ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Looks like the perfect setup for a speech transcending politics, inspiring hope and putting the oomph back in her campaign. Hillary can talk about the difference between lies about sex and lies about snipers in Bosnia, and lies about WMDs and threats of mushroom clouds. She can borrow some lines: "Our union may never be perfect, but we can unite to make it more perfect, by transcending lies and misspeaking and coming together around that chill moment in the dark dark wee hours when the red phone rings at 3 a.m... What are lies anyway but pretty words? How are lies any different than pretty words in a speech? Its actions and experience that counts! Hear me now: If we don't transcend lies and ignore the pretty words now, we'll be listening to lies and pretty words next time around, and the next time after that!"

Thunderous applause. McCain drops out and endorses Hillary. The pundits applaud her masterstroke. YouTube crashes from the strain of viewer demand for repeat viewing of the speech. Obama adopts hang-dog look and quietly slips into obscurity.

Is that working for anyone?

When Hillary told her sniper fire fable most recently, on March 17, she was replying to statements by the comedian Sinbad, who had accompanied her to Bosnia, questioning her previous accounts. So she was already in let's-set-the-record-straight mode. That is the context of what she now calls a "misstatement" and a "minor blip."

Here is how she explained herself once the video came out. This is material for a college course in how people squirm when they are caught in a red-handed lie:

Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK -- because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke -- I didn't say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire -- that's not what I was told. I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can't, I can't rush by her, I've got to at least greet her -- so I made a -- I took her stuff and then I left, Now that's my memory of it...No, I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a mistatement.

How dare you!?

I went to get some coffee this morning at the Oaktree and on my stroll I came under sniper fire from Earthplay across the street and I was forced to run...before I got coffee.

The Republicans have done their job well. They have taught us not only to behave as they do, but to turn that behavior against ourselves instead of them. Instead of sticking together at least long enough to tear McCain apart, we're tearing our own candidates apart. This is what is meant by the phrase "eating your own", isn't it?

The RNC couldn't afford to buy the kind of notoriety we're giving to the people we hope to have save us from 4 more years of the exact same horse-shit, or worse, and we just continue to go forth and out-Coulter Coulter, out-Limbaugh Limbaugh, and out-Fox Fox News. We're so smart, aren't we? We're the hipsters and the cognoscenti, no? We're going to outshine and out-perform the current corrupt power structure and end decades of rapacious business-as-usual, cost-effective environmental degradation, war for the sake of the rich, and the corporate-sponsored destruction of human rights in America, hmmm? No; we're the ostensibly well-intentioned feebs who continue to prove that we can't give America the one thing it hungers for; brave, wise, and tolerant unity in the face of the Beast that has been defecating on us and devouring us for at least the past 8 years.

Any Democrat in the running is better than any Republican in the running. We think we know something bad about Hillary and/or Obama? We know nothing compared to what many Democratic Washington insiders know (stupid campaign staffers excluded), and yet they manage to keep their mouths shut in the hope that maybe we will wind up with anyone but a Republican, while we continue to talk about shit that's either all about ancient news, debatable until Doomsday, or simply not true at all.

I think that we can get where we're trying to go without beating ourselves to death, and I think that the majority of the American people would be relieved and thank us for not immersing them in the usual sewage, but if we really do need to bash anyone, why are we bashing our own people instead of McCain?

This destructive disease that causes us to publicly and constantly attack Democratic candidates has infected us from the top down, and we'll have to cure it from the bottom up if we want it to be cured at all. The Internet has too much power for us to be wasting it on self-destructive name calling and proving who it is who knows the dirtiest dirt of all about the very people we hope to have supplant the Republicans for at least the next four years.

Well said p. But I'll remind you that the Obama campaign had nothing to do with Clinton's current troubles. They neither discovered her lie nor have they touted it in the media. This was the media itself coming up with this latest "story", and we all know that means it's the Republicans that are behind this. It can all go away if Clinton simply realizes the facts and bows out. She has lost the nomination and now she has started to become a liability to the whole Democratic Party. That's not an attack, just an acknowledgment of the math.

Phalarope is right. At this point, our enemy is not Hillary or Obama, its McCain, and all words of criticism should be focused on him. Anyone who thinks there is an ounce of difference that matters between Hillary and Barack in the big picture is missing the big picture.

Here's a quote from McCain yesterday, from a speech in which he explained how he does not support any kind of mortgage relief for homeowners: "[I]t is not the duty of the government to bail out those who have acted irresponsibly, whether they be big banks or small borrowers."

This from a member of the Keating 5!!

He neglected to mention his party's orchestration of a $30 BILLION bailout of Bear Sterns, accomplished via a sweetheart deal for JP Morgan.

In a functioning democracy, McCain would be disqualified for such a blatantly hypocritical statement. He'd be out of the running, just a crackpot candidate.

