Pajamas Media

48 Comments

David Thomson:

It would be foolish for Hillary Clinton to give up the fight against “Barry” Obama. She senses that he will not win in November. John McCain may only be a one term president. She wants another shot in 2012. Democrats are not kind to candidates who lose the presidential contest. Obama will be perceived as outdated merchandize. Senator Clinton has the odds in her favor to regain control of the party.

May 10, 2008 - 4:47 am Bogdan of Australia:

Sounds plausibly to me. However, I have my doubts. Will Bill Clinton have in four years enough stamina and vigour to pursue all those INTERNS in the White House, while Hillary is too busy to keep an eye on him? I don’t think so. So he is going to ask: “What there will be for me in it?” Can Hillary succeed without Bill’s enthusiastic support? Fat chance…

May 10, 2008 - 4:56 am cnnr:

I have heard this argument about Hillary CLinton’s intentions over and over. I wouldn’t be surprised if she tried this, given that she clearly cares more about her personal ambition than the democratic party and has seemingly lost perspective with her divisive tactics. Those tactics are not only pissing off Obama supporters, but are pissing off the Democratic party establishment, even if they’re not voicing it now out of respect for Bill’s prominence in the party. So has anybody who has argued this scenario thought of the following: she would become a PARIAH in the Democratic Party if she did this, thus causing her to probably lose her senate seat, and little to no support for a run at the presidency in 2012. Most of her base are those of her generation or older. They’ll be dying off and getting older and older, and the democratic party will be getting younger and younger. I don’t think it’s a realistic scenario at all.

May 10, 2008 - 8:58 am cnnr:

And even if Obama loses in the fall, I have the feeling he’s the exception to the dem party unstated rule of not supporting second runs at the presidency (and under that rule, Hillary would fail this test also, making it a moot point anyway). He may be green, but he’s extremely talented, and thus far the most charismatic politician of this century. I just can’t see this guy fading into the woodwork.

May 10, 2008 - 9:03 am cfbleachers:

Maybe she could resign the race and run as an independent. Or as a write-in candidate.

At this point, she might take in more votes that way. Obama was not vetted …really at all…until well into the race. She might indeed have won in the arly states had he been.

She could easily win a three way race…if Obama slips up and more ties to radical anti-America, anti-Israel come to the forefront. Obama would seal the African-American vote and a chunk of the academia hard left. She might be seen (unbelievable as this sounds) as the “middle” or “compromise” candidate.

May 10, 2008 - 9:58 am Believer:

You have to take people at their word. Politicians no exception…

Didn’t Michelle warn us? “You only get one chance at this. Barack’s only doin’ this one time.” And we know who wears the pants in that family.

A defeated Hillary will relish her opportunity to help her buddy McCain. Afterall, wasn’t she in charge of discrediting the bimbos? Haven’t we just recently been warned of an “October Surprise?” She’s got at least one at the ready.

And let’s not forget that wide smile as she proclaimed, “Now the fun begins!”

May 10, 2008 - 10:42 am LCSusan:

Too late for a third party run but maybe in 2012? Clinton/Edwards? The Clintons are finished as Dems of any consequence, no matter what but there are also a lot of people like me for whom the Dems are finished.

http://strictlyanecdotal.com/2008/05/08/thank-you-gary-hart-for-reminding-me-of-my-place.aspx

May 10, 2008 - 4:36 pm GCA:

Richard Nixon in a pantsuit. I have long thought that. The same overarching ambition, the same need to destroy enemies, and the same paranoia. The Clintons, quintessential Democrats, don’t do anything that does not benefit the Clintons; just as they put the interest of their party over the interest of the country, they put their own interest over the interest of their party.

May 10, 2008 - 5:38 pm Will Becker:

Don’t bring back to life.

