Now that's what one might call a heckuva coincidence. A handful of weeks ago, Bill Clinton disentangles his investment partnership with billionaire Ron Burkle, producing an estimated $20 million windfall. And now we learn that the suddenly flush Clintons are loaning Hillary's campaign $5 million from their joint assets to bridge it through a funding rough patch.
Talk about windfalls. This is a veritable bonanza not only for enterprising reporters and snoopy researchers, but also for any Republican candidate that could potentially face Hillary in November -- if she wins the nomination. That is, if she doesn't first drown in a sea of sleaze of her own making.
This newest episode in the Clinton finances opens up a field of questions that could make Whitewater and Hillary's long-forgotten but near-magical touch in commodity trading look like kid's stuff. And with a lot of time to kill between now and November, there's going to plenty of opportunity to rake through it all. Make that, parse through it, as it is the Clintons we're talking about....
Read the rest here.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Marc -
I’d love to see Obama beat Clinton, but I don’t think that collection of innuendo and attitude is going to do the trick. It doesn’t make Whitewater ‘look like kid stuff’; it is kid stuff –just as Whitewater proved to be.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Why, Hillary hasn’t even begun to tap the Chinese for contributions, despite the early “generous contributions” to her from Chinese cooks and dishwashers!
There is a lot of U.S. missile and defense technology left that Bill didn’t sell to the Chinese earlier. That could be worth a least another million or two along with a gift to the Clinton Lie-brary.
If the Clinton’s need money, they’ll find a way to get it. I don’t care what happens…that couple is so power mad that they will do whatever it takes and ruin whoever they have to so that they can get back into the government housing on Pennsylvania Avenue.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
It’s sad to see what the presidential campaign has done to Marc as a journalist.
His latest bluderbuss of innuendo blasted in Hillary’s direction represents rock bottom and should be used at USC as an example of how unsubstantiated allegations undermine a journalist’s credibility.
I recall that “Off the Bus” was supposed to be some kind of new approach to campaign journalism. But there’s nothing new under Marc’s byline, other than perhaps the lack of standards for substantiating allegations of corruption. Vitriol is the only thing distinguishing Marc’s reports from what everyone else has been doing for years in the mediocre media’s campaign coverage.
Actually, the tabloids have been doing it Marc-style for years, although off their columnists tend to lean a little more on wit and prose style.
The one allegation that at least has the benefit of compelling logic is that the rightist portion of the mediocre media will indeed fling all manner of unsubstantiated allegation against Hillary, just as Marc has done here.
But did the whitewater-vincefostermurder-cattlegate stream of unconciousness psuedo-journalism babble actually hurt the Clinton presidency? If it had, do you think Ken Starr would have seized on Blowjobgate?
The record shows Bill Clinton was indeed hurt by the Lewinsky scandals, but the nonstop media caterwauling about whitewater, etc. actually inoculated Clinton politically. The American people are smart enough to figure out that it was all overhyped, and so they already know to discount what the Clinton’s more fevered critics declaim.
Bill Clinton left office amid unprecedented peace and prosperity. But the hardest part for hatchet jobbers like Marc to swallow is that he did so with record-high average approval ratings.
Come November, Hillary should be elated that the press wants to rehash the previous Clinton administration. The more they want to talk about that, the more she can point to all the good that came out of it.
Moreover, a lot of pundits are pointing to exit polling showing Hillary getting support from women who’s sympathies for Hillary were sealed by the very kind of sleazy attacks Marc oozes.
Hillary’s close to unelectable because of her stance on Iraq. Blowing wind about these pseudo-scandals actually helps her obscure that and gives her some legitimacy in presenting herself as martyred by unethical journalists.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
There is certainly reason to be concerned about potential conflicts of interest that could arise between what is good for Bill Clinton and his foundation and the public good that a president Hillary Clinton would be sworn to protect. However, I would have to agree that Marc is jumping over the Snake River on a Vespa to reach the conclusion that the $5MM personal loan is dirty money.
That said, there was something odd in the way she cheerfully announced her ‘investment” yesterday. I have read some rumors that she is going this route to set a blasting cap under her supporters to cough up new money. That makes sense to me. But I know of no evidence whatever that either the dissolution of the Burkle/Clinton partnership nor the Kazakhstan deal have anything remotely to do with it.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
bunkebuster: Bill Clinton left office amid unprecedented peace and prosperity.
Saddam Hussein was still out of control and the U.S. had officially entered a recession. What he left us certainly was not “unprecedented.”
February 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
According to Bill Clinton, self-financing a presidential campaign is bad, but it depends upon the definition of bad and who’s doing it.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
So, Woody…gonna vote for McCain?
February 7th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Do the math, Woody.
Economic growth under Clinton averaged 3.7 percent, almost double the 2.1 percent average growth under Bush I, 50 percent better than Bush II’s 2.4 percent average, and north of Reagan’s 3.4 percent average.
But those are just the headline numbers. You’ve got to also look at what was actually going on with the economy. In the case of Bush II and Reagan, growth was artificially, unsustainably inflated with the economic steroid of simultaneous tax cuts and runaway spending increases.
Clinton’s growth was fueled far more by increases in productivity, the only sustainable engine of prosperity.
Do the math, Woody.
When you do, it will be obvious to you that the economy has historically grown slower under Republicans and, even that slower growth is obtained mostly by borrowing and spending rather than by sensible economic development policies and fiscal responsibility.
True enough, the economy had slowed for two straight quarters at the end of Clinton’s presidency. But it was coming off an unprecedented string of positive growth, both quarterly and annual, and was triggered more by Greenspan’s inexplicably rapid interest rate increases than by anything Clinton had direct control over.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Sorry to rain on your parade Marc but those reports turn out to be somewhat, shall we say, inaccurate. Clinton has no raied sufficient cash since Supercailfragilstic Tuesday to take care of expenses. If there was a “loan” it was in the form of a “Bridge” arraingement to cover short-term liquidity problems. John Kerry did the same in 2004 before Iowa and it was a lot more serious. Oh, and the staffers are getting paid. It seems some volunteered to go without the checks if NEEDED – but that is not any issue.
I’m afraid our genial host just wasted some bits in his continued diatribes of things Clontonian. But I’ll give give him honorable mention in the “Jeff Gerth/Howell Raines” Memorial Clinton Deraingement Reporting Derby.
As the Church Lady would say : “Never Mind!”
