User login

You DO NOT need to register to VIEW articles and comments. To add a comment you need to register. Registration is FREE!

Visit BuzzFlash on:

Facebook

and

MySpace

click here

See All The BuzzFlash Premiums

Right Wing Newsmax Takes Note that Bill Clinton is Campaigning for John McCain Again

Submitted by mark karlin on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 5:48pm.

EditorBlog

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

March 28, 2008

For sometime Bill and Hillary Clinton have been boosting the electability of John McCain by continuing to offer effusive praise of his character, his "maverick" nature, and his ability to be Commander-in-Chief.

Senator Clinton supporters remain blind to the two-pronged Clinton strategy of holding out some sliver of hope of grabbing the Democratic nomination or elevating McCain to such a pedestal that it will be that much extra work for Barack Obama to beat McCain. (Then Hillary Clinton would run for the presidency again in 2012 if McCain wins.) In fact, the Clinton homages to McCain appear so ill-advised as offered by someone running against him (and her spouse) that there has been speculation that if Senator Clinton doesn't get the Dem nomination, she might bolt and run on some sort of "dream team" fusion ticket with McCain. (Although that is a highly unlikely scenario because it would be rather challenging, to say the least, to get the Republican base to support such a move. But given McCain's age, he -- were he to win -- might be a one-term president, making Clinton the likely successor in 2012.)

But even the most ardent of Hillary Clinton supporters must in their hearts be puzzled by the following and unusually accurate excerpt from the right wing publication NewsMax, posted at 1:45 PM on March 28:

For the second time in a week, Bill Clinton offered high praise for Republican presidential nominee John McCain — the candidate who could end up squaring off against Clinton’s wife Hillary.
At a stop in rural Pennsylvania on Thursday, Bill told the gathering that McCain is a “moderate” who “has given all you can give for this country without dying for it.”
He said McCain is on the right side in opposing the torture of enemy combatants and on the global warming issue, which “just about crosses the bridge for [Republicans].”
Clinton also told the audience that the race should not about the past, but about who is going to do more for the country in the future, ABC News reported. That person, he said, is Hillary.
One week ago Clinton expressed similar sentiments at a gathering in North Carolina, calling McCain a war hero who had demonstrated his love for his country.
Clinton noted that McCain supported campaign finance reform and “he doesn’t think global warming is a myth … so it is not going to be all that easy to beat him.”
At that same campaign stop, Clinton angered the Barack Obama campaign by saying that McCain and Hillary share a love of America — without mentioning Obama.
“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,” he said.
“And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”
By not mentioning Obama, he suggested to some observers that he believes Obama’s patriotism is lacking.

What are the Clintons doing continuing to promote McCain's candidacy? It's getting to the point that Bill is coming close to pulling a Lieberman in terms of undercutting the Democratic Party in the 2008 election. He's trying to diss Obama and promote McCain at the same time.

To what end?

Whatever it is, it's not putting the Democratic Party and the country first. It's the Clintons hedging their bets at the expense of the Dems.

There's a point at which Senator Hillary Clinton supporters have to decide whether they are members of the Democratic Party or of the Clinton Party.

And we passed that point a long time ago.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

BuzzFlash Afternote: For the first time, ironically, on the same day -- and perhaps to offset Bill Clinton's remarks -- Senator Clinton actually said that any Democrat would be better than continued Republican rule. Will this be a one time defection from the Clinton Party, or is it a sign that some sense of Dem Party sanity is returning to the Clinton camp? Stay tuned.

Yman, You Bush Nazi Troll - Just Go

Submitted by drprodny on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 11:43pm.

You and your NeoKon blather are beyond dealing with by any decent Progressive any more - so just go suck McCain off like a good Rethug operative and leave the rest of us alone.

drprodny

Submitted by Thomas M on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 1:17pm.