May 10, 2008 - 6:31 pm John F Not Kerry:

Two words: Opposition Research

May 10, 2008 - 8:53 pm clarion:

Remember, Hillary is still in a cloud–she does not see herself as losing. She beat so many past attempts to defeat her and won–she cannot possibly believe she will not get the nomination, despite predictions to the contrary. Until the the last delegate casts his/her vote to seal the nomination, she will not quit. Watch her closely until the nomination is finally sealed–is there really a difference between fierce determination and delusional conduct?

May 10, 2008 - 11:33 pm Letalis Maximus, Esq.:

Hell, I’ve been saying this for a month or more, now. Anybody who doesn’t think Hillary and Bill are above back-door sabotage of the presidential aspirations of a fellow Democrat hasn’t, in my view, carefully examined the roles of the many Clinton operatives that Kerry foolishly hired to help run his campaign.

I believe that she will only get out when the poll numbers convince her and Bill that the Dems have figured their strategy out, and her staying in the 2008 race is doing more harm than good to her prospects in 2012. Even then, I believe that they will covertly do everything they can to ensure a McCain victory in 2008. If the Dems don’t recognize this for what it is, then they deserve to be lorded over, and held in thrall by, the Clintons for the next 20 years.

May 11, 2008 - 6:58 am edh:

clarion,

Maybe Hillary isn’t “in a cloud” and “does not see herself losing” simply because, as the article points out, she’s executing a 12 year plan, not an 8 year plan?

May 11, 2008 - 7:41 am Kim Zigfeld:

CNNR:

Yeah, but you’re forgetting Michigan and Florida. Next time around Obama won’t be so lucky as to have them removed from the primaries, and Hillary has cleaned his clock in all the major states but his own. What’s more, Clinton has now seen Obama’s strategy and knows how to attack him. If he actually loses to McCain, then her theory that he can’t win will have been validated.

May 11, 2008 - 7:47 am jms:

I’ve been thinking 3rd party or independent for about a week. When Obama is nominated, expect Hillary to NOT ENDORSE HIM, then announce her 3rd party run. She can bank on the Anti-Obama Democratic vote, and can expect to pull away the Anti-McCain Republican vote.

I don’t think we’re done with her yet.

May 11, 2008 - 7:49 am Carmen Miranda:

You know it buddy!

May 11, 2008 - 7:56 am MarkJ:

For being such a supposedly “talented” guy, Obama still doesn’t get it: the worst thing he could do to himself–and his party–is actually get elected. He’s essentially promised everybody a “free pony” and if he doesn’t deliver, and pronto, he’s f***ed. I’ve got a sawbuck that says, if Obama gets elected in the fall, by January 2010 50% of the people who voted for him will spit at themselves in the mirror each morning and moan, “What the f*** was I thinking on Election Day?”

In the meantime, Hillary will return to the Senate and immediately take on the pleasurable task as “Obama’s Official Harpy”:

“Gee, I’d loooooooooove to help you out, Mr. President, but we’ve got a full plate over here as it is. Fax me your proposals and I’ll get back with you in, oh say, six months after I thoroughly review them.”

That’s why a future Obama presidency is likely doomed, doomed, DOOOOOMED: Prince Charming is still assuming everybody (including members of his own party) will swoon and fall in line when he makes his grand call for unity on Inauguration Day. Problem is, His Obamic Majesty has no Plan B in case large segments of the American public decide they don’t want to “unite” in the way outlined by Team Obama.

May 11, 2008 - 7:58 am John:

The public face of Hillary will be, if not enthusiastically supportive of Obama during the general election campaign, at the very least doing her duty for the party and attempting to pick up chips for any future run and smooth over the problems created by this campaign.

What goes on behind the scenes may be something different entirely. If the Clintons still have an op research info that could damage Obama, they can pass them along either to the McCain campaign, 527s against Obama or some of the media who are still sympathetic to Bill and Hillary as a way to do in Barak’s campaign while leaving no fingerprints. If I were the Obama folks, it’s the stuff not onut in plain sight I’d be worried about.