Not here. This member of the Keating 5 can deride mortgage relief for homeowners victimized by an unaccountable Wall Street and Repugnican policies gone wild, while at the very same instance being part of the team orchestrating a $30 BILLION taxpayer-funded sweetheart bailout of one of the Wall Street banks whose irresponsibility in victimizing these homeowners has gotten it into financial trouble.

McCain means bailouts for Wall Street, but no help for Main Street; more government for the exclusive benefit of the very worst of the fat cats, only the really scummy ones, at the expense of real people, and really, the entire world.

Whether Hillary was or was not ducking for cover is Bosnia is not the issue. Its about as important to our future as whether Bill did or did not have sex with that woman.

Just as with the whole Monica Lewinsky fiasco, the real fault and problem was not that Bill lied about sex with that woman, but that he was asked questions about that irrelevant issue in the first place, and felt compelled to answer in our twisted, misguided media-run reality. The people asking these irrelevant questions should be the ones impeached, ostracized, drummed out of their profession, and most of all: ignored.

Let's get real, and focus on what we can do to try to dig out of this deep hole that the last seven years have pushed us into.

Hey spk, it sounds like you should play it safer and get home delivery of your coffee. That way you won't have to risk sniper fire. Ever try Remy Sol?

http://www.remysol.com

spk: Thanks for your well-considered response. You, too, anonymous 12:16. I was well aware that I was risking a serious reaming for popping off the way I did, but that explosion has been building inside of me for quite awhile. Our derogatory comments here (and elsewhere) are just little raindrops, figuratively speaking, but little raindrops combine with other raindrops to become whole storms and eventually devastating floods that wash away people's best work, and even the meaning and promise of their lives.

I am angry at the DNC for not being able to manage the Democratic candidates a lot better than they have. If, however, this public fight between HRC & BHO has all been some kind of meticulously scripted guerrilla theater, the goal and the substance of it has been lost on me. If this is somehow all going as planned, I don't get it. It quite often seems more as if both Democratic campaigns have been infiltrated by Republican operatives who are doing exactly what one would expect such moles to do; destroy the Democrats' chances of ever putting a candidate in the White House.

I see no reason that those of us who plan on voting for a Democrat regardless of that person's name (and, yes; it certainly has come to that) need to be saving Rupert Murdoch & his ilk and the RNC a single penny. If there are to be attacks made against the Democrats, let the opposition spend their own funds paying for those attacks.

I may be a fool, but I could easily vote for a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket. I can only imagine what kind of candidate and electoral ego-tamping and selflessness would be required in order to see such a partnership become a reality, but it would certainly be better for all of us than what we're getting now.

Phal - Couldn't agree more (with both your comments). It's what I've been trying to say for awhile now, only you have said it so much better! We need to all band together!

Dick Cheney, the disgusting chicken-hawk, was asked yesterday about the burden borne by the soldiers and families of 4,000 soldiers killed in his war. He appeared to resent the idea that anyone should spend time grieving for the "volunteers". He gave this response:

"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said. "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4513250&page=1

If Obama or Hillary said something so callous, so self-serving, so self-absorbed, so dismissive, on the disastrous deaths of 4,000 men and women who had been suckered by the lies of this administration, I would agree we should throw them under the bus.

But Dick Cheney said it: and John McCain supports it.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/25/803794.aspx

Let's start making clear, these guys aren't even Americans. McCain should have gone to jail as one of the Keating 5, and be working in his golden years right now as a janitor to pay off judgments for the money he helped thieves steal from real peoples' pensions and savings.

Bush and Cheney should be in the dock, facing war crimes trials in the Hague right now. Their criminal cronies should already be sitting in jail, their assets long ago forfeited.

"Republican" should be a new term meaning three things all at once: Ignorant, stupid and corrupt. No self-respecting human being should be willing to self-identify as such.

We need to stop getting exercised about inconsequential "differences" between the opposition candidates, and start getting exercised about the very consequential realities that have been thrust on us by Bush and Co., and that McCain has gleefully championed and vowed to continue.

The horrible fact is that we right now are in the grip of very bad people. So long as these people retain any inbfluence, issues don't matter - not war, not health care, not global warming, not jobs, not real estate. None of these issues will see real progress while people who identify as Republicans have influence.

Conversely: Condemn Republicans, throw them in jail, remove them from any positions of influence, in the public and private sector - and none of the "issues" will be issues any more. We'll be solving these problems, all at once, instead of clawing our way to a tiny improvement in one area while we see massive deterioration in others.

In seven years, the Republicans have proven that they have no place in a legitimate national debate. Let's focus on getting this truth out there, instead of letting the Republicans continue laughing while we bicker with each other over whether Hillary or Obama will be better able to work with Republicans. And end up with four more years of George W. Cheney McCain.