February 7th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
rlc, Emily Latilla was the SNL character who said, “Nevermind.”
bunkerbuster, you said LEFT OFFICE, which is a snapshot in time, like a balance sheet. At that point, the U.S. had officially entered a recession and Clinton had finished writing memos to Sandy Berger to ignore bin Laden. I don’t give Clinton credit for the dotcom bubble, which was an artificial and temporary boost to the economy.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Gosh Woody my mind is sure playing tricks on me! Of course it was Emily.
Oh, never mind!
February 7th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“I don’t give Clinton credit for the dotcom bubble.”
Very good point, Woody.
The spectacular growth in the Clinton era had little or nothing to do with the dotcom stock bubble.
But here’s where you show that, after all, you haven’t done the math:
“[the dotcom bubble] was an artificial and temporary boost to the economy.”
You still haven’t done the math, Woody. Soaring stock prices do not add to GDP! Profits do, production does. And the dotcom companies had virtually no profits–which is why they collapsed–and produced little or nothing.
The spectacular Clinton-era growth in jobs creation, personal income and productivity were driven primarily by low real interest rates–made possible by fiscally responsible budget balancing–cheap oil and rapidly surging trade with China and Latin America.
“bunkerbuster, you said LEFT OFFICE, which is a snapshot in time, like a balance sheet.”
It sure is, Woody, and the government’s balance sheet was better the day Clinton left office, than at any time since the 1950s!! Do the math, then get back to us.
GDP, the basis of determining a recession, isn’t a “snapshot in time” at all. In fact, it’s backward looking. It tells you what happened in the past, not what is happening at that point in time.
Do that math, Woody. Then tell us where you stand.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
bunker, I did the math. I don’t want to take any more chances with a Clinton back in office.
Jim Hitchcock, I’m a man without a party. I might vote for the Green Party candidate, even though Californians in that primary voted for Nader over our beloved Cynthia McKinney (Marc’s secret fantasy.) I was misled by a so-called conservative Bush. I won’t be easily fooled the second time.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
“I was misled by a so-called conservative Bush.”
“I was misled by a so-called conservative Bush.”
“I was misled by a so-called conservative Bush.”
“I was misled by a so-called conservative Bush.”
“I was misled by a so-called conservative Bush.”
“I was misled by a so-called conservative Bush.”
Bears repeating…”I was misled by a so-called conservative Bush.”
February 7th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
As an additional gesture of credit where it’s due, I should add that Woody also had sensible comments today about Sam Cooke over on WitnessLA.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
“I was misled by a so-called conservative Bush. I won’t be easily fooled the second time.”
You mean a third time. Unless you voted for John Kerry. Or Ralph Nader.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
[...] Hillary’s $5 Million Dump (Truck) [...]
February 7th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Marc: Are you the one who wrote, back in 1992 or so, that “Bill Clinton is as dirty as an ant farm” or something close to that? I have always remembered those words, which had an effect on me; I still supported Bill in the fall, 1992 election campaign, but with that grain of salt. I think the Clinton presidency shows that personal sleeze and policy setting are not always precisely linked. I tend to think that Clinton, B was a standard-issue southern politician trying to make a living (ie: accepting a few favors) after coming up the hard way. His dutiful wife seems to have embraced that ethic even though she came from a middle-west, middle-class background and four years of college life which began in the more or less pastoral 1965 (at least out Route 16 to Wellesley) and ended in the blood-soaked cultural turmoil of 1969. The problem I have with Hillary is that I am tired of knowing that I can never take anything the president says seriously, for fear that it is another evasion or distortion. I would like to think that Obama has a chance to bring a little bit of the sense of shame back to the office. I think we had that with all of our presidents since Hoover until Nixon. Even Reagan, as wrong as he was about so many things, seemed to have at least a minimal sense of personal honor. I think that this is what people sense in Obama and perhaps in McCain.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Seems that Mayor Antonio’s supports are not saying much about his sellout. Clinton over Obama. Looking to move up?
February 8th, 2008 at 7:36 am
To avoid having a bad Republican elected as President, the Democrats have to put up a candidate who is not more objectionable.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Woody’s blog has one of the most shameful racist images I have ever seen.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I find it refreshing to come over each mornin g to our genial host’s site so I can get my days hate session against the Clintons over as fast as possible. BTW is it Oceania that we’re at war with today?
February 8th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Dadgum, jcummings. Lighten up. If that is one of the “most shameful racist images” you’ve ever seen, then you haven’t seen much.
G.M. hasn’t seen that post, yet. If he agrees with you, he’ll remove it.
I didn’t see it as a race issue but as something where Hillary fantasizes about her victory. Maybe you’re one of the people who have to see race in everything–more like Al Sharpton rather than Charles Barkley, the future governor of Alabama.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I went back and looked at the picture, jcujmmings. I think that you’re possibly trying to pull that typical liberal stunt of trying to shut down discussion of petending to be offended–a typical trick that I don’t accept. I could be wrong, though, although I rarely am.
I forwarded your concern, without mentioning your name, to G.M. and a couple of liberal buddies to get their take. If they agree with you, I’ll take it down, but I refuse to go to sensitivity training.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:17 am
That’s odd, rlc. I pop in each morning at genial host’s site so I can get my days defense of the undefendable for the Clintons over as fast as possible.
Thanks for not disappointing.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Its not an old liberal trick of shutting down discussion. Its my own response to the image that calls to mind nostalgia, among Southerners, for a time when Black people did nothing more than drive Miss Daisy, itself a horrifyingly racist film, as Spike Lee pointed out.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Would you post an image of a stereotypical Jew in place of, say, Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold?
February 8th, 2008 at 11:57 am
The world is upside down! You’re nuts jc. I found the image funny!
(God, defending Woody of all people!!)
February 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
And jc, when Spike Lee apologizes for the Jewish club owners in “Mo’ Better Blues” or explains why Clint East can’t make a film about Charl;ie Parker cause he’s a honkie then m aybe, just maybe, I’ll listen to him on racism in cinema.
(And I found “Driving Miss Daisy” bathetic.)
February 8th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Calling ‘Driving Miss Daisy’ a racist film is just plain silly. It’s a movie depicting the racism of the time, that’s all.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
And I’m with rlc.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Spike’s portrayals of Jews are entirely realistic given who ran the clubs at that time. We find it Anti=Semitic because we’re not using to seeing Jewish “bad guys” pace Hyman Roth.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The only thing that disapoints me about Spike Lee is his extricating Malcolm X’s involvemnt with the SWP from the (Jewish written) script for Malcolm X.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Woody -
I suppose the racist-ness of the image depends on your point of view. If you’re using it to suggest that Hillary (and maybe most liberals) have a patronizing attitude towards African Americans (unlike good, honest, tough-minded conservatives) — if that’s the point of the joke, then it’s not racist. Dumb, maybe. Heavy-handed for sure, but not racist.