May 11, 2008 - 8:10 am G:

“unlike John McCain, who retained a special place in the popular consciousness thanks to Karl Rove’s grand larceny of his initial run for high office”

You should not write articles while under the influence of strong narcotics and/or hallucinogens.

McCain’s continued appeal has to do with McCain’s compelling resume. And Rove did not steal the nomination from McCain in 2000.

I am still at a loss for why journalists think they can make history be what they would have preferred history to have been, and not have others notice. Isn’t Pajama’s Media supposed to be part of the solution to this disturbing tendency, and not just another practitioner?

May 11, 2008 - 8:13 am Roger L Simon:

“Isn’t Pajama’s Media supposed to be part of the solution to this disturbing tendency, and not just another practitioner?”

Interesting point, G. I agree with you that the quote you isolated was overstated and absurd. But we don’t edit our writers in that manner. Part of being the “solution” is to be open, difficult as that may be. Our stories are bylined. Taking them as the opinions of the authors.

May 11, 2008 - 8:19 am G:

I am impressed with the reply, Roger, both in speed and in content. In fact, I cannot argue with it at all. You are right.

May 11, 2008 - 8:27 am BB:

This article is total fantasy B.S.

May 11, 2008 - 8:31 am Jay Stannard:

You folks are looking at the Clintons through rose-colored glasses.

If Obamarama wins the nomination, you might as well plan on his birthday becoming the federal Obama Barack Memorial Holiday.

People who cross the Clinton’s tend to have a high mortality rate.

If a nominated Obama were to have a fatal accident, preferably one that could be made to look as though it had racist origins, then who would become the new Democratic nominee? What’s the likelihood that that person would win a huge sympathy vote in November? If it appeared that Obama’s demise was due to inherent racism on the part of the “Right Wing Conspiracy,” then Hillary would also pick up 90% of black vote too. She’d be a shoe-in come November.

After she wins the election, we get the new national holiday.

Obama, Don’t ever turn your back on the Clintons.

May 11, 2008 - 8:41 am xxxray:

Clinton is becoming somewhat of the dem’s McCain. More to the center, occasionally voting against the party’s base. She would be a better candidate against McCain.

However, McCain still has very long odds even against Obama. He had no appeal a year ago. It is only his use of independents and democrats and a split conservative ticket that he won the nomination. The majority of Republicans were voting against him, and many will not vote for him in the fall. He is attempting to appeal to La Raza and Global Climate change crazies and destroying the republican party as a result. It is very unlikely he can win without Obama absolutely imploding. McCain will look the old repetitious fool vs. a fluid Obama in the debates.

May 11, 2008 - 8:42 am Fderfler:

Agree with Maximus, MarkJ, and John above, but will add one more little thing. BO could still somehow self-distruct. So, it pays to hang in there if only for that reason. One more outburst from MO, one more piece of Chicago Political Dirt (isn’t that a 3-way tautology?), one more sample of wacko philosphy, and the whole world changes.

Heck, just hoping for an implosion could keep her working the convention into a second ballot.

May 11, 2008 - 9:09 am Carol Herman:

She could run as an Independent. The way Joe Lieberman did. When the Connecticut democrats voted him off the senate ticket. Alas, then you’d have to analyze from there, how she’d manage to run the country. Since the democrats, in congress, have power. Would she have coat tails?

Where Hillary failed was to come up with a positive image.

While the real adults, here, are the GOP. McCain’s nailed the nomination. Though, backstage, I’m sure the right is giving him pressure on whom to choose for the veep slot. (Eisenhower didn’t care. That’s how Nixon “rose.”)

Bush, it seems, has burned a lot more bridges than Hillary ever did. And, the Saud’s? I’m pretty sure the escalation in the price of oil was to blackmail Bush. Cheney even went to Riyadh, before the climb to $126 per barrel. What did the Saud’s want? Bush to get behind the plan to push Israel back to it’s 1948 borders.