HRC is truely hurting the party. It's time for her to bow out~gracefully if she will. If in the end she becomes the nominee by way of super-delegates, without the popular vote, I will not vote for her. Even if it means McBush becomes president. It may be that four more years of Hell is what it will take for our country and real leaders to wake up to the truth of our values as a people. I thought we had strayed far and long enough to make capuring the White House a moral imperative, yet I see Hilary and Bill have played dirty as the Republicans, tarnishing the gleam of hope I once had for 2008.

Above is a reflection of my sunlleness due to Hilary's unabashed self-entitlement to the throne, exibited by her cheap and sullied attempts to dispatch Obama at any and all costs that, are contrary to the moral high-ground we had going into this election.

Does anyone else see it this way? Or did I miss something in this campain? I'm Weary.

Curious: Thanks. Always say your piece, even if you like someone else's piece better. Your words may be better but you may not know it or believe it.

Anonymous #11: Effin' A!!

one of fifty-nine: You haven't missed a thing, but there's a time and place for everything. If you spank your kids at all, you don't spank them on the table in the middle of Christmas Dinner.

Must leave for Ventura now, and won't be back until much later. Glad I got to say what I said, and glad there was a place to say it.

phalarope, your words are convincing and your tone is dignified but your premise that Clinton = Obama relative to Mcandy is a glaring flaw in what would otherwise be an excellent example of sound reasoning. Billary will never be president. Her purpose, wether she knows it or not, is to sabotage the will of the American people, weaken Obama and destroy a brief glimmer of hope in the Democratic party. Billary = Rethuglickin, its as simple as that.

2¥: You may be right. Time will tell. However, I think that there will be an opportunity to deal with any enemies from within after we have dealt with the enemies from without.

There is also another goal; electing as many Democrats and unseating as many Republicans in Congress as we possibly can. The Democratic hair-pulling and name-calling we've been seeing (and participating in) can reduce our chances of doing that. Outweighing an undesirable President in Congress is something we haven't quite been able to do in spite of our successes in 2006. It would be nice to be able to do it next time around.

Excellent posts Phalarope and Anonymous!!

Like Curious, I've tried to make the same arguments a few times (not nearly so eloquently, however). Obviously, the Hilary-haters will continue to feel differently to the very end. And so be it. But for those who can even begin to think that Hilary and Bill Clinton are anywhere NEAR as dangerous, evil, inept and corrupt as George Bush and Dick Cheney - (is that your postion?!?!) I say "Prove it". You will not only be proven wrong, but your argument will only serve to severely and egregiously downplay and minimize the actual war crimes and treasonous policies against the citizens of this country that have been committed in the past 7 years. Is that your aim?!?!

LTOR - let's make a distinction here - there are millions of people who would consider themselves progressive, liberal, Democrat or left-leaning independent who see that Hillary has run a poor campaign that never completely recovered from the 'inevitability' strategy that failed to establish a nationwide ground game.

She has used negative campaigning against Barack (while propping up McCain!), she and Bill have race-baited and winked at Ferraro doing the same, she has trumped up the 'experience' card, and is too divisive at a time that the country needs some serious healing and restoration of global credibility, while there is a candidate MUCH better positioned to assume that role. Not to mention that Obama's fifty state strategy will be of tremendous down-ticket advantage at a time when the GOP is sorely lacking in funds and won't be able to compete in many competitive districts.

My point is that to dismiss everyone who opposes Hillary as the Democratic nominee as a "Hilary-hater" fails to address the very real and growing dissatisfaction with Hillary as a candidate based on the actions of she and her campaign.

I don't intend to minimize the catastrophic damage the current administration has done to the economy, the military and the Constitution. The country is a mess and its pretty obvious why.

Sorry, I should have been more clear and stated that I was not aiming my comment at you or any of the other "progressive, liberal, Democrat or left-leaning independent[s] who see that Hillary has run a poor campaign". I get where you are coming from and I have said before that I realize Hilary has made mistakes and hasn't run a perfect campaign; indeed, she is far from a perfect human being. I have chosen to keep mum on many of these posts because of course it is your right to voice your opinions and concerns. I fully respect what you all have to say - many times I agree.

I have chosen to speak up when I feel someone has crossed the line (as with SPK's comments a while back).

This time I take aim at the last few comments that seem to equate the Clintons with the current criminals in the White House. One person even wrote that they would rather see another "McBush" in the White House than her. To me that is outrageous and I see it as evidence that someone is just repeating and vomiting up what others are saying and patting themselves on the back for their hysterical Hilary-hating "progressiveness" - without any real ability to back up what they are saying.

