic. They did not employ every deceitful, unrealistic, fallacious machination the lazy, contemptible, opportunistic media could gorge on to feed its bottomless appetite. Nor, did their followers come to some narcissistic conclusion that THEIR minuscule desires, somehow, out-weighed the collective hopes, values, and wishes of the majority.
In a wicked conspiracy, they (Hill & the media), have led these people to believe, 'it's good to continue to the convention', (In truth, we KNOW this is masochistic folly,----Time is the operative, destructive factor at play here. The longer we enable her delusions and allow them to play out--to a very foreseeable conclusion--that is, one of defeat; (the LESS time there will be to address REAL future battles); 'Its opened up the system to more voters', (these voters are not DENIED anything---the primaries are PRACTICE, the REAL GAME is in November, we should put up points---WHEN THEY TRULY COUNT)...all you want is a chance to take your shots IN THE REAL THING---NO ONE WILL BE DENIED THIS CHANCE!!; 'She has a RIGHT to continue on in the campaign', (By what "Right"? By what yard-stick? At what point does her crossing of the Rubicon NOT destroy all we have hoped for??....And push the party beyond a line we cannot readily recover from? JUST to serve the WHIMS of ONE VAIN, DELUDED, INDIVIDUAL! When did we buy into this warped (and truly un-democratic) philosophy?? "Party"--by connotation, means FOR the group; not one persons "rights", but the "rights"...OF US ALL. When does real LEADERSHIP become whats good FOR THE LEADER?? Isn't it suppose to be the other way around?? Why is this not considered---somehow, CONTRARY??----these are lies, and half-truths---placed in the atmosphere--BY THE COMPLIANT MEDIA...that, at best, serve ONLY to allow Hillary's scheme to reach fruition, i.e.,... of buying much-needed time to muddy up Obamas record, tarnish his image, and deplete his resources---as much as possible; this is not a mentality of serving the constructs of the masses, but rather, using mendacity to hasten the destruction of its hopes and dreams, at WORST, I shudder to think what lies behind the Wizards curtain and what true Machiavellian schemes this all portends. Oz never gave anything to the scare-crow....that he didn't already have! We should be as equally willing to use ours as well, and read between the lines of her words and deeds. Shes doing all this at the behest of, and subject to, those, behind the scenes 'hidden-handlers' of hers, who want a return on their investments and absolutely NEED her to win----at all cost.
Hillarys followers DESPERATELY need to wake up, and realize they have danced the dance, been "the belle of the ball"--who sent the other debutants home--broken and defeated, but now, the PARTY'S OVER, the clock has struck twelve, the slipper is no longer glass, and its time to PAY THE BAND; but what have we found out about the 'Belle' of the Ball?
Alas, her pockets are as empty as her soul......and we're left holding the bill.
Gary Hart actually suggested
Don't cry
Overanalyzing
She's a poster child for petard hoisting
And not just backfiring in the Pennsylvania and national polls. The more slime she threw, the more Superdelegates have come out to endorse Obama.
Talk about being hoisted upon one's own petard! I predict that Hillary "Petard" Clinton's Presidential campaign will long be used as a teaching example of what primary candidates most not do.
As someone who watched the way she tragically bungled health care reform in the 1990s, I shouldn't have been so surprised to see her primary campaign crumble the way it did.
Although she said she learned a lot from the health care reform debacle, she didn't. Many of her faults then -- her unbridled arrogance, her Dick Cheney-like dependence on secrecy, her shameless dishonesty, and her stubborn Bush-like refusal to admit a mistake -- have done her in again.
Many of her supporters share some of these flaws. They're looking to blame anyone but Hillary for her failing. They're only fooling themselves.