Just out of curiosity, what do you see as the point of the joke here?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Yeah right, jc, all those club owners were Haisds and went around saying “Oi Vey!”.
Here’s a homework assignment for you – put down your “Marx for Dummies” and find out who owned the Cotton Club.
Hint: forget images from “Fiddler on the Roof”
February 8th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“Marx for Dummies?”
Geez. I plead guilty to perhaps stupidity in my remarks here but I don’t read “for dummies” books. Also, coming from a Canadian Jewish family, with all that entails, I know quite well how that world operate(s) or (d).
February 8th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
The prez’nit always gets vastly too much credit and vastly too much blame for the state of the economy, depending on what that state is.
Let’s not forget that fiscal and monetary policies are big, stupid sledge hammers, that can have some effects in the short-term, but a president hardly has much power over the state of things in a 4 year cycle.
Bill was over prasied for the 90′s Carter over vilified for the 70′s. Was Carter responsible for the moves of OPEC? Not especially.
They are respoonsible in the long run for things like NAFTA (thanks Bill), and endless deficit spending (credit duly given to Bill here), and the over reliance on the housing industry and consumer debt as the drivers of economic growth.
But to suggest Clinton deserves much more than a handful of credit is to go too far. I’d give more credit to the folks who built Bell Labs and the government that protected that monopoly so we could have cell phones and lasers and the transistor which brought us so much of the economic gain in the 90′s. Bill didn’t do that.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
“the (Jewish written) script for Malcolm X”
Arnold Perl, the Jewish guy credited along with Spike Lee on the Malcolm X screenplay had been dead more than 20 years when the film was produced. James Baldwin had also written a version that influenced Lee’s scripte and would have been credited as well had the executors of his estate allowed. For whatever reason – probably because it wasn’t wholly Baldwin’s script – they refused. I think this was Lee’s version of the story, with him acknowledging the contributions of predecessors.
As for not including a scene in the film of Malcolm being introduced as featured speaker at an SWP Miitant Labor Forum by one of the Camejo brothers, I too am mystified why Spike Lee passed over the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to capture the inherent drama of such an awesome historical moment. Arnold Perl undoubtedly censored it out of his version, of course, because he was an old blacklisted “Stalinist.” (Perl, incidentally, was responsible for perhaps the most provocative dramatic series – of its time – ever to make it to broadcast television: East Side, West Side, starring George C. Scott and Cicely Tyson as social workers in NYC back around 1963. Great show that some network affiliates in the South refused to carry.)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
You’re probably right about Perl. I agree on East Side West Side. Much great television was produced by refugees from the Blacklist. A few years ago I worked on a Jewish Community funded research project involving Blacklistees – my favorite being Abraham Polonsky – and indeed many of them were Pro-Soviet (ie in Trot speak “Stalinist”)…I tend to buy Lukacs’ neither Leon nor Josef position. That said, Joseph Losey was a true Stalinist, his wretched film on the Assasination of Trotsky manages to presetn Ramon Mercador with sympathy. Aside from The Servant I’m not a big fan of his.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Off topic, but it might be some fun chum for all the Hitchens haters here. I had the distinct pleasure of seeing him debate some fellow named Rabbi Shmuley Boteach about God and religion at the 92nd St. Y. Boteach did as passable a job as he could in defending his hopeless position, but he was overmatched, even as I tried to give him the benefit.
But mainly I left entirely impressed with Hitchens. He is a superb public speaker, and, although a touch boorish at times, he displays great wit and seemingly endless erudition. He’s just damn entertaining, and his poise and clarity and fluidity in public speaking are nearly unmatched.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I agree on Hitchens. A great speaker
Pity he’s on the wrong side of the most important issue of the time, has backed himself into such a corner that he’s had to change topics and reinvent himself as scourge of Jehovah, even repeating a myth about Orthodox Jews and bedsheets.
The fucker made his peace with capitalism and empire and killing Muslims. But yeah, he’s still a great speaker. I remember being a 14 year old kid and seeing him fulminate against the first Gulf War on CNN, and started to read The Nation that month for that reason. When Hitchens spoke on behalf of Palestinians, people listened. Too bad he’s now on the same side as most people he passionately opposed, like David Horowitz and Norman Podhoretz. Whats more, he has lost any hope of having a serious legacy. He’s on the losing side in terms of reputation.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I’ve been getting Emails from Hillary all day. Really!
> Dear (“Reg”)
>I wish I could find the words to express how
> grateful I am for the support you have given me…
My response: Dear Senator,
It sure must be hard to find the words because I don’t
support you. Clintonism is a drag on the Democratic
party (“The era of big government is over”) and
counting on you to reform health care would be like
hiring Donald Rumsfeld to re-fight the Iraq war.
Sincerely,
(“Reg”)
February 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Ripped from Talking Points Memo:
Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) stars in a new radio spot for Hillary Clinton in the state he represented, promoting her record on securing health care for children and National Guardsmen. “So when Hillary Clinton says she’ll get health care for every American, I know she’ll do it,” Breaux says. “And boy, do we need it.”
There is one wrinkle with Breaux’s presence in the ad, and his talk about health care: Breaux became a lobbyist since leaving the Senate three years ago, first with Patton-Boggs and now his new firm with Trent Lott. Among Breaux’s clients, according to media reports as recent as December 2007, is none other than Wal-Mart.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I don’t give a damn about the “he-said, she-said, Chris Mathews-said” aspect of this campaign. The fact is that electing Hillary Clinton puts the Democrats in the lock-grip of “our” corporate wing. Totally unacceptable. The only thing worse would be John McCain. And with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter vowing to help elect Clinton, one wonders just how much worse it would actually be. (I’ll vote for “any Dem but Lieberman”, but let’s get real about the consequences of Hillary winning this nomination – even if she manages to beat McCain, which several current polls suggest she won’t be able to do.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Maybe if you did your school work JC, instead of leaving endless serial adolescent droppings here, interrupted only briefly for the daily Young Canadian Communist meetings, you might one day qualify to pour Hitchen’s drinks.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Spike’s portrayals of Jews are entirely realistic given who ran the clubs at that time. We find it Anti=Semitic because we’re not using to seeing Jewish “bad guys†pace Hyman Roth.
