Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

At Missouri Church, Clinton Talks of History


Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks to parishoners at the Greater Mount Carmel Missionary Baptist Church February 3, 2008 in St. Louis, Missouri. (Getty Images).

By Dan Balz
ST. LOUIS -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton started her campaign day in church Sunday morning, mixing Biblical references with talk of the history-making Democratic nomination contest and direct criticism of Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain.

After appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows, Clinton spoke from the pulpit of the Greater Mount Carmel Missionary Baptist Church. Referring to her competition with Sen. Barack Obama, she told the congregation that it was a "red letter moment" for America to have a contest in which the nominee will either be an African American or a woman.

"No matter what happens in this nominating contest, one of us will make history," she said. "That is a cause of great celebration."

Clinton avoided direct criticism of Obama, but was pointed about the effect of eight years of the Bush administration on the country. She described the Republican agenda as "an epidemic of indifference" to the problems of poor and middle-class Americans.

Warning that Republicans will wage a vigorous fight to retain the White House in November, she told the congregation, "I wish they would just stand up and say, 'We are so embarrassed. We're not going to run anyone.'"

Speaking of McCain, Clinton said, "I respect him and I respect his service to our country and his patriotism. But he has recently said it wouldn't bother him if we had troops in Iraq for 100 years. Well it would bother me. It would bother most Americans."

Clinton told the congregation there is no military solution in Iraq. "We have the best military in the world," she added. "It's time for them to come home."

At the back of the church, there were copies of the St. Louis American, an African-American newspaper, which carried a front-page endorsement of Obama under the headline, "Seizing the opportunity for a national evolution." On the editorial page was a cartoon pillorying Clinton for suggesting that it was Obama's campaign and not hers that had injected racial politics into the nomination battle.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 3, 2008; 1:05 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Biden to Stay Neutral
Next: Closing Arguments for Super Tuesday

Comments

Hillary started out her Iowa campaigns by saving some money by walking away without paying tips. She went to California, and is asking for votes from latinos. Most of the latino population in California are either illegal or working on minimum wages. Most of them depend on tips for whatever work they do. I don't know how many got the boots from Hillary since she does not believe in tipping waiters/waitresses in restaurants.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | February 3, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

I simply cannot understand why people like Barack Obama. He didn't pay his parking tickets because he has always felt that he was special and above the law ... as he did when he took cocaine in high school. He lies about his Muslim childhood and only converted to Christianity for the political advantage. He preaches a message of unity, but attends a church that is lead by an "anti-white" minister. He uses meaningless words, with no substance ... silly phrases such as "There is not a liberal America or a conservative America, there is only the United States of America." This is poetical rubbish. Surely he does not believe this garbage. He is the most socialistic and most liberal candidate for President. I suspect it is because he grew up never working a day in his life ... just going to elite private schools with the money of his White grandparents ... who he rejected once he got their money. I don't understand why people in America don't expose this fraud ... why?

Posted by: DanEllis8 | February 3, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

asmim wrote:
"aamittal: I find it stunning that a person should jump straight from being a random state senator to the President of United States!"

Two words: Abraham Lincoln.
And he was from IL, and a lawyer as well! Not to compare the two for wisdom and knowledge for the job directly, but since you brought it up...

aamittal response:
asim, I think you understand how magnificiently misinformed that comment is - evident in your own following qualification: "Not to compare the two for wisdom and knowledge for the job directly".
Folks, this is exactly my point about how star-struck, detached from any shred of objectivity Obama supporters are. This poster is comparing Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Here is a wikipedia link to Abraham Lincoln for those dizzy enough to contemplate such glorious comparisons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

Posted by: aamittal | February 3, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I find it stunning that a person should jump straight from being a random state senator to the President of United States!
Two words: Abraham Lincoln.

And he was from IL, and a lawyer as well! Not to compare the two for wisdom and knowledge for the job directly, but since you brought it up...

Posted by: asim | February 3, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse


CASES OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LATINOS BY THE CLINTONS!
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillarDy.htm
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_gets_sleepy_at_mlk_day.php

CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

GOLDWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 3, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

AP Top News at 2:00 p.m. EST

2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans. The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 3, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

hey ralphdaugherty,

You're right. The Chicago papers have investigated Obama about Rezko.

They discovered Obama didn't do anything wrong!

Guess you should have checked your facts before you posted your little rant.

p.s. I'm from Chicago...and Obama was cleared about 2 years ago!