Again, sorry. I should have been more clear as to not offend the sensible, reasoned, intelligent and rational among you who just don't like Hilary and don't see her as fit to run this country. Fair enough. But to those who cross the line, I still urge you to try and come up with a sensible argument that we would not be 100 times better off with Hilary over Bush & Co.

LTOR,

It's a moot point. Clinton is actively working to elect McSame because she refuses to acknowledge reality and bow out. Mathematically she cannot catch up. If she somehow gets the super delegates to throw this thing, the party is essentially over. I don't hate her, but I am beginning to dislike her intensely when she, four times, touts McFourmoreyearsofbullshit over Barack Obama. It's an affront to the entire progressive wing of the Democratic Party, also known as the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. We'll see another burst of kitchen sink campaigning before PA on April 22nd and she might barely win that, though her net gain in delegates may be in the single digits. Is a single digit gain in delegates when she's trailing by more than 200 pledged delegates really worth it?

I am an expert in "body reading".
Hillary reads as a "can-do" woman.
Barack holds his head up way too high.

comments?

Barack is the one trying to make a big issue of this Bosnia story. How is that not slimy?

With all due respect Tyler and spk, it is irrational, and unsupported by real facts, to strenuously prefer Barack over Hillary given the big picture. I agree that Barack is marginally preferable, because he did not actually vote for the Iraq war, gives some great speeches, and is proving he can run a great campaign.

But that's the extent of it. HRC and her camp are certainly justified in being very worried that putting Obama at the head of the ticket will give us at least four more years of McBush. Despite what you may think, he has not been subjected to anything close to what is coming his way, and he has real vulnerabilities in a general election. He just is not well-known by the country, and therefore, he can still be defined in all sorts of ways by those with the loudest media.

Example: He just released his tax return, showing illegal deductions for political contributions. Worse, it shows substantial donations to Rev Wright's church. The Republicans are going to paint him as an actual Osama mole, an America-hating terrorist, and use these donations, presiding at the wedding, the loops of Rev. Wright, etc. to prove it. Don't be surprised if the Bush Justice Dept. initiaties a terrorism investigation of Rev. Wright's church if/when Obama becomes the candidate.

Osama's speech put this issue to bed for you and me, and perhaps cemented our support for him. But we are already in his camp. It will be toxic in a Fox News-run general election campaign.

I like to think Obama is proving he can weather that kind of B.S. But I don't begrudge or impugn the HRC camp for having concerns otherwise, and feeling strongly that she needs to be the candidate this time. You can call it "entitlement" issues, but it is just as plausibly a real concern that she, and not Barack, is the one who our country needs in the White House now.

In the end, it is not HRC at all that hurts the party by continuing her run, it is the kind of crap on this thread and elsewhere we see where people harden their positions and fool themselves that it matters all that much whether it is her or him, or even say they won't vote, or will vote Repugnican, if its not her or him. That is what is damaging the party.

As far as this impugning of Hillary, the burden needs to be on the accusers: All or any of you who keep impugning Hillary and Bill Clinton as untrustworthy liars, please show us at least one instance where Bill OR Hillary has lied on something that mattered?

From everything I've seen, Bill and Hillary are very trustworthy on issues that matter. They are susceptible to misstatements and even outright untruths on all variety of private-life issues that have 0 bearing on the well-being of our country and the world.

Who cares about that? I don't.

Bush, Cheney and the Republicans, on the other hand, misspeak and lie routinely on matters of life and death for our country and the world. That is something we all should care about: That is lying and misstatements that matter.

This is shades of the attacks on Al Gore over "truthiness" back in 2000 for some minor misstatements (I challenge anyone to even remember what they were). It did great damage to Al Gore. For what?

Dear Anonymous -

Barack is the one trying to make a big issue of this Bosnia story. How is that not slimy?

I did an extensive Google search and did not find Obama making a single reference to the Bosnia story. In fact, its been picked up the mainstream media, because it speaks to the very heart of her campaign platform. Clinton and her surrogates, on the other hand, have been pushing the Wright story directly in the media. How is that not slimy? (particularly when Wright was in the White House, offering his support to Bill when he announced his infidelity, and now she throws him under the bus)

With all due respect Tyler and spk, it is irrational, and unsupported by real facts, to strenuously prefer Barack over Hillary given the big picture.

I was actually rather neutral and thought Hillary was a quite viable candidate. She is a policy wonk and a rock solid debater. I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for her the way that she is running her campaign, and I now think that she would be a inferior president to Obama. The "real facts" that I am using are campaign messaging, campaign platform, ground game for downticket pickup, fifty state strategy, small donor fundraising and the ability to inspire not divide. You may use different "real facts" than I, but it doesn't make me irrational.

HRC and her camp are certainly justified in being very worried that putting Obama at the head of the ticket will give us at least four more years of McBush.

If Hillary doesn't win the nomination, the fact is that a McCain victory would give Hillary another shot in 2012. The viability of the Democratic party is taking a backseat to Hillary's shot at the White House, and that is yet another reason to be disenchanted with her campaign.

The argument that the HRC campaign has "concerns" about Obama as a candidate is a bunch of crap. She has spent nearly 200 million dollars and might not win. I'd be concerned too if I worked 18 hours a day for a year and had the same result. It has nothing to do with Obama's viability as a candidate (which incidentally has resonated with 800,000 more voters than Hillary to date).

Osama's speech put this issue to bed for you and me, and perhaps cemented our support for him. But we are already in his camp. It will be toxic in a Fox News-run general election campaign.

Really, what side are you on? Osama? Come on.

I like to think Obama is proving he can weather that kind of B.S. But I don't begrudge or impugn the HRC camp for having concerns otherwise, and feeling strongly that she needs to be the candidate this time. You can call it "entitlement" issues, but it is just as plausibly a real concern that she, and not Barack, is the one who our country needs in the White House now.

Well, if you look at how Obama handled the Wright matter, delivering an historical speech that raises the level of dialogue in the country, and you look at how Americans have responded in the polls, today giving him a beyond-the-margin-of-error 4 point lead over Hillary, I think he "weathering the B.S." with presidential grace and agility, and I don't expect any less from him as the "kitchen sink" is thrown at him from the left and the right.

In the end, it is not HRC at all that hurts the party by continuing her run

She is basically mathematically eliminated, but it is her prerogative to continue running. So be it.

"I don't hate her, but I am beginning to dislike her intensely when she, four times, touts McFourmoreyearsofbullshit over Barack Obama."

Sorry SPK, I must admit I haven't been keeping up as much as I should be with the news of late. What did she "tout" four times? McCain?

And let me remind you that there is a wide range in the Democratic Party - not just YOUR side, whatever term you and others may choose to usurp. (Do you realize how offensive you are to the rest of us out here?!?! Many of us have been out in the political and activist trenches probably well before you were learning to talk!) And there are (obviously) MANY of us - and we will all still be here and be part of the same party (like it or not) when this whole damn thing is over. To hint that all hell might break loose if Obama loses very well might be the case, but is what good is that going to do? Seriously, if she wins, what are you all going to do? Whine, complain, threaten not to vote, start a revolution? What?

We are all in this together and we should (as the others have said here so intelligently) start coming together to make sure McCain gets nowhere near the White House. And btw, many of us feel the ONLY way that is going to happen is with a Hilary/Obama ticket. What the hell is so wrong with that?!?!

"Do you realize how offensive you are to the rest of us out here?!?!"

I, of course, did not mean you personally, SPK. I meant your comments of late. Today it is the use of the terms "progressive" and "democratic" to try to paint a difference between Obama-supporters and Hilary-supporters. As if "your" side has some sort of intellectual and moral claim to righteousness in this campaign.

There is a fundamental split in the Democratic party.

One side, represented by Hillary Clinton, is big donor, Terry McAuliffe, DLC, 50%+1, triangulating beltway politics.

The other side, represented by Barack Obama, is populist, grass-roots, progressive, small donor, Howard Dean fifty-state democracy with a small d.

The latter is far more likely to ensure the long-term viability of the party, because of the impact that the approach has on (1) down ticket races and (2) a party based on core principles and not shifting focus group responses.

I'm not saying Hillary is a complete caricature and has no principles - her commitment to healthcare is a good example of a steady, principled position, but we could simply look at her authorization for war as a highly calculated political vote to see how beltway politics works.

And btw, many of us feel the ONLY way that is going to happen is with a Hilary/Obama ticket.

That suggestion has been flatly rejected by Obama, who incidently leads in the key metrics for the primary, including number of votes and number of pledged delegates. Why should Obama be #2 on the ticket if he is leading the race?

Of course Obama will publically reject this notion. If he didn't, more people would believe we would get two-for-the-price-of-one and vote for Hilary. It's in his campaign's best interest that he deny any interest in such a partnership.

But does anyone really believe, if things played out that way, that he would refuse the spot?

And, by the way, Tyler - I hear you saying basically the same thing as SPK - but I will admit that you sound so much more civil (and less abrasive and self-righteous) saying it. Not that I agree entirely, mind you...

Of course Obama will publically reject this notion. If he didn't, more people would believe we would get two-for-the-price-of-one and vote for Hilary

Yeah, that's why Team Hillary was pushing Barack as the Veep, despite his lead in the campaign.

(Incidentally it is quite hypocritical to say he's not ready to answer the phone at 3am, but say what a great VP he would make, when the VP's primary qualification - as stated by Bill back in 1992 - is that the candidate is immediately ready to assume the Presidential duties)

People who are actually putting their money down on the nomination give Hillary a 19% shot.
http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/

And thanks, I try to be civil. Of course, I'm not under heavy sniper fire like SPK is.

One last comment before I head out for the evening.

I try to only dish it out to those who dish it to others, and SPK has done his fair share. I'm sure he can take it! See ya all tomorrow...

Damn Tyler! Way to utterly destroy Anon #21's whole argument. It's in tatters. An awesome display.

LTOR-The argument is so tiring, because the question of Clinton winning is moot as I said earlier. It's to nice a day to go too deeply into it, but before the Clinton campaign decided to hop on the Wright bandwagon that was started by the loathsome Sean Hannity, she was busy running around claiming that she had experience to be the President and McKeating5 have experience but "all Obama has is a speech." She made this or a variation on this statement where she preferred McNapalm four separate times, actively trying to destroy her own party should she lose the nomination. That's just despicable, so before you start telling me all about how I'll hurt the party if Obama doesn't get the nomination, you better check what Clinton's up to. I'm merely pointing out the fact that all the gains in turnout because of the Obama campaign will evaporate if Clinton steals the nom in a back room deal. Unlike the angry Clinton supporters who claim they will actually vote for McSame, the Obama people will just tune out and not vote.

By the way, after the speech on race by Obama last week, the Clinton's stopped barking up the speech tree all together. He so easily transcended the whole issue that it became obvious to them that their "all talk" strategy was worse than useless.

Tyler, some thoughts in response:

First, re Obama not attacking Hillary over the Bosnia story, my thirty-second google search yielded the following at the top of the page:

"In a radio interview yesterday on KDKA in Pittsburgh, Clinton said, "I say a lot of things—millions of words a day. So if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement.

But Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor wasn't so dismissive. He said the claim was part of "a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policy making." Clinton critics saw the incident as particularly damaging because it undermines her claim to have hands-on experience to be commander in chief while she says Obama is a naive neophyte on such matters.

Obama strategists add that Clinton has also exaggerated her role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, negotiating "open borders" in the Kosovo region, and on other issues. They say she will do anything and say anything to win."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/26/bosnia-scandal-ignites-a-trust-debate-between-clinton-and-obama.html

Try your Google search again. And correct me if I am wrong, but Obama himself has not made any comments about anything because he has been on vacation.

Re: "The "real facts" that I am using are campaign messaging, campaign platform, ground game for downticket pickup, fifty state strategy, small donor fundraising and the ability to inspire not divide. You may use different "real facts" than I, but it doesn't make me irrational."

Well, okay. Rational people can disagree. But your "facts" are all basically conclusions you have drawn from the campaign. I am talking about concrete accomplishments, concrete proposals, concrete legislation, concrete acts of leadership. Obviously, Hillary has some major failures there. If you had said your facts, for example, were her horrendous decision on approving Iraq, or greenlighting an Iran debacle with her vote on labelling the Republican Guards terrorists, those I think are the kinds of facts that support rational, versus emotional, decisionmaking.

Next, you say: "If Hillary doesn't win the nomination, the fact is that a McCain victory would give Hillary another shot in 2012. The viability of the Democratic party is taking a backseat to Hillary's shot at the White House, and that is yet another reason to be disenchanted with her campaign."

This kind of Rush Limbaugh potshot aimed at dittoheads is exactly what bothers me about much of what I hear on the Democratic side lately. In point of fact, a McCain victory has nothing to do with Hillary's ability to run again in 2012. The fact is, she can run again in 2012 if Obama is the candidate, and wins. And she can run again if she is the candidate, and loses. She can run in 2012, or 2016. All she needs to be able to run again is to still be alive, and it doesn't help her run to have McCain instead of Obama. In either case, she runs against an incumbent.

The fact is, if she cannot get the nomination now, that is what is most going to hurt her in 2012, or 2016. So she understandably is giving it her all right now. The idea that she is staying in the race now to help McCain win, so she can face McCain in 2012 - I'm sorry, that's just ludicrous.

Re "Osama," that was an inadvertent typo. But you are right to call it out. Because that is what Obama will be dealing with in the mainstream press and on Fox News in any general election campaign.

On the substantive point, I am with you, I hope Obama can handle what is coming too. But I have no illusions that he is not vulnerable to some really ugly stuff.

On your last two points, let's hope it is the case. Obama most likely is our nominee. Let's let Hillary rough him up, hopefully under friendly fire some of the Repugnican ugliness that is coming can be short-circuited.

"Let's let Hillary rough him up, hopefully under friendly fire some of the Repugnican ugliness that is coming can be short-circuited."

Allow me to rephrase. Let's not begrudge or get too worked up if Hillary roughs Obama up. At the end of the day, its friendly fire. It is impossible to say right now whether it is better to hit him now, by Hillary, and put the worst to bed, or later, by the Repugs, through their compliant media, with short months or weeks to go before the election.