Bush, meanwhile, went to Crawford for his daughter’s wedding; and didn’t even get involved with Lebanon, which just blew up. Thanks to Nasrallah. Sure. Typical behaviors in that part of the world.

Right now? Hillary owes too much money to consider either an independent run; or another attempt at talking sense to democrats. I actually thought acadamia, with fighting between blacks and feminists, would be the first group to “kill the golden goose.” Meanwhile? Even a university education ain’t what it used ta be.

May 11, 2008 - 9:36 am bc:

That it took me considerably more than a nanosecond to discard the notion of HRC being a guest on Rush, speaks volumes about the veracity of what you say here. Overstated, yes, but not by much.

May 11, 2008 - 9:59 am Good Ole Charlie:

As MaxedOutMom so aptly put it, Good Ole Hillary has poured a bucketful of acid on the Democratic party.
And now we have the classic Acid Test: if it dissolves, it was Fools Gold to begin with; if is stays together, it’s real.
My opinion? Obama is ferric sulfide, through and through.

May 11, 2008 - 9:59 am Mojo:

I’m not marking my calendar just yet, Jay. Remember the 12th Amendment: in the event that a president-elect is unable to take office, the vice-president-elect shall be sworn in as (full) President (and presumably the 25th Amendment would then be invoked to fill the VP vacancy). Unless Her Nibs is the VP candidate, she gains nothing from anything untoward occurring.

Yes, we could make the “faithless elector” argument, but that could happen anyway.

May 11, 2008 - 10:39 am Believer:

There’s no need for Hillary - or any other opponent, for that matter - to tease an uninformed public with things that might not be true about Obama. I’m referring to the “muslim thing.”

Isn’t it enough to consider that his accomplishments are basically nil? At least for the people he professes to care so much about, and for whom he’s offered his services the last few decades.

For himself, well, that’s a different matter. In that regard, he’s succeeded quite nicely. And Michelle has been no less blessed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Obama’s million dollar earmark for the hospital on whose board she served tied in quite nicely with her pay raise from @$120k to @$320k.

He has made attempts, though, to help others. If you Yahoo “annenberg chicago challenge” and scroll down to “JustOneMinute: Let’s Accept Michelle’s Invitation,” we learn of Obama’s peripheral (isn’t that always the case?) involvement in improving public education in Chicago. That the endeavor involved Bill Ayers as well, is, however, somewhat disquieting. And we get a peek into a closer relationship with the unrepentant terrorist than Obama might want.

His co-sponsoring the “Global Poverty Act” is his homage to his spiritual mentor, Wright. But this is a bill that, now out of Committee, requires careful scrutiny by the full Senate. Especially by those who appreciate our nation’s sovereignty.

Obama is not an original thinker. Nor is he a leader. Not knowing what to believe in, he follows the dictates of those around him. Whatever is convenient at the moment, and whatever serves his particular need of the moment. All the more reason to listen closely to what those with whom he has associations say and believe.

He certainly can’t tell you.

May 11, 2008 - 12:52 pm John Clifford:

Obama’s best chance to be president is to drop out now, and let Hillary take the fall this November. Her scorched-earth campaigning has destroyed both their chances.

If this is so, why doesn’t Hillary drop out? Because she’s in it to win it. She’ll go forward with things the way they are. She’s shaped the battlefield (more correctly, Bill has, by getting Obama to wrestle in the mud) and they’ll try the same stuff on McCain that worked against Obama.

I’ve got an article on the subject here:
http://thirtysecondthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/thanks-bro.html

that some may find interesting.

May 11, 2008 - 2:23 pm Happy Dog:

It’s interesting (and encouraging) for this Obama-supporter to see the increasing paranoia his likely nomination and almost-as-likely November victory are creating. I knew Barry in college and he is neither corrupt nor a socialist–weak tea allegations like those being thrown around above are not going to have any effect. His great talent is in articulating problems and forging consensus in unlikely ways. He also is the finest public speaker of his generation.