What utter crap.
Jazz and jazz musicians of all races had no better friends than Max Gordon and Alfred Lion. The only criminal one I’m aware of is Morris Levy, but the others were first and foremost fans of the music.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:32 am
“Maybe if you did your school work JC…you might one day qualify to pour Hitchen’s drinks”
Don’t you mean “upper body work” in order to qualify for that rather arduous task ?
February 9th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Another rip from TPM on the MSNBC flap:
“Unlike pretty much everyone else on the chat shows (David Shuster’s) a reporter who consistently does pretty solid investigative pieces. But regardless of that, who can name me the last political chat show host or reporter who was suspended over anything? To say that he’s being held to a different standard than TV chatters normally are is probably a farcical statement in itself since I’m not clear that there are any standards.
“Does anyone watch Fox News?
“On the other hand, many have rightly criticized Chris Matthews for his repeatedly degrading, often sexist and consistently clownish comments about Hillary Clinton. The most logical way for me to understand this development is that MSNBC is under a lot of fire for Matthews — but Matthews is untouchable — and Shuster’s easier to can or suspend. “
February 9th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Two bad signs for Obama:
Is anyone surprised?
Next….
D.C. Council member (and former Mayor) Marion Barry will endorse Barack Obama for president later this week.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:48 am
evets, there are various ways to look at the “Driving Miss Hillary” picture, but I saw it as Hillary’s fantasy of beating and humiliating her opponent. The WalMart bag was a plus. Obama is no one’s boy.
Regarding the movie, consider these lines:
Hoke?
Yes’m.
You’re my best friend.
No… go on, Miss Daisy.
No, really, you are… You are.
Yes’m.
That doesn’t reek of racism to me. It has a message about respect and change.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:21 am
I don’t know. From what I know of people who knew him when, it doesn’t take much (to the brim) to pour Hitchen’s drinks.
I’m flattered that it is assumed I’m young enough for the Young Communists, but you need to be below 30.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I’m desperately seeking reconnection with reality. I’m not getting it here, from the debate over whether Driving Miss Daisy was or was not racist. And I’m not getting it from reading Mitt Romney’s rationale for bowing out so suddenly: that America needs an ambiguous GOP frontrunner now, the better to fend off the Democrats’ otherwise-inevitable surrender to terrorism. Yeah. You heard that right. “Get outta McCain’s way or the terrorists win!”
You can’t make this shit up.
I’m starting to think that, whatever reality is, it has very little to do with politics. (And/or vice versa.) At least at the moment. Wake me if there’s any change ….
February 9th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Well, everyone knows that bin Laden supported John Kerry.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:43 am
MT – try this…
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/02/11/080211taco_talk_hertzberg
February 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Actually Woody, I thought the “bad news for Obama” today was the New York Times’ investigative report that he might not have done quite as many drugs as was implied in his memoir. That hard-hitting expose could really dampen the youth vote.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
It’s interesting how the completely insane and extremist enemies of America so often end up swinging toward the Democratic candidate in the final electoral crunch – bin Laden, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter…
February 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Think that the Democratic voters are stupid enough to accept this?
This week, Clinton and her advisers declared that Obama is the “establishment” candidate.
Clinton’s advisors think so.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am
What a pleasant surprise. I would have never pegged you as an NPR man, Woody.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Look, hate to rain on everybody’s parade but both Clinton and Obama draw their financial support from the FIRE Brigade (Finance, Real Estate, Insurance) so we can quibble about which Wall Streeter is less savory or what have you. If Hil has Wal-Mart, Barack has Excelon and I know folks who consider that a deal breaker as nukes are the big no -no.
Only reason I see to favor Obama is the fact that Clinton comes with heavy baggage that probably limits her to 51 – 49 and short coattails. Plus the media love John McCain and love trashing the meanies from Little Rock. Its unfair and unwarranted but, as JFK told us, life is unfair.
With Obama the prospect of a blowout and huge coattails exists – particularly since McCain , in an insane burst of “integrity”, seems to have decided to make this election a referendum on Iraq and endless war. I hope the Dems will accept this offer. What an opportunity! And Obama is also a media pet and the Great and the good won’t hear the end of it from their kids if they bash Barack.
So I’m going with Obama and then urging everyone to keep on his ass and make him change some of those ridiculous ideas of his.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am
“Only reason I see to favor Obama is… With Obama the prospect of a blowout and huge coattails exists” Actually Richard, don’t you think that that IS THE REASON to support Obama.
But then you’ve already gotten tired of ‘change.’ How ironic.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
What are Obama’s “ridiculous ideas” other than that “change” can’t come simply from the top down, that padvocating IRS-enforced “mandates” to buy health care without first making sure you’ve got a system that people can actually afford isn’t just terrible politics in a general election but a genuinely bad idea despite the drooling of technocrats (and bogus as regards actually making it “universal” which makes St. Paul Krugman the “liar” if he wants to inject such charged words into the debate over micro-issues), or that we should raise the cap on payroll taxes in order to strengthen social security over the long term (which Hillary has, like a rightwing nutcase, attacked head-on, apparently to “liberal conscience” Krugman’s satisfaction.) If the notion of disarming a segment of the right’s partisan base and changing the “national convesation” in the direction of liberalism rather than conservatism – i.e. doing the reverse of what Reagan managed to do and which neither Clinton was or is capable of – is a “ridiculous idea” then the Democratic party is doomed and deserves to continue it’s “living dead” Beltway groveling for another couple of decades. Obama is attempting – strategically, not “naively” – to call forth the kind of social movements that would be necessary to even begin the kind of progressive change that John Edwards – naively – claimed he could make by “fighting for us” from the Oval Office. That latter notion, with all due respect to Edwards, his excellent issues agenda, his positive impact on the race and his no doubt sincere populist conversion, qualifies as “ridiculous” to anyone with even a smattering of American social history and politics under their belt.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am
The Woody NPR article is a perfect example of why I don’t like the Clintons. Absolute sophistry in everything. It’s all up for grabs rhetorically; reality has no bearing at all. It’s pure Orwell.
You still need to be responsible even as you try to persuade, and both Bill and Hillary absolve themselves of this responsibility. It’s an example, on a small scale, of their larger deficits as people and policy makers.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Im taking the weekend off so I’ll be brief on the following points:
1) To RLC: No, I do not hate the Clintons. I loathe them. There’s a difference The first impulse would be petty. The latter is wel-founded in their perpetual hubris and sleaze. My only comment to you is that you shoud be paid for your shameless defense of the two biggest hustlers in American politics.