By the way, this may well be what the campaign itself is thinking. Why otherwise did Obama release his tax returns so early?

Hi Anon -

re: Bosnia - Clinton has, on four distinct instances going back to December, made reference to evading sniper fire. So it wasn't just a "misspoke". Obama is not on vacation - today he gave a major economic speech in NY.

re: facts - I gave you my criteria, you dismissed them. But you reinforced what I said, which put another way is that Hillary is solely about her own candidacy, while Barack is running a populist campaign that is building a much stronger party from the smallest districts on up. I don't see how these things from my criteria - campaign platform, ground game for downticket pickup, fifty state strategy, small donor fundraising are not "rational, versus emotional."

re: In either case, she runs against an incumbent.

It is absurd to argue that there is no distinction between running against an incumbent of an opposing party vs. one of your own party. Obama wins in 2008, he's the defacto nominee in 2012. Same with Hillary. To not understand this distinction undermines the rest of your argument.

re: Re "Osama," that was an inadvertent typo. But you are right to call it out. Because that is what Obama will be dealing with in the mainstream press and on Fox News in any general election campaign.

The right has been calling him Osama, "mistakenly" showing photos of Osama Bin Laden when they talk about him on air and call him B. Hussein Obama repeatedly. And yet today he's up 10 points over Hillary (49-39) and 7 points over McCain (50-43 Pew Research Center). Go figure.

re: On your last two points, let's hope it is the case.

Hope is kind of the point. It beats the hell out of fear. More of the same? (Bush...Clinton...Bush...Clinton) or a new pragmatism and optimism that speaks to a citizenry that collectively we can have a society that honors all of us, not the top 1% or even 50%. Your choice.

Slowly, the turrets will begin to swivel and point away from Obama and Clinton and begin to zero in on McCain. I can just feel it in my bones....

Once again, I must agree with Tyler. Once this nomination ugliness is over, Obama will have very long coat tails because of his 50 state campaign. If Hillary finagles the nod, it's possible we could lose our majority in the House and Senate as well as the Presidency...again. When did the Democrats forget their own history? Truman said it best:

"If the question is between a Democrat who acts like a Republican, and a Republican, the people will vote for the Republican every time."

The notion that Hillary would try to run against Barack in 2012 should Barack prevail this November is ridiculous. The only way she could do that is if she switched parties. Say...you may have something there.

Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Wallace... there are lots of ways Hillary could run in 2012, no matter what happens now. The only notion that is ridiculous is the suggestion Hillary is not dropping out of the race today because she wants McCain to win, so she could run against him in 2012.

I mean, please.

The evidence clearly demonstrates Hillary to be a Rethug in transparent Demo clothing. Time and scrutiny can only make her i'll fitting disguise more apparent. This desperate maneuvering by the fourth branch strengthens my hope that OSAMA is a sincere human and a threat to the death worshipping status quo.

"Unlike the angry Clinton supporters who claim they will actually vote for McSame"...

Well, actually that's news to me, SPK. I've never seen even one example of that - but I'm sure there are a few out there. Most of us, from what I can gather (and this includes every single Hilary-supporter who has posted here, I think), will absolutely get behind Obama when the time comes. None of the self-pitying petulance and non-voting BS that some of you on the other side are threatening. What will that do except help usher in another 4 years of crimes against humanity. It might make you feel good, help ease your "conscience", and give you braggging rights amongst your other so-called "progressive" allies, but do you think all the future victims of a McCain presidency will applaud your efforts?

I think saying in one post that you don't hate Hilary and then in the next saying that you will actively help McCain crash land in the White House shows EXACTLY how you feel about Hilary. If that's not hatred, I don't know what is...

And btw, if this is all such a moot point, and Hilary has no mathematical shot at winning, then why continue with the baiting and bashing?

WE should all be closing ranks now, gearing up to beat THEM, not self-imploding from within. And yes, I realize that I am part of the problem by posting these types of comments, so I will stop. Or at least try.

LTOR = my man person!

Thank you.

ANY assumptions can be made, but not all assumptions are created equal, and from their deductions you will know them.

LTOR: That "thank you" wasn't for stopping; it was for everything you've written on this topic thus far.

Apparently we all have some serious differences, but it's inconceivable that anyone here would really want send McCain to the White House just to thwart Hillary.

I'm saving the rest of what I have to say on this topic for the emails I'm going to send to the two Democratic campaigns and to the DNC. Everyone involved in this self-indulgent internecine smackdown needs to knock it off and start doing whatever it takes to keep McCain & Romney out of the White House. I don't care how much crow either Democratic candidate has to eat -- this is about all of America and all of us, not just just them and their egos.