Those comfortable with the red/blue state polarized politics are right to be afraid, because Obama could destroy their politics and even their livelihoods.

May 11, 2008 - 2:41 pm Lou Shumaker:

Good lord, y’all are thinking like JFK conspiracy nuts, not politicians.

Here’s what will happen:

Once the fog clears in that noggin Hillary calls a brain, she’ll bow out gracefully and declare herself fully in support of the Obamarama. Granted, she may be drunk when she does so, if only to get her gumflaps to say the words “I think Obama would be a great president,” but she’ll do it.

She’ll have to do that, because Obama will lose in November, and she doesn’t want to put herself in the position of accepting the blame for it. So in public, she’ll be all smiles and red balloons. She and Bill may even campaign for Obama, although I would expect they’ll be “waiting to take orders from the Obama campaign,” and the Obama campaign will drop the ball and not use them at all.

Then, after another six months of Obama gaffes, after he becomes fumble-mouthed in the first debate with McCain (and refuse to speak ever again without a script), after enough white voters become sick of being accused they’re racist if they don’t vote for the Golden Boy, McCain will squeak through for the win.

And on that November day, Hillary will announce her run for 2012.

May 11, 2008 - 3:41 pm John Samford:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/rules-and-bylaws-committee-membership.html

May 31st in when it’s decided if the lost states count. Why that is important;

http://spa.american.edu/ccps/getpdf.php?table=publications&ID=67

Snipped;
“Second, regardless of whether the timing of a presidential preference primary is dictated
by federal or state legislation, a national political party cannot be obligated to recognize that
primary as binding—that is, the national party cannot be obligated to allocate the delegates to its
national convention from that state, among presidential candidates, in accordance with the results
of that primary. The Supreme Court has made clear that, in determining the rules for selecting
delegates to its national nominating convention, the “National Democratic Party and its
adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association.” Cousins v. Wigoda,
419 U.S. 477, 487 (1975).”

Read it and weep! Democracy is dead among the Democrats. It’s not what the voters say, but what the Rules and Bylaws Committee (hereafter RBC) thinks.

““The Court’s cases have made clear that the very actions at issue here—the Party’s
decision about who can be nominated as delegates….—are themselves clothed in First
Amendment protection. Indeed, those cases suggest that that if the State….had tried to assist [a
presidential candidate] by attempting to enforce the results of its primary….against the DNC, it
would have been met with the bar of the First Amendment.” Larouche v. Fowler, 152 F.3d 974,
992 (D.C. Cir. 1998).”

It’s that funny version of the Constitution again, the one with all the words that only liberal judges can see.
Accpording to the CLintonista Supreme Court (1998), Political parties are more powerful then Congress, the States or anything else. It’s right there in the 1st amendment.

I’m telling you Ohhh…..BAMA is toast. It’s not who gets the most votes that counts, but who the RBC says has the most votes.
No wonder Chevez and the Democrats get along so well.
The question is ‘will the rest of America go along with turning the USA into a banana republic?

May 11, 2008 - 4:14 pm mark:

She’s making a play for majority leader.

Harry Reid is due for election in 2010, and his less than moderate opinions have won him high praise from Dean, but limited his chances in his home state.

He has to get out of the spotlight, or he’ll be heading back to Search Light.

Dean doesn’t want Clinton-way to moderate-but she will be in a strong position to turn down the veep nomination, but Dean won’t be able to refuse it to her.

If she wants to pad her resume for 2012, majority leader is the post.

May 11, 2008 - 6:06 pm Believer:

Happy Dog:

“I knew Barry in college and he is neither corrupt nor a socialist-weak tea allegations like those being thrown around above are not going to have any effect.”

Well, Happy Dog, my three kids went to Punahou School, as did your Barry; but their education here in Hawaii did not include the one his did: a friendship with the poet and Communist Party member, Frank Marshall Davis. As a black man, I’m sure Mr. Davis filled a void in Barry’s life, since his own father had abandoned him and his grandfather wasn’t much of a role model. In fact, it was to Mr. Davis that Barry turned when his grandparents fought over that ride to the bus stop.