2) The David Shuster controversy is phony. He’s one of the best reporters on TV. His use of the word pimping out was, um, unfortunate. Is it worse than the rank daily xenophobia of Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck? Dont think so. Anyway, on the scale of things that matter: Which is worse? Shuster saying the CLinton campaign, falsely, pimped out investment banker Chelsea? Or the former president of the united states, bill clinton, falsely saying that his wife’s rival was engaged in “voter suppression?”
3) Spike Lee’s portrayal of Jews was blatantly anti-semitic. The undertones of Do The Right Thing were nakedly fascist. He’s a political mutton head. I suggest reading Barbara Grizzutti Harrison’s take on him from about 10 years ago — I believe in Esquire… Wonderful stuff. While he’s whining about the historic disadvantage he personally faced as a black man, she reminds him that while his granddaddy was a comfy professor in a black college, hers was an immigrant dockworker on the lower east side. wonderful stiff.
4) Whitewater was NOT the scandal the GOP pimped it out to be. It was a different kind of scandal. It was a conscious effort by McDougal (and his partners like the Clintons) to rip off elderly blue collar retirees in a typical southern weedpatch land deal: overpriced lots, high interest rates and draconian forfeiture clauses imposed on the poor suckers who wouldnt be able to make the monthly payments. A perfect fit with Ms. Hillary’s first big case at Rose– to litigate on behalf of big utilities to overturn a popular ballot initiative that provided relief for the indigent.
What a bunch of suckers some of you are.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Oh my!
First of all to Reg. Sorry that you cannot take “Yes” for an answer. What rididulous ideas. Well I guess the “Market based” solutions that his University of Chicago trained economic advisors promulgate. Look, ask Marc how well they worked in Chile! No plans for the Mortgage meltdown except the market. Great! See you when a million are homeless – but then Barack will part the waters and all will be well. Tax Policy – do we really want to keep the lion’s share of the economy’s benefits for the top 1/2 per cent.? Barack seems to think so as he has taken raising marginal rates off the table.
Finally there is this. I’m a political junkie not a religious one. My vote for Obama is the “Realist” position given above. I subscribe to no credo. Sorry if I don’t recognize Barry as my lord and svior. Just a pol who can whip the other side’s ass – particularly when their nominee wants make Ira the centerpiece.
If that is not good enough for you – Well I’m sorry. I’ve got the same problems with Pope Benny and I spent long years being indoctrinated in that faith and once is enough!
February 9th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Yeah, Obama’s economics are straight out of Milton Friedman. I guess that’s why Robert Reich supports him and not Hillary, who -as Woody has clarified so many times – is an “anti-market” Marxist who’ll bring capitalism crashing down.
Pleeeze. Hillary’s the one who’s demagoging Obama for raising payroll taxes.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:50 am
That should have read “raising the cap on payroll taxes to cover high-income earners.”
February 9th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Marc really! You underestimate yourself.
1. Do you really think the term “pimped out” is the appropriate way to decribe a nearly thirty year old Chelsea Clinton working for mom? Did Mitt “Pimp out” his five sons? Cheney his daughter? Maybe Dave is paying for Tweety’s sins but that bunc of “He-Men Women Haters” over at MSNBC are just embarrassing.
2. Did I really see you bring up Whitewater? My goodness but you’re either dense or desperate! The Clintons lost money investing with McDougaal and everyone – the Bush USA in Little Rock, The Fed Home Loan Bank Board in Topeka, The RTC report from Jay Stephens of Pillsberry Madison and the Starr Inquisitors came to the same conclusion. Just because Jeff Gerth (who also believed that Wen Ho lee was the “yellow {red} peril”) says so and Howell Raines – self appointed keeper of Southern Virtue agrees does not make it so. Or are you, like Woody, possessor of some secret info that no one else – not Starr, Not Scaife – was aware of?
Give it up. You’re getting as embarrassing as your gin-soaked friend Chris Hitchens still – may I use the word? – “Pimping” for Achmed Chalibi.
If you think I should be remunerated for this why not pass along the good word to whomever you think appropriate. All contributions gratefully accepted. I suscribe to the dictum of the late Dr. Johnson that nobody but a blockhead wrote for any reason but to make money. But frankly, I find this a labor of love as the demonizaion of a centrist politician as the anti-Christ goes a long way to explaining our political insanity.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
For the record – Obama’s history and current agenda on the mortgage crisis:
Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud
Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.
* Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
* Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama’s STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.
* Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.
* Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama’s increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.
* Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual’s mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
One other thing. I have no doubt that many of the cases Hillary worked on while at the Rose Law firm were on the wrong side. Unfortunately, that is what you do at the big firms. I suppose we could dismiss all lawyers from public service unless they were Ralph Nader or Plantiff’s attorneys like John Edwards but thats unrealistic don’t you think?
February 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
What Marc said on Shuster. An eerie portento f how Clintons will treat reporters.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Do the Right Thing – fascist? Isn’t that Jonah Goldberg territory? Attempting to explore the Martin/Malcolm dialectic fascist?
February 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Bunkerbuster, I owe you an apology. So here it is in front of god and everybody. Awhile back I chided you for chiding Marc. My argument was along the lines of an opinion piece being different than front page print journalism. Well, I’m older and wiser now. Traveled around the black a few times. Spent some time in different lands and have come to realize you were correct. So, mea cupla, mea maxima culpa. And, thank you for pulling my nose up off my toes.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Another exhibit in Clinton sophistry. The pimped out comment, I think we can all probably agree, was in poor taste, but we can all also agree that it was just a dumb comment that spilled out.
He has apologized twice, and been suspended, and now Hillary has come out with a letter suggesting he should be fired.
Shuster was lamely suggesting Chelsea was being used for political gain. Stupid, but whatever, he’s on the network news–what do you want? But now Hillary IS doing exactly what she is feigning indignation over. This is the very empty soul of the Clintons on display right here.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Sen. Clinton gets another day or two of sympathetic coverage by raising the stakes in the Shuster Affair. Shrewd.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
We know Hillary has no potent response to the McCain “war without end” position, since she voted for the war before she voted against it.
But what about Obama?
How will he respond?
I only hope that he won’t stick with the failed Democratic formula of “we’re chauvinists too, just better managers.”
I hope Obama’s smart enough to chart a new path and take on the actual political work of confronting the conventional mediocre media assumption that military aggression equals toughness.
I’m worried, though, that if he goes into the general election well ahead in the polls–as the losing Democrat did in the last three elections–he will try to play it safe and triangulate on national security.
The economy will be an important issue in that it will provide the backdrop for the voters’ mood. The worse things look this fall, the harder it will be for McCain to convince people that chauvinism is sustainable. The GOP formula is based on convincing voters that war magically pays for itself, no draft, no tax increases and the fatalities will be from people who don’t live in your neighborhood and tend not to vote anyway.
So while the economy will set the background, national security will remain front and center.
McCain will do everything he can to keep the focus on fear of Muslims/brown-skinned people. Faux News/talkradio/wingnutosphere will go all out in the campaign of hate against Muslims and there’s a very good chance the Bush administration will do its part to create more jeopardy in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan. Or may even get lucky and kill or capture bin Laden.
Against this, Obama needs to focus like a laser beam. Job 1 has to be offering a critique of McCain’s views that is consistent with his overall narrative of change.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
As people here know, I am not a Democrat, and I don’t see Obama as any kind of savior. But I never dreamed that anyone could break the Clinton machine, and I just assumed that Democrats would do the safe thing and go with Clinton. How wonderful to see them rejecting, again and again, the same old same old. I’ve got my glass of wine, a copy of the New Yorker, and my reading glasses, and I am just going to sit back and enjoy the evening (oh yes, I am in Boston teaching this semester, an American expat in an American time zone at long last.)
February 9th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Welcome back to the USA, Michael. Also enjoying this remarkable Obama candidancy, for the same reasons. Please accept a virtual clank of wine classes.
Another book in the works?
February 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
uh, “wine glasses”…
February 9th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
RLC: I have just put in a word for you with my good buds at the Clinton campaign, which means that you shoudlnt yet quit your day job.
Listener: Im trying to understand ur criticism of my journalism. You would prefer a reporter who DOESNT disclose his preferences and biases even tho he or she undoubtedly has them over someone who is transparent in his views?
I hate to be a stickler about this…. but the piece linked to in this post written by moi is CLEARLY an opinion piece and has NO pretensions toward being a reported one. Are u suggesting that reporters dont have the right to express opinions? I think we sorta have a surfeit of those sort of hypocrites.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
RLC:
You make it sound like Hillary Clinton had no choice but to coldly force working class Arkansans into financial ruin – unethically, if not illegally – to fill her and her well-fed partners’ pockets with blood money. Your wisdom is slipping…with a law degree, she could have made a much more conscionable living than ripping off near-penniless trailer park residents. Not even Mitt Romney went quite as low as this.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“reporters dont have the right to express opinions? ”
An unsubstantiated opinion is no better than an unsubstantiated claim in a news column.
The opinion label isn’t a license to smear.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“McCain will do everything he can to keep the focus on fear of Muslims/brown-skinned people. Faux News/talkradio/wingnutosphere will go all out in the campaign of hate against Muslims and there’s a very good chance the Bush administration will do its part to create more jeopardy in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan. Or may even get lucky and kill or capture bin Laden.”
Sounds like you’re harbouring some hate yourself there BB. As well as an irrational fear of your own President over radical Islam. Your not one of those ‘insiders’ are you? Stay away from those wacko websites.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:06 am
The more Obama is attacked (even on racial or “Islamic” grounds) the more support he attracts and will attract. The Republicans will have very little to work with other than political issues if Obama is the nominee and not Clinton. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a campaign really fought on the issues for a change?
February 10th, 2008 at 8:12 am
How can Hillary get rid of Obama? She’ll make him an “offer that he can’t refuse.”
February 10th, 2008 at 9:36 am
word to the wise:
new Sy Hersh piece
February 10th, 2008 at 9:37 am
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/11/080211fa_fact_hersh?printable=true
February 10th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Actually, the image of Obama freaking out over a clydesdale’s head in his bed is pretty funny.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Oh please! I realize that thousands of liberal arts majors went into Law schools because it prolonged their adolescense and made a possibility of a job that would pay off their horrendous loans possible but that many kidded themselves that they could change society by so doing is just another example of the self-delusion that is american political thought.
Sorry, but whom do you think all those lawyers work for? Nader’s raiders? The NRDC? No, most large firms practice corporate law where the wisdom of highly trained professionals is put into the service of maintaining the hereditary fortunes of people like the Rockefellers and Bushes and in maintaining the fiction that limited liability entities we call “Corporations” are “Persons” under the meaning of the 14th Amdt and, therefore, entitile to “Due Process” – which means “Don’t mess with me.”
(For all you Obama fans – Abe Lincoln was a very successful and very rich railroad lawyer. Read some of his cases. Then tell me that those made him unfit for office!)
February 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Oh please! I realize that thousands of liberal arts majors went into Law schools because it prolonged their adolescense and made a possibility of a job that would pay off their horrendous loans possible but that many kidded themselves that they could change society by so doing is just another example of the self-delusion that is american political thought.
and many of those people ended up making very good money working, ala John Edwards, as “trial lawyers,” or for the Crown (in the US, DA office) ie, didn’t whore themselves for the bourgeois, and still got to live bourgeois.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
So in other words, they didn’t have to work like Hillary.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I don’t know about Canada but down here two of the lower status parts of the Bar are Personal Injury (“Ambulence Chasers”) and Criminal Defense (Usually referred to as “Criminal” lawyers and, also with exceptions, among the lower paid parts of the profession)
February 10th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Defense attorneys are well respected and well paid, as are their counterparts with the Crown (DA).
Personal injury lawyers are also respected, to the degree tha they actually do the right thing…I can say that socialized health care and low cost prescriptions don’t neccessitate as much of the sort of “ambulance chansing” that goes on down south.
In general though, the crusading trial lawyer, defendign the people from big business and making money along the way, is – at least among people I know, Jewish middle and upper middle class – the ideal career for aspiring attorneys. There is a lot of respect for this archetype in Canadian culture.
Corporate lawyers are wel paid, yes, but among the law society, they are looked down upon, perhaps even more than they should.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I can say that socialized health care and low cost prescriptions don’t neccessitate as much of the sort of “ambulance chansing†that goes on down south.
No doubt up north, ice notwithstanding, no one slips and falls or get in auto accidents.
Full disclosure: I work for a firm that does a lot of PI defense absolutely none for medical malpractice.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
You know it’s going to happen.