Thank you, P. And you can call me your GIRL anytime -I won't mind. :):)

Thanks LTOR and phal for fighting the good and decent fight to put a Dem in the White House!

LTOR,

I'm simply writing what may recent polls seem to be showing. When I state that we will lose the gains in turnout and that people who turned out for Obama will not vote if the nomination is taken from him, I am stating it as a simple fact. I am not advocating it as a strategy. Also, there have been numerous polls that show that anywhere from 10% to 25% of Clinton supporters say they will vote for Mc100yearswar if she does not get the nomination.

I also believe that we need to beat McSame in November. I just think the quickest way to do that is for Clinton to bow out and maintain some of her political integrity. When she engages in negative campagining she only hopes to reduce turnout by turning people off. That is the exact opposite of what we need. This latest fiasco where she apparently misspoke four seperate times and somehow imagined she was under snipper fire is incredibly damaging, not just to her own campaign but to the whole of the Democratic Party. Until this story, the party that constantly lied was the Republicans. Now people can point to her "misstatements" and claim that "they're all the same." That's a very bad thing.

Let's beat that old criminal McCain and get onto the difficult if not impossible job of fixing this nation. To that aim, Hillary, please go home.

For the record, I would never vote for McBush-no matter the results of the Dem's nominee fight. Also, in the end, my heart and maybe my vote will go with the eventual nominee reguardless of how. For as said here so many times, in so many ways~?Do we really want, or are we willing to allow, four more years of continuing Crimes to our people and to the rest of the world by the unreasoned, unprincilpiled party of the Sham Right?

Hillary needs to get off the stage. The curtain has come down. Time to go, time to go, time to go...

George W. Cheney McCain touts his experience and says he is the one to pick up the phone at 3 a.m. But when called on a bluster in Jordan, he says he misspoke.

Unfortunately, this story is NOT gathering serious steam, because everyone is still talking about Hillary. Why?

If the Hillary-haters are right, and she does not have a chance, then what is the big deal if she stays in? The worst she can do by staying in is help build some armor for Obama. He'll need it in the general election.

If, on the other hand, the fears of spk are correct, that Hillary by staying in will cause Obama to implode and lose to McCain, I say, please stay in Hillary. If Obama is going to implode under Hillary's attack, better he do it now and we get someone who can win. We need to win.

Meanwhile, the preamble to this whole thread COULD have referred to McCain's inability to grasp who is who or what is even happening in the occupation McBush would like to continue for 100 years. Instead, we focus on a gaffe of Hillary's that cannot possibly matter to anything except her own chagrin.

For those who missed it, McCain was in Jordan explaining how Iran is training Al Qaeda. Except, oops, as Joe Leiberman whispered in his ear, no, Iran and Al Qaeda hate each other and are two opposing sides in the mess McBush created.

That is a "misstatement" that matters: the would-be war hawk commander in chief doesn't even know who is who. Why don't we start calling for McCheney to withdraw from the race? He's the one so clearly unqualified to lead this nation.

(Has anyone heard about McCheney's pastor?)

Let's get the drumroll going among the Repugnicans while they still have time to throw this half-senile incompetent under the bus and nominate Huckabee. Or, how about this: Republicans Want Cheney! Isn't it the veep's turn to run?

If the Hillary-haters are right, and she does not have a chance, then what is the big deal if she stays in? The worst she can do by staying in is help build some armor for Obama. He'll need it in the general election.

Anonymous #46: Using the term "Hilary-haters" is a tactic straight out of the Rove Handbook on how to dodge the issue. We have continually pointed this out, maybe you missed it. Anyway, the use of this Rovian tactic taints much of what you have to say and makes you seem like a victim in search of a perpetrator. As far as "building up armor" goes, that concept is ludicrous and ridiculous. You Hilary-lovers (wink, wink) seem incapable of grasping the most basic ideas presented on this thread and do a disservice to the former first lady. Time to get off the stage. The curtain has come down. Writing has been on the wall for several weeks. Good bye. Thanks for all the fish :-)

Really Francis?

I posted Obama's Friday comments, where he told us his foreign policy is really like that of Bush I, Kennedy (Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, various covert actions), and Ronald Reagan (he of the Contras, he of the Guatemalan genocide, he the covert dealer of arms to Iran... on and on), on the April Fools Thread in the hopes the comments were a joke.

Alas, Friday was not April Fools.

Obama has give us alot of vague reasons for hope in his speeches.

Of course, Ronald Reagan was good at that too.

If Obama wants to emulate Bush I, Reagan and Kennedy as his foreign policy mentors, all I can say is, let's make sure the Dems nominate Hillary. Because if we're voting in November for the candidate most likely to emulate Ronald Reagan and Bush I, I think McCain beats Obama hands down in that contest.

Don't you?