Prove what is not factual in what I’ve written here or “above” and I’ll be happy to clear the record. I want to be fair. Thinking individuals can make of the facts what they will. But the facts are what each of us needs in order to make an informed decision.

Obama’s voting record puts him to the left of even Bernie Sanders making him the most liberal Senator of all. His “solutions” offer more government intervention in our lives - anathema to the conservative - and he speaks openly of redistributing wealth. Now these might appeal to you, and you will cast your vote accordingly.

But to those of us who want to maintain the greatness of our nation and its founding, we don’t see bigger government as the “change” we need or want. In fact, if one studies the 8 stages in the lifespan of a democracy, Obama with the help of a Democrat congress, would put us in Stage 7: “apathy to dependence.”

I would appreciate from you some examples of Obama’s “great talent.” Oh, he knows how to turn a phrase, alright. He’s got the cadence down.

He just has yet to figure out what the real “problems” are facing our nation. Once he gets that, we’ll work on solutions.

May 11, 2008 - 6:12 pm Richard:

Rush doesn’t have guests.

May 11, 2008 - 6:33 pm Phil:

Does Hillary need the Democratic Party?

Just a hypothetical, but could she run as third party candidate? Technicals aside, could she steal enough Republican voters who aren’t happy with McCain and steal enough Democratic voters who don’t like Obama? In a three-way race, it’s hard for a dominant player to emerge

Just speculating here.

May 11, 2008 - 8:46 pm bandit:

If Obama wins with Hilary as VP he’d better have a full time food taster

May 12, 2008 - 6:04 am Agoraphobic Plumber:

“Those comfortable with the red/blue state polarized politics are right to be afraid, because Obama could destroy their politics and even their livelihoods.”

I’m not all that attached to “polarized politics”, but destroying my livelihood is EXACTLY what I’m afraid that a babe-in-the-woods like Obama will do. Probably not on purpose, but intent isn’t that important when you’re talking about the economy.

May 12, 2008 - 7:39 am Hold_That_Tiger:

“His “solutions” offer more government intervention in our lives - anathema to the conservative - and he speaks openly of redistributing wealth. Now these might appeal to you, and you will cast your vote accordingly.”

This is a joke right? Conservatives against government intervention in our lives? Yeah right. Oh they pay lip service to this notion, but in practice? No. Ever hear of McCarthyism? It Flourished under Eisenhower. Consider the war against chronic pain patients in this country exacerbated by Nixon’s “War on Drugs” which saw the establishment of a LE agency that regularly intrudes itself upon the doctor-patient relationship and de facto makes medical care decisions that harm some patients: the DEA (whose establishment also gutted the 4th amendment), I also think that the continued assault on Roe v Wade which guarentees a woman’s right to privacy vis a vis her reproductive decisions is an obvious intervention into a citizen’s private life; as well as the Bush policy to pursue those State Laws they don’t agree with: Medical Marijuana, Oregon’s “Death with Dignity” Law despite, yet again, declaring that State’s Rights is a Conservative position. And don’t even get me started on secret surveillance of Americans without warrent, and other liberty limiting parts of the so called “Patriot Act.”

As for “redistribution of wealth” what a bunch of nonsense, our system works on a progressive tax system and has done so since 1913. The mandate has always been economic fairness. Bush was able to tilt the system to favor those in the 1% tax bracket at the expense of the other 99% of American tax payers (even McCain commented on the unfairness of the Bush tax cuts when he voted No on them initally, that is before he realized that honesty in this matter was a losing proposition with his “base”); Obama is only proposing a return to the parity upon which the tax code was based. By the way, we should stop whining about our taxes, the top tax brackets have paid as much as 90% in certain years since 1913; even in 1954 the wealthy were paying 50%.