Posted by: BSirvio | February 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Yes We Can Vote Substance over Shine!

If Barack Obama is on the ticket, I will change my registration to Independent and vote Republican for the first time in my life.

I know what some people are thinking as they read this, "We don't want another Republican in the White House ... The Republicans are far worse than an inexperienced Democrat." But if we get McCain as the Republican nominee then I cannot with clear conscience vote against him for someone with no experience. We see right now what happens when we get a President who has little experience and will depend on a great team of advisors around him to see him through. He will fall victim to the agenda of tens of advisors like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld (in this case, Kennedy, Kerry etc.)

I find it stunning that a person should jump straight from being a random state senator to the President of United States!

I am awed that some people should forget all sense of perspective and forget that Bill Clinton wasn't just a good President compared to Bush, he was the BEST in recent history and with FAR LESS FLAWS. Look at the serial philandering of JFK and his Bay of Pigs mess when the world came to the brink of annihilation. LBJ perpetuated the Vietnam War, Nixon was a criminal, Carter was totally incompetent, Reagan doubled our national debt, gave us Iran Contra/S&L fiascos, Bush Sr. was a king of recession and in bed with the Saudis. Then we had Bill Clinton. Some of the best presidential years in recent history. Let us not buy into the Republican propaganda and think otherwise.

Let me be very clear with my view on this.
My vote will not be against Barack Obama.
My vote will not be against the Democratic Party.
My vote will not be for the Republican Party.
My vote is bigger than Barack Obama.
My vote is for objectivity, rationality and for the importance of substance over shine, prose over poetry, doing over only talking.

Too many times in the past as in Gore Vs Nader and Mondale and Dukakis the Democratic Party has fallen victim to the militancy of the fringe Left. So I say here today...

My vote is not going to be a Democratic vote.
My vote is not going to be a Republican vote.
My vote will be for an America that has depth to evaluate substance over superficiality. That won't, once more, as it did in case of George Bush, vote for the guy you can go to bar and have a beer with.

America, we have the chance to show that we can withstand the combined onslaught of Main Street Media & Conservative Media. Remember, when Howard Dean was threatening to emerge as the Democratic Candidate the Republicans immediately came out with Ads mocking him as a leftist scumbag. IF THEY ARE SO AFRAID OF BARACK OBAMA WHY HAVE THEY STAYED HANDS-OFF AND CONTINUED TO ATTACK ONLY HILLARY CLINTON? They are setting us up like they set us up against Gore. Democrats, avoid the nuttiness of the MoveOn org crowd that took out Gore by moving towards Nader. Every time these extreme Left liberals attack Hillary for the war, I say to them, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRAQ WAR BECAUSE AL GORE WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT TODAY IF YOU HAD NOT GONE FOR NADER. Just like today, then too you wanted to turn the page on Clintons - what a fine job you did.

All those still stuck on Obama for his anti-war speech, ask yourself this, why does Obama have an IDENTICAL war voting record to Hillary since he has been in the Senate? If he is so anti-war - why then? If you say, well, he had to deny Republicans any trashing points - that's political expediency. If he has to be so politically expedient when the majority in America is against the war, how would he have voted on the Iraq war resolution in the senate of 2002/03, especially if his own state had been hit like Hillary's was? Those of us who are fed up of Obama grandstanding and his running on one anti-war speech that he made from the safe liberal bulwarks of Illinois state legislature, let us act now.

YES WE CAN VOTE SUBSTANCE OVER SHINE.

Have the audacity to go against the conventional wisdom and combined onslaught of those who think a candidate who has done much is worse than a candidate who is clean because he is without a record.

Posted by: aamittal | February 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"At the back of the church, there were copies of the St. Louis American, an African-American newspaper, which carried a front-page endorsement of Obama under the headline, "Seizing the opportunity for a national evolution." On the editorial page was a cartoon pillorying Clinton for suggesting that it was Obama's campaign and not hers that had injected racial politics into the nomination battle

We have long passed the point of farce in the so-called political press we are cursed with. I do look forward to the end of this election.

Posted by: zukermand | February 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse


But what they get is Congress' health plan, and no more health care at the emergency room. Hospitals can no longer charge $1000 for some sundry item and claim that they have to rip off the insured to pay for the uninsured.

Compare to requirement for car insurance. Would people buy car insurance if they didn't have to? Of course not. You don't have to have Congress' health paln, the same one Hillary and Barack and all the other Senators and Representatives have, and at a discount if you can't afford it, but if you don't have health insurance then someone has to pay for it when you go to that emergency room.

Obama has no plan, just more taxpayer money paying for outrageous heath costs because there are so many uninsured.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 3, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Thank you "mthomas722." Finally some are starting to see the relevance of recycling families. We are creating a Monarch in this country, and irregardless if you think the spouse is a good or great candidate. You should approach the situation with great pause. One of the greatest destructions to our democracy is apathy. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, but I do not any instance want to see a former president sitting in 1600.

Senator Clinton has parsed her words continuosly. Highlighting the good times of her husbands administration as this is what we will automatically return to by electing her as president, but disassociating herself from the negatives of his administration.

Let us all move forward as the Constitution was intended to do so. No Monarchs over Democracy.

Posted by: pacman04x | February 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA PULLS AHEAD IN CALIFORNIA, TIES IN NEW JERSEY AND MISSOURI.

CLEAN GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATS ON VERGE OF RETAKING PARTY ...

Clinton, Obama in dead heat ahead of big vote
Sun Feb 3, 2008 12:31pm

By David Wiessler

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were locked in a near dead heat two days before the biggest presidential voting so far while John McCain tried to nail down the Republican nomination for the White House.

With 24 states holding nominating contests on Tuesday, the candidates spent their Sundays appearing on the morning television talk shows and campaigning across the country as polls showed the two races going in opposite directions.

The Democratic race, which Clinton once led handily, had narrowed to a nearly a draw in recent national polls.

Obama held a slight lead in California and was virtually tied with Clinton in New Jersey and Missouri -- three states voting on "Super Tuesday" -- in a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Sunday. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 3, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY HANDS REPUBLICANS A DEVASTATING SOUNDBITE FOR FALL ELECTION ...

Feb 3, 11:40 AM EST

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages ..."

GOING AFTER PEOPLE'S WAGES ...

IS THAT THE WAY DEMOCRATS TALK? ...

THE REPUBLICANS WILL KILL THE DEMOCRATS WITH THAT KIND OF LOOSE-LIPPED, BIG BROTHERISH LUNACY ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 3, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

You really are trying to snooker this guy straight into the presidncy without any scrutiny whatsoever. The Chicago newspapers are covering all this but the rest of the public will be in for a shock when they find out what the press wouldn't tell them.

We have to make crystal clear to people that when Obama was voted to the Senate, he wanted to buy an expensive house in Chicago that he couldn't afford. An adjoining $625,000 piece of property was too expensive, so Obama asked his Muslim Syrian financier Rezko to help him out, and Rezko bought the property, which allowed Obama to buy the house next to it for $300,000 less than the 1.95 million price. That $300,000 alone is serious money.

Now on to way worse stuff. The property was in Rezko's name (his wife's name), but just sitting there. I read quite a bit a few days ago on it, and will try to finish figuring this out this weekend. But from posts on the news sites investigating this, ABC and the Chicago papers, one person said the property has no access from the street and that Obama pays for landscaping because no one else would be able to get to it.

But what is clear is that Obamna wanted a large mansion and grounds that cost approximately 2.5 million, and he went to his long time business associate Rezko - at least I would describe a 17 year association of carrying the legal and political load for a professional con job of milking taxpayers for tens of millions of dollars for renovating apartment buildings for the poor - and doing such a poor job of it as you skim off everything for you and your cronies that little was left to do any constuction. Heck, Rezko even quit paying the heat but at the same time gave $1,000 to Obama who was the state rep for the district containing these poor freezing people, people who surely pleaded with Obama's office for help - but it is to this long term crook relationship financier of his state and Senate runs that he went to to buy his backyard for him.

Surely that would have been bad enough, but Rezko had also just been publically indicted by the Federal government. But Obama wanted his $625,000 backyard, and who else did he have chits on when it came time to milk someone down but good.

So the property was sitting there, essentially part of Obama's mansion grounds, but then Rezko starts getting wires of millions of dollars from the middle east, Rezko's a Syrian and the wires were coming from an Iraqi billionare who fled Iraq, undoubtedly where some of our countless billions have gone that we "can't find", and this all quietly comes out in bail paperwork filed with the court on Rezko's assets. And all of a sudden, we're now told that Rezko "has since sold it", it being Obama's back (or front, or something he can get to but the owner can't because there's no easement or access from the street to it), and oh never mind, Rezko just went away.

Except that I read another post that the person who bought it was a crony of Rezko's and Obama's, one of Rezko's lawyers. If someone want to try to tell me that a Rezko crony paid half a million dollars of his own money for Obama's backyard that he can't get to, I'll eat crushed glass and nails. No, this is standard deviant behavior and they shuffled ownership of Obama's backyard to a someone not named Rezko because Rezko is going to federal trial in February on corruption charges. Oh, except since he's been caught illegally receiving wire transfers from the middle east against his bail restrictions, he's jailed now as a flight risk awaiting trial this month.

But Obama described this guy in the debate as "oh that was just some guy that I did five hours of clerk work for" early in his career, which by the way, isn't going from law clerk work in 1995 where you're described as too junior to have any decision making responsibilities in these tens of millions of doallars of organized taxpayer theft - Rezko walked away from all 17 properties, Obama was involved with him in nine of them, and the city of Chicago, and the poor people in what's left of those 17 buildings are left holding the bag - but isn't that a long way to come from junior no responsibility law clerk in 1995 to presidential cult leader 13 years later? I think so, but hey, as long as he can preach.

So that's how clear cut we have to make it for people because once they start understanding that this is the first thing Obama did when elected Senator three years ago, and he had the audacity to demand Senate ethics reform, someone would surely ask isn't Obama's whole career with Rezko culminating in Obama's $625,000 back yard one huge pile of ethics violations?

I can't even see Obama weathering a Senate ethics investigation once the stuff hits the fan, but you can betcha the conservatives are ready to take Obama apart on this. And they can get all they need just from reading the Chicago papers.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Yes We Can Vote Democracy over Dynasty


I'm going to keep this simple and straight to the point.

If Hillary Clinton is ANYWHERE on the ticket, I will change my registration to Independent and vote Republican for the first time in my life.

I know what some people are thinking as they read this blog..."We don't want another Republican in the White House"..."The Republicans are far worse than Hillary Clinton"..."Vote for the lesser of 2 evils"

I know that this thinking may sound plausible...because we have been trained by the pundits to think this way. When we have come to the point when we are led to choose between "the lesser of two evils" we have to come to terms of reality that our democracy is slipping away from the true values of the American people. If you believe this cynical view, then you're voting out of fear instead of conviction.

We see right now that the balance of power has shifted towards the Executive Branch when the son, George Bush 2, of a President, George Bush 1, is in the White House.

We can't even begin to imagine how the balance of power will continue to shift to the Executive Branch if we have 2 presidents, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, in the White House at the same time for the first time in our history.

It strikes me in awe that people are so blind by their self-interest of winning and in fact state their reason for voting for Hillary Clinton simply because of having a president, Bill Clinton that already served the full 2 terms, back in the White House which would otherwise be unconstitutional. But at the same time these same people are wide awake and realize that a 2nd term of the Bush family was the worse thing that happened in the history of our Democracy.

Let me be very clear with my view on this.

My vote will not be against Hillary Clinton.
My vote will not be against the Democratic Party.
My vote will not be for the Republican Party.
My vote is bigger than Barack Obama.
My vote is for Democracy over Dynasty.

Too many times we have seen our "loyal" vote taken for granted by the Democratic Party, as well as, the Republican Party. So I say here today...

My vote is not going to be a Democratic vote.
My vote is not going to be a Republican vote.
My vote will be an American vote for justice, peace and prosperity of Democracy.

America, we have the chance to lead the world in setting aside the Ideological, Partisan, and the Dynastical mind set that is so deeply rooted in Politics perpetuated by the Main Stream Media. The leaders around the world will begin to see that YES YOU CAN win by uniting people across gender, religion and race.

Because I stand for Democracy over Dynasty...because I'm an American before I'm a Democrat...I will be force to change my registration to an Independent to send a clear message to the Democratic Party that my vote will never again be taken for granted.

I ask all that agree with this blog to unite on this message of Democracy over Dynasty. Let's unite in one voice and send this message to every blog around the world...Every article that is written...Every Radio Station...Every TV Station.

YES WE CAN VOTE DEMOCRACY OVER DYNASTY.

If we do this America, Barack Obama will shock the world with the Audacity of Hope.

Posted by: mthomas722 | February 3, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company