You're not a Progressive, you're a far left leaning liberal!! You guys have been trying to take over the Democratic party for years. Is it any wonder why you've never ever won a election??? Your wonderful intelligent slander attacks on anyone that doesn't agree with you, proves your inability to govern a "Outhouse", much less the White House.

See your doctor

Submitted by askolnick on Mon, 04/07/2008 - 11:29am.

Gee Tom, I didn't realize drprodny was running for President.

While I may not have confidence in drprodny's ability to "govern the White House," I'm quite confident in Sen. Obama's

I also don't have much confidence in the medication you're taking. You better see your doctor and get it adjusted a.s.a.p.

Gotta know .....

Submitted by Yman on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 7:28am.

All by yourself? ............ or do you let your 11 year old stay up that late?

::"The Clinton Courts the Right Wing" propaganda editorial

Submitted by donnas on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 10:59pm.

donnas: I find it difficult to believe that Buzzflash has written an entire editorial based on article in Newsmax, which Buzzflash lists as a GOP propaganda site in its links section. Newsflash has never written a truthful article in its entire existence. If you want to know the truth about what Bill Clinton said go to Media Matters at this link: You can see word for word what he said. I think a retraction is in order. However, given your worship of Obama, I seriously doubt you'll do it. Also, I doubt you'll believe this, but your continuing attacks on Clinton are turning off a lot of voters, he'll need in November if he gets the nomination; because I'm beginning to believe that Obama actively encourages your untruthful attack on Clinton.

Could you ...

Submitted by Yman on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 11:14pm.

... post the link in a reply to this? I'd like to see the article and the link didn't register in your post.

As for BF issuing a retraction ......... that's a good one!

newsmax propaganda editorial

Submitted by donnas on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 3:41am.

donnas The link is: If this link doesn't print, go to Media Matters and open the Jamison Foser piece entitled "The media prove Bill Clinton right." If O does win the nomination, like his disciples maintain, I'll have a hard time voting for him, because I think Presidents should me considered men, not Gods; and I'm having a harder and harder time believing that he's not encouraging these propaganda pieces on Clinton. BTW, they both gave an economic speech and were pretty much identical on what they'd do and (this is very disturbing) they weren't that much different than McCain. Very discouraging.

Bill is confused

Submitted by ardie on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 12:39am.

Bill Clinton doesn't seem to know the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism. First, let me say that Obama is a Patriot while McCain is a Nationalist. So what is the difference?

First, Patriotism is the older term. The concept of Nationalism begins in the 18th century. How we use our passions towards our homeland is the main difference between the two.

At the core of Patrioism is compassion and respect for the Republic, that is, for the weal of the many. Patriotism is mainly concerned with liberty and justice for all. Moreover, it about toleration for our ethnic and cultural differences. American Patriotism doesn't ask the immigrant to shed their old culture. Patriotism doesn't say to the Italian immigrant,"Don't be Italian!". Far from it. Patriotism says, "You are free now to live a life you chose. But you must have respect for others, too. For they are your brothers who you will work with and share a life. And all of us must forge a more perfect connection with the sense of liberty and justice for all."

On the other hand, Nationalism is just a desire for power. But to accomplish this Nationalism requires conformity. It wants the nation to walk in lockstep with a certain kind of group-think. Everyone has to wear a flag on their lapel and make a public display of Nationalism. A good example of the abusive side of Nationalism is found it our own history and especially in our treatment of Native Americans. The policy of the U.S. was to rub out any sense of Native American identity. Every Native American has to be "white" and believe in the God of the white man. This is the evil side of Nationalism.

So Bill, get your facts straight. Senator McCain is no Patriot. He is a Nationalist who wants to be the champion of conformity, group-think and obedience. But Obama is a Patriot. (For more on this subject read, For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism by Maurizio Viroli: Clarendon, 1997)

Don't be too sure, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton

Submitted by bettysdad on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 8:22pm.

The idea that McCain will win, serve one term and then Hillary will be elected in 2012 leaves out one small detail: There are tens of millions of genuine Democrats out here with very detailed, very long memories. We will not forget Hillary's record, and her despicable behavior during these primaries. The Clinton's think we're idiots. They will be surprised.

Her polls plummet

Submitted by darlenem on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 9:37pm.

Her poll numbers are dropping fast and she's still not getting the message, or yes, they think we're idiots. Today she's yammering about Michigan and Florida, and as a Floridian who did vote even though I knew it wouldn't count, I want someone to ask her straight up: Where were you when this first happened? If you're so damned concerned about the voters of Michigan and Florida, where the hell were you when they first said they weren't going to seat the delegates and the votes wouldn't count? Oh, that's right -- I forgot! Silly me! She was signing the pledge that she agreed with the action and promised to not campaign in the state! But, now, you don't suppose she mis-signed back then, do you? Geez I am so damned sick of her and this crap she's tossing around. But really, truly, I want someone to ask her that on camera, why she never spoke up back then but can't keep her mouth shut now that she's behind and can't catch up without or even with the FL and MI votes! I want to hear her answer.

See, this is the perfect example ...

Submitted by Yman on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 10:33pm.

... of making up facts to attack Hillary Clinton. It's the kind of lie that has become all too common on Buzzflash. Darlenem seems to think that Hillary is a hypocrite for initially "pledging" that the Florida and Michigan votes would not count, and now demanding that they be counted. Sounds right, huh? I mean, I've seen it posted on BF before, so it's gotta be right. Problem is ........... it's a lie.

The candidates never agreed that the Florida and Michigan delegates would be denied seats. Clinton, Obama and Edwards all signed a pledge on September 1, 2007, agreeing not to campaign in any states holding a primary or caucus before Super Tuesday, other than Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The pledge states:

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

You can view the pledge here http://tinyurl.com/33xllv

The pledge says nothing about which delegates will count or not count in Florida and Michigan. It says nothing about whether a state's primary will count or not. They merely agreed not to campaign or participate in those states. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not that facts seem to make a difference anymore. At least not when it comes to Clinton-haters.

I stand by what I said

Submitted by darlenem on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 12:16am.

I still say: Hillary Clinton, if the voters of FL and MI are so important, where were you when the DLC disenfranchised them? Why weren't you raising a ruckus then about it being undemocratic? Why weren't you standing up for the rights of the voters then? And oh yes, she did agree that the delegates wouldn't be seated, because if she did not agree, she could have not signed the pledge, and loudly proclaimed exactly why she wasn't signing the pledge, and that would have been because she, Hillary Clinton, didn't believe that the DNC should disenfranchise any voters -- not in FL or MI, or anywhere else. And to take that stand, she could have refused to sign the pledge, and used her "machine" and mouthpieces to speak out against the disenfranchisment. But she didn't. Only now, when she is so far behind, does this matter to her. Even though it won't help her, she uses this for an excuse to keep pushing this rope. She has shown that she can expend a lot of energy on things she believes, and if she truly believes that what happened in MI and FL is undemocratic, she could have expended her energy right then, right when it happened, when it really and truly might have had an impact. I really don't hate her. What I am is sick and tired of her.

Ask yourself this.... Why

Submitted by Thomas M on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 1:56pm.

Ask yourself this.... Why is Obama afraid of a revote?? Why did he stonewall & kill the revote proposal? Why if you say he is a Uniter, he is suppressing millions of peoples votes? Why do you blame Hillary for everything, when your candidate is a coward?? Why would anyone want millions of votes not counted? It is still the "United States of America" isn't it?? Why is it you want Hillary to drop out? Why is it you want to break the "Biggest & Number One rule" requiring a certain amount of Delegates to win the nomination?? Why is it because Hillary can't get to the Magic number you want her to drop out?? Why is it you don't want Obama to drop out, because he can't get to the Magic number either?? Why is it that you don't understand there are people that are also sick & tired of the "Phony Messiah?"

I see ...

Submitted by Yman on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 7:36am.

By signing the pledge not to campaign, she was implicitly pledging that the delegates would not be seated? Wow ..... I better not sign that release to allow the pediatrician to treat my kids. She might say I implicitly gave her permission to keep them.

BTW - You do know that Obama wants the delegates seated too, right? Only he wants them divided equally. He signed the pledge not to campaign, too, so I guess he's violating his implicit pledge to deny the delegates a seat? You don't seem too upset by that.

Point proved .... facts don't matter to the Clinton-haters.

I stand by what I said

Submitted by donnas on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 4:02am.

donnas: ALL the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in Fla or MI. And yes, she does want the delegates seated because she would then be ahead in the popular vote and the delegates. However, Obama has also been meeting with both states trying to negotiate a deal for the delegates. Now I want you to show me what a hypocrite you are by telling me how what Obama's doing just makes him more of a saint, while Hillary doing the same thing makes her more evil. BTW, you might get farther with Clinton supporters, if you told us why we should vote for Obama, instead of why you hate Hillary.

monster attacks

Submitted by drphonic on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 4:30pm.

What really repulses me about the Clintons sucking up to McCain & the republican media is that not that long ago, they were persecuting them - the whole family - mercilessly. For years. The attacks she is making on Obama while letting McCain slide (for the most part) are disgraceful. The reality is that she will say anything to get elected. She is a disingenious powerhungry monster and I simply will not be voting if she gets the democratic nomination.

another McCain enabler

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 9:55am.

So, if Hillary is the nominee of the majority of Democrats at the convention in Denver, you will do all you can to enable MCain's election by refusing to vote. You Obama cult members are so childish. You would rather have four more years of Bush if you can't have your way. Just sit on your marbles, huh? Thank goodness there are still enough adults in this country to give us hope for universal healthcare, ending the war, bringing the Bush crime family to justice, etc, etc, etc.

nevermind *

Submitted by SaltyDawg on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 3:36pm.

*operator error

What A Candidate Can Do Right Now That'll Bring Us Victory

Submitted by crackerjack on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 2:09pm.

Call for an immediate truce in Iraq for the purpose of returning Iraq to the Iraqis plus peace negotiations to be held between the Iraqi resistance and our government. What about Iraq's puppet government? Why it can observe these negotiations like the obedient puppet that it is.

Bill Clinton was trash, is trash and always will be trash.

Submitted by elbajoeste on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 1:45pm.

All that's different now is there isn't a cyber-bubble to deaden the pain. Tell me, what did he do that was so wonderful except push through "welfare reform", NAFTA and its progeny and a lot of lying while giving us that fickle finger. He is now out in the open, undeterred and underturd. Not a good man at his best...and I don't think we've seen much of that. So what do you expect when it comes to chosing a path of honor over his usual path of collaboration?

underturd

Submitted by cagey on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 2:06pm.

ha ha. good one!

Who has the most to gain

Submitted by Chabuka on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 1:35pm.

if the "fight" between the Democratic candidates causes a "split" in the party....? Who would be the most likely candidate to win if the Democratic party ruptures itself...the GOP..thats who! Who owns and runs most all of the MSN..the people or the greedy corporations? Who has the power to keep petty little annoyances front and center, blown out of proportion, even manipulating the "thoughts and feelings" of the people...? Corporate media and right-wing think tanks!.. you guys are letting them do it....cutting your damn noses off to spite your faces..and in walks Bush # 3..McCain..just as the "corporate run government/media" wants...fools!

Stay tuned...

Submitted by cagey on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 12:20pm.

Hillary's comments to her supporters not to vote for McCain and that there are vast differences between them etc tells me that she's using McCain to diminish Obama more than anything. She's appealing to the anti-change crowd for the remaining primaries. Also, she may be counting on some huge scandal that will knock Obama out of the race completely, and that's why she's staying in.

Every day it becomes clearer...

Submitted by SaltyDawg on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 11:35am.

The Clintons don't care about anybody or anything except regaining power again.

If they have to wait out four years of John McCain... well, evidently he's not so bad, afterall.

Clinton vs. McCain

Submitted by Texgotham on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:59am.

You make it sound as if Obama is entitled to the Democratic nomination by divine right. He boasts about taking the red states, caucus states without early voting. Okay, let's poll Utah, Kansas, Indiana and Idaho on a match-up of Obama vs. McCain. Obama's BS campaign about change and hope, well change is a constant and if you want hope, go to church. This is a guy who hangs around in a church whose preacher's litany is anti-American, praise of Farrakhan and even escorts the guy to Libya where Luis gets a 5 million dollar loan from Khadafi to do God only knows what. By the way, Obama was on the platform when some rock star gave a gay bashing tirade and didn't open his mouth. Together with Mrs. Obama got a free ride to Harvard and Princeton and never before felt any pride in America.

Maybe you should move

Submitted by bettysdad on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 8:24pm.

There are loads of right-wing sites you could post at without clogging Buzzflash with your racist, fascist crap.

no facts please

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 10:02am.

The Obama cult is so childish that they do not want to hear anything but boosterism for their guy. To hell with what the majority of Democrats may decide in Denver in August. If you are not for their man (women not allowed), then you are a fascist and should not try to bring reason to the discussion. Most of these Obamaniacs are Republican's to begin with you have never posted here before and now think that this is their domain. Truth and facts be damned.

BC said McCain was a moderate? Nope ...

Submitted by Yman on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:31am.

Has anyone noticed that BF has a habit of pulling words out of context when it comes to the Clintons? One example. I had the TV on while reading this post, and I saw a clip on MSNBC from Bill Clinton's speech. He did NOT say he thought McCain was a "moderate", as Mark claims above. Speaking of the risk of McCain's potential appeal to independents, and after mentioning several issues where McCain disagreed with the far right, BC actually said "In Republican circumstances, that makes him a moderate." So BC doesn't think McCain is a moderate. He thinks that BY REPUBLICAN STANDARDS McCain may be able to appeal to some independents.

But I guess if your going to rely on Newsmax and Drudge for your information, it's easy to understand.

Yman, the shameless Repugnican troll

Submitted by askolnick on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 12:19pm.

Yman, the shameless Repugnican troll is like the Everready Bunny. He keeps going and going and going...

This has got to be one of his silliest apologetics. He claims:

"He did not say he thought McCain was a 'moderate' as Mark claims above."

Clinton didn't call McCain a "moderate"? Really? Then what WAS the word Bill Clinton used to describe McCain? No one needs to use Newsmax (no matter how much the Clinton campaign likes to distribute Newsmax hatchet pieces). Here for example is the ABC News headline:

Clinton Praises "Moderate" McCain
ABC News report

Hmmm. ABC News seems to have placed quotation marks around "Moderate." I think we can take that to mean Bill Clinton called McCain a "moderate."

Notice how this troll doesn't even try to address the editor's point that Bill and Hillary are continuing to speak in favor and build up the Republican Presidential nominee instead of pointing out his serious, disqualifying flaws.

Yman's purpose on Buzzflash is to obfuscate and distract, to help keep Clinton's attacks on the Democrat's likely nominee going as long as possible, and hopefully gut the Democratic party's chance of regaining the White House and more seats in Congress.

Come on, Andy ...

Submitted by Yman on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 12:40pm.

... I know you can read. Pulling one word out of a statement does not mean BC thinks Mccain is a "moderate," even if you put it in quotes. I'll make it easier for you. Let's say, Askolnick says that "By nazi standards, Himmler was a pretty decent guy." Does that mean, by pulling out the word "decent" and putting it in quotes, I am correct in saying that Askolnick believes Himmler was a "decent" guy?

Guess that's okay with you ........... or is it only okay when it's done to Bill or Hillary Clinton?

Danger! Troll at Work

Submitted by askolnick on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 2:08pm.

No, you Repugnican troll. Bill Clinton never said anything like that. He never said, "By Nazi standards, John McCain is a moderate." He never mentioned anything about Nazis.

According the NBC News and other news sources, Bill Clinton praised John McCain as a "moderate" who "has given about all you can give for this country without dyin' for it."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-praises.html

Yman, if you were to say that "Heinrich Himmler was a pretty decent guy," I wouldn't be shocked. We've seen other crazy, right-wing comments from you. But please don't attribute such hypothetical comments to Clinton or to me.

Seriously, Andy ...

Submitted by Yman on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 2:26pm.

... you CAN read, can't you? Of course BC never said anything about Nazis. It's called an analogy. BC said "IN REPUBLICAN CIRCUMSTANCES, that makes him a moderate." That doesn't mean that Bill Clinton thinks he's a moderate.

I thought you were one of those ivy-league journalists ... I'd be lookin' for a tuition refund if I were you.

Yman - Read My Earlier Comment

Submitted by drprodny on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 11:44pm.

Just go, you Right Wing DLC apologist.

I'm still reading it ...

Submitted by Yman on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 7:40am.

... to make sure I don't miss any of its deeply profound message and clever, subtle subtext.

(You mean the "Go suck off McCain" post, right?)

everyone is a troll

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 12:24pm.

If you don't support Obama, you must be a Republican troll. Troll is an old gay term for people like assholenick who are too stupid to join in an adult discussion. But, that response from assholenick is the best he can do. He in not capable of forming sentences or making a cogent posting. Let's not make fun of the retarded and mentally challenged, please. He is very paranoid about anyone who says something intelligent.

You and me too Mark?

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:28am.

"By not mentioning Obama, he suggested to some observers that he believes Obama’s patriotism is lacking."

He didn't mention Buzzflash or Mark Karlin or me either. Do you suppose he was impugning our patriotism too? I am incensed! Come to think of it, he didn't even mention George Washington or Thomas Jefferson either. How dare he say that they were not patriotic?

And the Republican ticket will be John McCain - Jeb Bush, so please get off your Karl Rove high horse about Hillary Clinton being a turncoat. Don't you guys know anything, or are you just so intent on bashing the Clinton's every day until McCain wins the White House that you can't see reality anymore?

It is amazing to me that Buzzflash used to be my favorite Website and homepage. Remember when you were a collection of links to actual news reporting and events rather than the cesspool of anti-Clinton hate and vitriol that you have become?

This troll's an idiot!

Submitted by askolnick on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 11:44am.

RobertJones sneers:

"[Bill Clinton] didn't mention Buzzflash or Mark Karlin or me either. Do you suppose he was impugning our patriotism too? I am incensed!"

Hey, troll, are you or Mark a candidate for President of the U.S. in 2008?

What an idiot.

He is to be pitied

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 12:19pm.

assholenick is the doing the best he can do. He in not capable of forming sentences or making a cogent posting. Let's not make fun of the retarded and mentally challenged, please. He is very paranoid about anyone who says something intelligent.

Sorry dbaragona We are NOT all Democrats

Submitted by phred42 on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:05am.

I voted for Bill Clinton Twice. But given the choices at the time it was a vote against the Reich-wing and not FOR Clinton. Bill Clinton was the best Republican President since Eisenhower. And still is. Starting with Wild Bill who started the Corporate bound republican-lite DLC and gave us WTO, GAT, NAFTA, Telecommunications Act and others anti-American legislation. If you think these are the products of a Democratic world view then YOU are probably NOT a Democrat. These are the ravings of a Republican. Hillary Was a Cheerleader for NAFTA and lately has not only Lied about it but has lied to US about her telling the Canadians not to worry about her anti-NAFTA speeches in this country - THEN LIED again and tried to lay that anti-Democtatic turd on Obama. Hillary has made her Faustian deals with Mellon-Scaife and Murdock to name two, but there are others. Then she publicly says that she is getting better coverage from FOX - well no shit! Doesn't it worry you in the least that she is backed by Elite Reich-wingers like Mellon-Scaife, Murdock, Limbaugh etc, etc? The Clintons support of Grandpa McNumbnuts have been overt, often and obvious. Hagel was on CNN this week talking about the need for a third party and a Bi-Partisan ticket in November. Get it? Somje are Democrats, and some only say they are Democrats. Actions speak louder than words - right? Have a subjective look at the actions rather than the words and you'll find a pair of Moderate republicans - not Progressive Democrats.

Where do you get one of those...

Submitted by Yman on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:12am.

... "true Democrat" detectors, or one of those "true progressive" detectors. Seems like all the Clinton haters have them, and I'm feeling a little left out.

Can you get them on Ebay?

Nice dodge and redirect

Submitted by phred42 on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:17am.

Worthy of a right-wing talk show. Now try to address the points made and tell me you don't get it.

No, seriously ....

Submitted by Yman on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:37am.

... Target? Costco? Maybe in one of the higher-end stores?

true or not

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 11:59am.

the only way to find out if you are a "true democrat", Yman, is to politely ask phred42 or any other Obama supporter. But I can tell you that if you are not a member of the Obamamania cult, you are very suspect

Only and idiot or a Repugnican troll can't tell

Submitted by askolnick on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 12:28pm.

Only an idiot or Repugnican troll doesn't recognize that no true Democrat would EVER campaign for the Republican Presidential nominee, as Bill and Hillary Clinton are doing.

No Democrats would EVER praise the Republican nominee. They point out the flaws and other problems that disqualify him for the Presidency.

Only an idiot or a Repugnican troll doesn't recognize this.

Is it Repugnican trolls ...

Submitted by Yman on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 2:30pm.

... or DemocRat trolls? Will the detector give a different signal for each one? What does the "idiot" alarm sound like when you turn it on, Andy?

Should be all a Hillary supporter needs to know

Submitted by smchris on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 9:42am.

If Billary calls Mr. "100 years of war, torture is evil (or is it?), campaign finance reform is essential (except for me)" a "moderate" then you deserve everything you will surely receive with eight years of BIllary. Can we talk? Reagan didn't "bring down the Soviet Union". And Bill Clinton didn't "usher in eight years of unprecedented prosperity". That is blindly adhering to the "big man" theory of history. I would ask you to consider theories of history that encompass broader socio-economic factors. The idea that if Hitler hadn't existed, someone similar would have lead the German people into something similar out of the anguish of their hyperinflationary depression. Without writing a book, in Clinton's case he was president at the peak of one of the largest demographic migrations in U.S. history as people moved from rural areas to urban areas and from union, small business and agricultural work to non-union service and "pink-collar" work. It was the second industrial revolution -- not with steam but with computers, the "information age". And it was a second "Golden Age" that blossomed billionaires. Bill Clinton caused that? Did he really? Did he invent the PC? Windows? Excel? Do he initiate forced marches of people from rural areas into non-union work in the cities? Really, Bill Clinton caused the second industrial revolution? I mean, wow. I know Al Gore invented the internet but Bill Clinton being personally responsible for western civilization's second industrial revolution is a pretty big claim folks. What I _do_ remember from the last time we had Clintons is that we didn't get universal health care like the first-world nations have and we did get NAFTA and GATT trade agreements that we are treating with the constitutional authority of treaties. Wake up, folks. Bush, of course, is in complete agreement with Clintonian global economic policies, but if he _were_not_, BUSH could be seen as the victim inheriting the disaster of CLINTON'S global economics. Yeah, let's get eight more years of sucking America dry. Long as it's a kinder, gentler Massa who promises extra corn bread at supper. That's Hillary.

Newsmax

Submitted by dbaragona on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 9:22am.

Good for you wrando, Buzzflash better get on the ball and remember we are all Democrats...They have their nose so far up Obama's ass they can't see straight...I'm a Clinton supporter who will certainly vote for Obama if she loses...I don't know how she's doing as well as she is with the likes of vertually every news and TV outlets blasting her...How is she winning these big states??...Granted, the Florida and Michigan legislature screwed up when they tried to move their primaries up, but you can bet if we had a revote, Hillary would win big in those states...Why??..Obama would certainly out spend her and he can't blame name recognition anymore...It's understable why Obama is cool towards a revote...But, what's he afraid of??...Hell, he's got all the money and the media on his side...Could it be the voters are not all that stupid and are not all taken in by the media bias??...Can anyone imagine Obama chucking it in if he was in Hillary's shoes??...No way, and I wouldn't expect him to...If Hillary doesn't win Penn, NC, WV and Indiana, then I think she will give up and you can guarantee she'll tell all her supporters to vote for Obama...In so many words, she already has

You, Democrats? Democrats do not praise McCain

Submitted by askolnick on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 9:41am.

dbaragona asks:

"Could it be the voters are not all that stupid and are not all taken in by the media bias??."

No, they're certainly not stupid. That's why Obama received the majority of votes in 2/3rds of the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

That's why Obama is so far ahead in the popular vote, Hillary is given very little chance of catching up.

That's why Obama is so far ahead in delegates won that Hillary has no chance of catching up.

That's why more than 2 million Americans have already sent their small contributions to Obama's campaign.

While Obama's campaign has more than $35 million in the bank, Hillary, who relies on big contributions from special interests -- like the banking and war industries -- is close to broke.

She has to borrow from the personal treasures she and Bill have amassed since leaving the White House.

By the way, Buzzflash's readers are also not stupid.

askolnick & Buzzflash's Rev. Wright rants.

Submitted by Thomas M on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 10:50am.

You are right about Obama having many more small donors than Clinton. The point is that he claims he is not taking money from Lobbyists. When you bundle money, techinally you can say that. But it is not really true. Many, many lobbyists are in the bundled money donations. Hillary does it too. Even John Edwards. He had big time money behind him from the trial Lawyers. They lobby Congress a whole bunch. All it is, is money laundering. And Obama is at the top of the list doing it. If you think about it, Obamas campaign said they were spending a million dollars a day, no way you can do that with small donors. At $109.00 average small donor, and they claim they have hit 1 million donors, that's $109 million dollars. That would last him a little over 3 months. There's stuff all over the internet if you look hard enough. Whether Obama does it, or Hillary does it, Our White house is bought every election. This is not a reason to not vote for him, but maybe a reason not to believe everything Politicians say. It's a shame our elections are run on big money. It's also a shame that Obama supporters believe everything that comes out of Obama's mouth. He has looked you in the eye on National TV & lied many times, yet you won't admit it or even discuss it. You would rather change the subject & bash Hillary. Even to the point of making excuses & accepting Rev. Wrights rants & anti American hate sermons. Republicans have always had a platform that Democrats are not Patriotic. Seems to me they are right, at least for part of our party. I would think if 28% of Hillary supporters say they will not vote for Obama, & 19% of Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary, you could do the math & tone it down with the Hillary bashing. You guys have messed with 60% of the voters (women) with your Hillary bashing. Not too smart in hindsight. I know those numbers won't be that high in the general election, but they will be substantial. Think about it. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/NATION/579478775/1001technically http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/obama_now_has_300plus_bundlers.html

askolick & buzzflash's rev. wright rants

Submitted by donnas on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 4:15am.

donnas: Obama's taking just as much money from Wall Street and financial institutions as Hillary. Kind of puts a dent in his purity factor, huh. Oops, I forgot, It's OK when Obama does it , but evil if Hillary does it.

Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

User login

Right Wing Newsmax Takes Note that Bill Clinton is Campaigning for John McCain Again

Navigation

Search

Syndicate

BuzzFlash on Twitter