May 12, 2008 - 10:10 am Believer:

Rather than respond to what you’ve written, I will instead direct you to what inspired me first to post a comment - actually, numerous comments in that thread alone - at PJM: Chetwynd’s Open Letter to Senator Obama.

I hope you access it and read the letter in its entirety.

There are laws that are of far greater importance to our lives than the laws of man. And there are things far higher to which we might devote our energies. I am as guilty as any of forgetting this.

I hope you find yourself blessed - as many of us have - by the message Mr. Chetwynd shares.

May 12, 2008 - 4:15 pm Smokey:

Check out Hillary here:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d0a842c3d2

You’ll be glad you did!

May 12, 2008 - 7:20 pm Debbie, Columbia, SC:

Although I am dead set against Obama offering Clinton any position in the Obama Administration, I’d like to remind everyone of the following:

Hillary will never accept the VP position, she would not be happy playing ’second fiddle.’ PLUS, we all have to remember that: With Hillary’s now known TESTICULAR FORTITUDE - She MUST be the one wearing the pants.

Let’s just hurry up and get the remaining primaries over with so we can help to welcome President Obama!

Hillary, don’t go away mad, JUST GO AWAY!! (And take Bill with you).

May 13, 2008 - 6:58 am Dawnfire82:

Hold_that_tiger: Half truths and rhetoric.

McCarthy was also destroyed and committed suicide by drink under the Eisenhower administration. Eisenhower himself was a political opponent of McCarthy. Nixon’s “War on Drugs” originating with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was passed by an absolute DEMOCRATIC majority in both houses of Congress. (234/192 in the HoR, 57/43 in the Senate) Your ‘continued assault on Roe v Wade’ is a myth based on lies. The fact is, that decision was unsoundly founded and a case of judicial activism at the time, which stamped on the State’s rights you pretend to care about in your very next sentence. The fact that it has stood for decades and since been integrated into the American political landscape mocks the very idea of a ‘continued assault.’

And I’m confused on how covert surveillance of terrorism suspects ‘limits’ your liberty, especially since the whole point is to track people who abuse that ‘liberty’ to kill Americans. I suppose that it’s also worthy to note that the ’so called PATRIOT Act’ was passed by bi-partisan coalitions not once, not twice, but three times since 2001.

Lastly, I’m amazed that you can say that ‘redistribution of wealth’ by Democrats is laughable in the same paragraph that you cite past 90% tax rates, passed by Democrats.

But please, ignore me, as I fully expect you to. This isn’t directed towards you, because I’m an evil, stupid, ignorant rightist whose out to create a new fascism and you’re too smart to fall for my low cunning. This is directed towards others who might actually buy your statements. A twisted historical memory and completely sincere hypocrisy; the intellectual contributions of the modern Democratic party.

May 13, 2008 - 1:01 pm Believer:

For those interested, as I have been, in discovering the origins of Obama’s political life in Chicago, I’ve found some information at:

globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html

that may help fill in some blanks.

May 13, 2008 - 5:21 pm David:

cnnr:

“Those tactics are not only pissing off Obama supporters, but are pissing off the Democratic party establishment, even if they’re not voicing it now out of respect for Bill’s prominence in the party.”

Wrong. Most of the Democrats who are pissed off and not saying so out loud aren’t doing so out of respect for the Clinton legacy. They’re keeping quiet for the same reason the superdelegates won’t commit early: they’re terrified of the Clinton wrath, which is famously long-memoried, and also famously vindictive. If anyone shows any opposition to her triumphal march to victory, they essentially are writing off any chance to have any part in her administration should she win, now, or *ever*. The Clintons have never valued loyalty to the Democratic Party (never mind the country); loyalty to the two of them has always been the only thing that really mattered. Everyone in the party leadership is just running scared because she’s basically announced that she gets to be the nominee, even if she can’t convince anyone to vote for her.

May 14, 2008 - 1:18 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: