Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Blames MoveOn for Caucus Losses

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Hillary Clinton blamed her defeats by Barack Obama in caucuses around the country in part on MoveOn.org, the liberal activist group that was founded in 1998 to tell Congress to "move on" from its push to impeach Clinton's husband.

Clinton's comments were posted last night in audio form on the liberal political site Huffington Post, which would not say how, where or when it obtained the recording, beyond saying that it was after Super Tuesday.

"We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party," Clinton told donors in the audio clip. "MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Barack Obama's controversial comments about small-town voters appeared on the Huffington Post last week, and the disclosure of Clinton's remarks seemed an attempt at payback, as users of the generally pro-Obama site throughout the week had posted quotes showing Hillary or Bill Clinton discussing the challenge of winning over white working-class voters.

MoveOn, which claims 3 million members, endorsed Obama in early February. It was one of the most prominent of the Democratic groups opposed to the war in Iraq, and the current executive director of its political action committee, Eli Pariser, had recommended in 2001 that the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks be "moderate and restrained." Pariser was not running MoveOn at the time, but an online group called 9-11Peace.org, which called for "a nonmilitaristic response to the terrorist attacks." Pariser now says he supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

Clinton's campaign has long suggested Obama backers intimidate people at caucuses, a charge that has not been proven, but the former first lady had not previously laid the blame at the feet of MoveOn.

"Senator Clinton's remarks attacking them are unfounded and categorically false," Pariser said.

But Clinton's focus on MoveOn illustrates a larger tension between the senator from New York and liberal internet activists in the party who are members of MoveOn or frequent visitors to sites like Huffington Post or Daily Kos. Many of the activists were opposed from the beginning to the Iraq War, which Clinton voted to authorize, and were skeptical of the centrist approach of her husband.

Such divisions have deepened during the primaries, even though Obama and Clinton have very similar plans to pull out troops from Iraq.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 19, 2008; 11:23 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: At Clinton Rally, Talk of Breaking Barriers - and Those Awkward White House Years
Next: On the Gay Bar Circuit with Chelsea and the Gov.

Comments

I couldn't have said that better Shirl, thank you and I hope that people really open the mind and the eyes and don't let a blind (Hillary) lead the blind (US) or they would fall into the ditch.

Posted by: Hope | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't have said that better Shirl, thank you and I hope that people really open the mind and the eyes and don't let a blind (Hillary) lead the blind (US) or they would fall into the ditch.

Posted by: Hope | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

April, sorry but you are not being fair when you pointed out that Obama pledge to have the troops back in 12 months. If you were really watching the debate Hillary also said she was bringing them home in 12 months. How is that for a lie? Also the 200, thou. He didn't said that. He said people that makes over 250, thou, in another words, the rich shouldn't pay less than the secretary" So I don't know what kind of lie are you trying to spread about senator Obama. He will be our next president whether you and the racially motivated ideologist think not. Also for Max, please where did you get those books, from a radical hippie? Be fair and read one book: the Bible. I am not trying to impose my religion on anyone since some say that we shouldn't mix religion with politics, however is hypocritical since the dollar bill states: IN GOD WE TRUST; and the pledge of Alliance: ONE NATION UNDER GOD, THE RECITALS ON SCHOOLS, ETC, ETC. If you watch the whole video of pastor Jeremiah Wright you would see that he refering to Jesus as in DEUTERONOMY 28:15, no more or less. Please do us a favor and stop spreading hate. GOD loves you! even if you don't but GOD also punishes, even if you don't believe it and that's what happened with the whole pastor case. Is just garbage and lies. I just hope that people who are reading this are more smarter that some and do something for this country, now that WE the people have the chance. Also senator MCain had the nerve to call Obama elitist, when his own wife is in that circle. Who is the hair to millions? the elite?.. I saw her in the show The View today, and she looks like she gets plastic surgery like every second. Very plastic herself, but her neck shows her true age. Her eyes were looking weird like she had 'botox' or something. God help us if she is the first lady in the future. One word to describe her is 'superficial'.

Posted by: Hope | April 21, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

April, sorry but you are not being fair when you pointed out that Obama pledge to have the troops back in 12 months. If you were really watching the debate Hillary also said she was bringing them home in 12 months. How is that for a lie? Also the 200, thou. He didn't said that. He said people that makes over 250, thou, in another words, the rich shouldn't pay less than the secretary" So I don't know what kind of lie are you trying to spread about senator Obama. He will be our next president whether you and the racially motivated ideologist think not. Also for Max, please where did you get those books, from a radical hippie? Be fair and read one book: the Bible. I am not trying to impose my religion on anyone since some say that we shouldn't mix religion with politics, however is hypocritical since the dollar bill states: IN GOD WE TRUST; and the pledge of Alliance: ONE NATION UNDER GOD, THE RECITALS ON SCHOOLS, ETC, ETC. If you watch the whole video of pastor Jeremiah Wright you would see that he refering to Jesus as in DEUTERONOMY 28:15, no more or less. Please do us a favor and stop spreading hate. GOD loves you! even if you don't but GOD also punishes, even if you don't believe it and that's what happened with the whole pastor case. Is just garbage and lies. I just hope that people who are reading this are more smarter that some and do something for this country, now that WE the people have the chance. Also senator MCain had the nerve to call Obam elitist, when his own wife is in that circle. Who is the hair to millions? the elite?.. I saw her in the show The View today, and she looks like she gets plastic surgery like every second. Very plastic herself, but her neck shows her true age. He eyes were looking weird like she had 'botox' or something. God help us if she is the first lady in the future. One word, superficial.

Posted by: Hope | April 21, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

went to Caucus to register for Obama. I worked all day and then waited at the precint til everyone had voted and the registration for delegates began. There were parents with babies, older people in wheelchairs and the precinct house was packed....There's always those willing to make excuses for their lack of commitment...we all make choices as to what is important and how to get it done....and those of us who balance our priorities usually don't have the time to whine "unfair...."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Questions ABC should have asked Mrs. Clinton:
1. Senator Clinton, you have been sleeping and keeping house with a known adulterer who also lied with his hand on the Bible. Why have you not denounced and rejected him? Does this mean that you approve of, even are yourself an adulterer, and have no respect for or do not believe in the Bible?
2. You kept your chief strategist, Mark Penn, on your payroll, although he had been working to pass free trade agreements with Columbia, also you continue to remain married to Bill, who also received $900,000 for such support, and millions more from China, Saudi Arabia, etc, known breakers of human rights and for China now with aggression against the Tibetan people. Are you therefore really for free trade and approve of China's and other nations' bad human rights record? Are you in fact a free trader and dictator at heart? Why have you not denounced and rejected Mark Penn and Bill Clinton?
3. Your daughter works for a hedgefund company on Wall Steet. Are you therefore a candidate for a hedgefund front and will take Wall Street over Main Street and over blue-collar workers? Why have you not denounced and rejected your daughter, Chelsea?
The ABC debate was disgusting--it was like watching a set-up/ambush/lynching of Senator Obama with the three on the stage doing a mob attack. It was more like a bunch of hoodlums against one honest man, with Hillary slugging him from behind. I am a senior citizen feminist who will never vote for Mrs. Clinton. Hillary believes she is entitled to her husband's ex-job, but most Americans dislike and distrust her, and on good evidence. We've watched Hillary lie with a smile on St Patrick's Day about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia. Watched her smile as she knee-caps Obama with distortions on words taken out of context. Watched her smile as she lies to blue collar workers about NAFTA and about her working class identity, she of the multimillions from shady off-shore corporations and with a Yale law-school degree put to the service of union-busting Wal-Mart. Senator Obama shows restraint and class in steering away from negative attacks on her, and whoa! is there a pile of *hit on record with the Clinton dynasty. Pardons in exchange for payback from criminals, Saudi millions for the Clinton Foundation, hundreds of thousands for support of the Colombian free trade treaty, etc, etc. Hillary cries for the camera to get the sister votes, chugs down whiskey chased with beer for the machismo barflies, and keeps intimate company with an impeached president caught lying with his hand on the Bible about not having sex with that woman. What does her sleeping with a proven adulterer and lying-under-oath President say about the company she keeps? The more we watch Hillary, the more we distrust her. The more we know Obama, the more he becomes our candidate to change dynastic business as usual in Washington. We citizens of the American Republic denounce and reject the Clinton dynasty. We want our democracy back.

Posted by: shirl | April 20, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

You are right it is sad Hillary is treated like dirt but so many. I am grateful she is so strong and has Bill and Chelsea. I don't care what others say, I suspect she has a very strong marriage. It is touching to see Bill working so hard for her. They have given much to our country and are willing to give more.

Posted by: John |

LOL!

Posted by: tydicea | April 20, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

HC says that lobbyists represent 'real Americans'; so who are the people who voted against her in caucuses around the country??? Chopped liver???

Posted by: Joevee | April 20, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

All of the Obamabots are in for an extremely rude awakening when he gets to the general election.

Obama is going to have his ass handed to him by Mccain/Romney and the GOP.

Posted by: Steve | April 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

It's a fact that MoveOn helped Obama. It's also a fact that HRC ran a very poor campaign and make uncharacteristic mistakes (Bosnia sniper fire) that was successfully attacked by her opponents. After all is said and done, I still think she has done mostly good for the public throughout her life and held up her integrity. Though her image will be tarnished out of the campaign. History will remember her as the closest hope America ever gotten to a female president who would have taken care of governing rather than occupying the post and do nothing. Obama voted no too many times in the senate. The guy enjoys being admired too much and have no time to take care of business.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I have to stop reading these comments, I feel stupider every time I do.

Posted by: cripes | April 20, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

The fact is Obama is not the great leader and unifier everyone thinks he is. (He only has a little more than half of the Democratic party. Will Republicans vote for him?)
He's just as sneaky and manipulative as any other candidate. You all are forgetting: he wants to be president and is willing to do and say anything to get himself there.
You want to end the war in Iraq? Sure. He'll do it in 18mos despite recent comments about not knowing much about the military. Well, he'll let his VP figure that out.
Hey while we're at it let's raise the SS cap and capital gains tax and get those rich bastards. That got him votes. But now he's rethinking it. Because history says raising the capital gains tax is worse for the economy than cutting. And SS is not going to be fixed by taxing more people. Your forget those that put the most in get the most out. So you're still left with a hole to patch.
Obama? Really!? Please. The man will say anything to get votes. Then go back and think about it.

Posted by: Lee | April 20, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Caucuses are a joke. Older voters are pretty much left out; swing shift workers are left out; other who could only vote by mail are left out. If all states had primaries, instead of caucuses (which they should), Obama would have lost the nomination process months ago.

Posted by: Fred | April 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Hillary was a fundamentally flawed candidate from the beginning who compounded her problems by not having a "Plan B" when she had a dismal Super Tuesday showing. We want a person to manage the country who manages problems like she has in the following areas -

Health Care '93 style.

Her campaign.

Bill?

She can't manage, she's divisive, and she needs to get out of the way - she's toast, and the only person who doesn't seem to realize that is herself.

Posted by: Ed Williams | April 20, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Wow, Bush really got you fearmongering morons in an uproar, didn't he?

I love all the posts saying that Obamas call for unity and involvment of All Americans in the political process is a lie ... because in the past he has associated with people who have radical views.

So Democracy is only for conservative white christians then? You want to turn aside any black person who has spoken out in anger? You want to turn aside any person, who at any time in thier life has spoken out against the goverment? You want to turn aside any muslim who has cursed the US goverments policy?

Obama seems to be the only canidate who knows what UNITY means. His job was to organize ALL the people of Chicago to make life better for everyone.

He worked with the Rich and the Poor, the black and the white, the patriotic and those who have given up on America.

I love the fact that he stayed in the Church. He said to his pastor, I love you as a friend, but you are wrong about America .. come with me, work in the system to right the wrongs.

Most of you old democrats were un-patriotic when you opposed the vietnam war and American policy .. maybe we should turn our backs on you.

Posted by: Michael Cowan | April 20, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Excuse me, Hillary. Are you whining?

No whimps in the White House, remember? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or, in your case, get back into the kitchen where you belong, and stay there. We will eventually elect a female who is worthy of our vote, not one who has to lie her way into the Presidency.