I’ve warned you.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:20 am
RP
My poitn was not to one up one system over another, my point was mainly to contrast different cultures among lawyers.. And, yes, there are icy roads – today for example.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Fair enough
February 11th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Marc, It wasn’t my intention to criticize the piece you linked to at HuffPo, or anything you’ve written here recently, but rather to apologize to Bunkerbuster, using as few referents, as I could get away with for scolding him earlier about a distinction I wanted to make between opinion pieces and headline news. Obviously, that was a fool’s errand. If I’d had his/her email address, I’d have sent that apology directly. In truth, I really didn’t have this particular piece you’ve written in mind. It was more an accumulation of reading experiences I’ve had elsewhere recently that caused me to rethink my premise about news in general, blogs in particular, and the relative place of each in the information world.
However, if I take that same awareness and look directly at the piece you’ve linked here, and the comments you’ve made which follow in the thread, I do wonder why someone who admits, No, I do not hate the Clintons. I loathe them. bothers to write, what reads to me as, a purely speculative column. One might imagine that you’d be more likely to take advantage of the opportunity you allude to with: This is a veritable bonanza not only for enterprising reporters and snoopy researchers, but also for any Republican candidate that could potentially face Hillary in November — if she wins the nomination. And, maybe you are. When you’ve written that piece – or, succession of pieces, I’d be interested in reading it/them.
Regardless, I don’t have to be a Hillary supporter to decide your loathing of the Clinton’s makes me uncomfortable. Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, and yes, it is helpful to know a reporter’s bias upfront. What it does suggest to me, however, is I should seek my information about Hillary Clinton, and her campaign, elsewhere. Would I tend to imagine that anyone who feels as you do about the Clinton’s to be likely to write about anything they had done well? Not really. That’s fine. Your blog, your rules, you win. Fair enough. I’ll have to trust my bias detection and de-coder ring to work where the reporter isn’t as forthright as you are.
Frankly, I’m relieved to be as deeply ambivalent between Obama and Clinton as I am. It makes traversing the threads here and elsewhere a whole lot less painful. From my point of view, each of them has relative strengths and weaknesses. Should either win, gains will be made along some dimensions, and others will languish. No perfect candidate exists. I’m looking forward to August 28th, which is when I understand the Democratic convention will be over. Nominee in hand, we can only move forward from there.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:57 am
> The Republicans will have very little
>to work with other than political
>issues if Obama is the nominee
>and not Clinton. Wouldn’t it be nice
>to have a campaign really fought
>on the issues for a change?
Nice, but won’t happen in the US anytime soon. The reality is that our two parties are too close in ideology to fight over actual substantive differences of policy. Thus the never ending inquisition of candidates’ marital fidelity, military records, past drug use, or religious affiliations. It’s not politics, it’s celebrity gossip.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Q. Do you know how to get Auburn fans not to vote for Obama?
A. Put the letter G in front of his name…GoBama.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Better ya been saving that one up for weeks, huh Woody?
February 11th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Auburn fans can read?
February 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
But Woody, wouldn’t “GoBama” clinch Tide supporters? Besides, I don’t think the Auburn crowd is GoBama’s demographic.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
LOL. Stanley Fish comments on his commenters when the subject is Hillary Clinton. I can’t believe he actually analyzed them, but old Stanley is a former academic and that’s what academics do. Of course (!), his commenters, then, have to comment on his comments about his commenters to the tune of 400 (and counting) more.
I’m gonna be so glad when this primary is over and folks recover their sanity.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
GOBAMA! is the “signoff” that the guy who organized the precinct captains in Oakland has been using. I don’t think he’s made the Auburn connection…but you never know.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/febrero/lun11/Reflections-11feb.html
February 12th, 2008 at 9:16 am
After the Obama posters were modified by Tuscaloosa students to read “GObama,” people thought they were going to a pep rally rather than a political rally.
This a true story that wouldn’t happen today, but, when Alabama first integrated its athletic teams, the popular chant led by the cheerleaders for the fans to show welcome and appreciation of the good play of the new black players was, “Uh, Ungawaa! Bama’s got that soul power!” (repeat two more times with enthusiasm.) Honest.
If Obama gets the nomination (doubtful), the Republicans could modify that chant to say “Uh, Ungawaa! Obama has that soul power!”, just in case they wanted to acknowledge the success of a black candidate and remind people of his race…but, why would they do that, especially if Hillary Clinton does it first?
February 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
In related political news, “Hillary Clinton Refuses to Release Tax Returns.”
Why not? What does she have to hide?
At least she’s using a different preparer than the one who did her returns for the White Water deal. (Need I remind you of what happened to him…Fort Marcy Park.)
Maybe she’s embarrassed about her past claiming of a charitable deduction of $2 for each pair of Bill’s underwear (true), which surely has tripled in value for tax purposes now. (Did she ever wonder where Bill got all of those panties to donate? Did she think that he switched to wearing those, too?)
Maybe these carefully prepared Clinton tax returns for public dissemination would be of moderate interest, especially to compare to today and to understand why the Clinton net worth increased so much since their leaving the White House–not counting what they stole.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am
CORRECTION
Vince Foster was a preparer of the Clinton’s 1992 tax return in a technical manner only, in that he gave them tax advice for handling certain transactions, such as the Whitewater Development Corporation (See Schedule D). The return was signed by another preparer, who could be dead now.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Well I guess Castro won’t be voting for McCain.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Woody, as usual, receives today’s awards for most tasteless comments (“Bill’s Underwear”) but then the right wing’s fascination with Bill’s penis is probably exoplained by the activities of so many of its members (Craig, Haggard, etc).
February 12th, 2008 at 10:35 am
RLC,
It still won’t surpass his calling Max Cleland “Stumpy.”
February 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am
The piece by Fidel is rambling and brilliant. Say what you will about el jefe, but his recent dispatches in granma have been quite interesting.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Fidel’s ramblingso n McCain part II
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/febrero/mar12/reflexiones.html
February 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Concur with you Randy.
jc Fidel’s ramblings mean what? He’ll jump on Barack’s bandwagon? Maybe, I hear the wingnuts in Texas have their knickers in a twist because someone from Obama’s Lone Star HQ put up the Cuban Flag and a portrait of Che!
(Either that ot we’re having a sixties flashback!)
February 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Marc will like this….NYT Columnist Paul Krugman: Obama Supporters Are Like Nixon
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
Well, aren’t they?
* * * * *
Want to know why Castro would support Obama? See this LINK
February 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
If you actually read the accompanying commentary, you’d realize how full of shit you are.
On the other hand, the rest of us can and we already knew that.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Obama is indeed the best hope to put US-Cuba relations on a normal footing.
Forget about your views on Castro positive or negative for a moment – he is incredibly interesting.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Have we talked about Cockburn’s latest? Maybe one of you Democratic activists can tell me whether or not he’s yanking my chain:
“The current pattern is that Obamian enthusiasts go the caucuses and delivery fiery speeches about their man and his dream of change, rack up a substantial victory and head back to campus, aglow with victory. But then the party regulars regroup, the labor organizers confer, and the party establishment strikes back at the state convention, where those delegates pledged at the caucus are “authorized” in a series of backroom deals.
“Gary Hart learned this the hard way in 1984. Hart had won his political spurs in a famous mutiny of the Democratic base, when Hart managed George McGovern’s successful drive to the nomination in 1972. In the early states of the 1984 campaign Hart won a dramatic victory by ten points over Walter Mondale in New Hampshire. Short on money, Hart then aimed, exactly like Obama, at the caucuses to show momentum. After Super Tuesday, Mondale and Hart were neck and neck. Then Hart cleaned up in the caucuses, just as Obama is now doing. The two split the big states. Mondale won New York and Pennsylvania. Hart won Ohio and California. Then, in the weeks before the Democratic Party convention Mondale and the Democratic Party machine went into action at the various state conventions. Hart watched aghast as his hard-won delegates melted back into the smoke-filled rooms and emerged with Mondale buttons on their lapels. The coup de grace came with Mondale’s efficient capture of the Super Delegates, who went to him almost en bloc.
“There was another powerful challenge in 1984, from Jesse Jackson. At the early part of the campaign for the Democratic nomination Jackson won five primaries and caucuses  Louisiana, Washington DC, South Carolina, Virginia and Mississippi (which duly reversed Jackson’s singular triumph at the state convention.} Altogether, Jackson got 3.3 million primary votes, 21 per cent of the total votes cast in the 1984 primaries and caucuses. He ended up with precisely 8 per cent of the delegates. Jackson bitterly denounced the process as a rigged affair that should be reformed. Nothing has changed.
“So although Obama has pulled even and on some counts is ahead in delegates pledged to him thus far, these numbers are far from conclusive. “
February 12th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I agree, jc. The Cuban revolution has had some successes – that is, if one accepts the notion that people young and old, no matter how wealthy or poor they are, are deserving of at least basic health care. There were other successes as well; and although there have been obvious failures (human rights abuses, an anti-democratic dictatorship, etc.), Cuba’s failures are not unlike those experienced in so-called “economic miracles,” such as Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Colombia, and on and on.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
The Cuban revolution – it is too soon to tell, like with most revolutions that keep turning, as it were. I argue with much sincerity that Castro is not a dictator in the Stalinist sense, that within a certain framework, there is democracy, within the context of a communist party, with real splits between those who want more pluralism and those who want to travel the Chinese road – just as in the United States there is democracy within the context of liberal capitalism.
I think that in 60 years of the revoltuions existence, there hasn’t been as many human rights abuses as commited by the United States in the past four years. Has there been arbitrary imprisonment, racism and homophobia? Yes. The death penalty for foreign agents? Yes. International torture camps? No.
Cuba is a work in progress, and even at its worst could not by any standard approach – all things told – the level of human righs abuses in any of the right wing economic miracles in Latin America.
I’m not a booster of the Cuba model for other nations, and would like to see more pluralism adn democracy within a socialsit context. This doesn’t mean electoral democracy (or doesn’t only mean it – as there already is eletroal democracy within neighbourhood councils, etc. -) but free speech, civil liberties, encouragement of small busniness development, etc. Alarcon, etc. are moving this way. I fear Raul prefers Hu’s China.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
And on that reprehensible link that Randy Paul fulsomely supports – if Che is a terrorist, then I guess by that logic, you wish Batista was in power and that the right wing regimes he fought were legit? And yes, I know I know, the horror of what was doen when the ervolution consolidated power. Until you’ve lived through a revolutionary upheaval – which I have not – I would withold judgement, but your ownAmerican revolution certainly killed its enemies.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,†Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday’s paper.
I wonder if this was “Hilary Approved”. Who knows, but who would ever have guessed it would be the white Democrats doing all the race raising…….and at the expense of one of their own candidates for heaven sake.
I rather think this was just another democrats off-hand kodachrome view. It’s all about the colors, the ethnicity, the culture, the language, the dumb-ass differences………and keeping it this way for the survival of the party.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Rendell is commenting on the behavior of voters, not condoning it.
Is it Jim R’s poor reading comprehension or ideological desperation that better explains his ignorance of that rather obvious fact.
“Kodachrome view?” What on earth is Jim ranting on about now?
February 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Bob in this case Cockburn is basically accurate. The party regulars did all they could to make Mondale the nominee even though all polling evidence suggested that Hart would make it a much closer contest.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
One can speculate that media favoritism re corporate friendliness helped Bill and Tsongas against Jerry Brown.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Thanks, richard.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“(Vladimir Putin)the former KGB lieutenant colonel appeared to lash out at U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton — a leading Democratic candidate for president — when one reporter quoted her as saying that former KGB officers have no soul:
“At a minimum, a head of state should have a head,” Putin said.”
February 15th, 2008 at 10:11 am
A jounalist is concerned about a black president….
Do We Really Want Another Black President…
“I’m not suggesting that President Freeman was directly responsible for the creation of the Wolf-Beiderman comet or its Earth-bound path. That would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that under the watch of a black man that comet destroyed the entire Eastern seaboard. So, if history is any indicator, a vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is essentially a vote for the complete and total obliteration of the human race.
“Need I even mention that former President Chris Rock and his administration’s slogan was “The only thing white is the house”? Though this attitude broke down the stuffiness typically associated with proper White House decorum, President Rock’s laissez-faire approach not only made a mockery of the office at home, but made the United States look like a joke abroad.”
February 1st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Can you provide more details on this?
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Nice post. Thanks for sharing these tips.
June 5th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
What are you saying, man? I know everyones got their own opinion, but really? Listen, your blog is cool. I like the effort you put into it, especially with the vids and the pics. But, come on. Theres gotta be a better way to say this, a way that doesnt make it seem like everyone here is stupid!
July 16th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Great post! Thanks!