Posted by: Ridiculous! | April 20, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is right about one thing- OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE!! Only a mental midget would back this lighweight-

Posted by: bethelbob@hotmail.com | April 20, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Looking at all the above comments is a sad commentary on the thought process of the left leaning public

Posted by: volunteer | April 20, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

-----CLINTON SLEEZE FATIGUE WILL INVIGORATE GOP, DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS AND SINK DEMOCRATIC TICKET-----

-----OBAMA / KERRY TO WIN-----

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.

Posted by: avraam jack | April 20, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton has to blame someone and something because she, herself, cannot be responsible for her unpopularity. Now that is three things all happening at once. It is emotional immaturity. It is lawyering and denial. And it is political megalomania. All at once. Terrific. Is she running for leader of the free world?

Didn't anybody tell her that blaming is a lower level of consciousness than responsibility?

She used to be "likable enough."

Posted by: Gaias Child | April 20, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

The Huff Post author edited the audio clip and refuses to provide the entire clip. The lines may have been taken out of context to make Hillary look bad, something you'd expect at Huff Post.

Posted by: Psychodrew | April 20, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Move On is a joke this year. They held that fake poll for Obama and lost 50 % of the so called members in one week.

Move On is run by a small group of elitists and is hardly democratic in its methods.

Posted by: hhkeller | April 20, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Is Clinton's research team really this bad? They don't seem to get the facts straight on ANYTHING! It's all half-truths and spin. Let's try "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Just for a change.

Posted by: Tom J | April 20, 2008 6:37 AM | Report abuse

MoveOn.org was never against the war in Afghanistan.

In fact, unlike Hillary, they recognized that's where the people who attacked us on 9/11 were hiding out...not in Iraq.

That Hillary chooses to lie, and there's no other word for it, about MoveOn.org's position merely proves once again what David Geffen warned us about a year ago:

Not only do the Clintons lie with incredible ease, they often seem incapable of telling the truth.

End the pestilence that is the Clintons. Please.

Posted by: filmex | April 20, 2008 3:55 AM | Report abuse

Let's all do something real classy and very old fashioned. It's call shunning. This nation needs to shun the Clintons beastiological mindfulness and protect our ears and spirits from the discusting evil side of their personal terror. To quote the mocker of God, Hillary: "The clouds will open, there will be celestial choirs singing and there will be light".

Posted by: MissClarity | April 20, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse

Focus attention on Move-on, toss in an insinuation and look at the less than civil comments that are stirred. Senator Clinton hit a nerve.

Posted by: thinktank | April 20, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

There are many videos on YouTube, just search by the state, caucus and you will hear Obama's supporters shouting and intimidating Clinton's supporters. This is not a made up deal.

Now, we have seen Obama's crude behavior spread all over the internet in the form of his "flipping off" gesture, and we understand why his supporters behaved badly.

Posted by: Truth Teller | April 20, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

Okay Hillary...let me get this straight --

First there was a VAST RIGHT Wing Conspiracy --- and they are still out there plotting against you ....

BUT NOW....

There is a VAST LEFT Wing Conspiracy --- and they are ALSO out there plotting against you???

So..... the question is ---> who is left, right?

Hillary?? Are you sure about this?

Maybe you should start over. Who is on first?

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 20, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Why isn't the Washington Post writing stories about how Clinton is only running for the votes of super delegates. She admittedly and whole heartedly does not believe that this election should be based on the popular vote of normal non-super-delegate citizens. Moreover, she bluntly states that the votes of ordinary citizens of the United States of America should not amount to any value whatsoever in this election. I heard her interviewed on NPR stating that pledged delegates who were appointed by elections in previous state primaries should ignore the vote of the people and vote for her regardless of percentages. Please, listen for yourself via this link to npr.org's recording of the interview by Michele Norris. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89476099 Afterwards, ask yourself, "does she care about us?" I demand fair coverage by our evidently spineless commercial media!

Posted by: Philadelphious | April 20, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Once upon a time, there were three presidential contenders that took responsibility for their actions.

Yes, it's a fairy tale.

Posted by: ceton | April 20, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

intcamd wrote the following rubbish:

"MoveOn is a group of thugs and goons. Shame on them for intimidating the weak, feeble, shy voters who came into the caucuses to support some one else.

In their zealous bid to elect Obama, MoveOn had become worser than the goons of Dick Cheney."

This is unbelievable smearing and character assassination. Does this clown have even a shred of evidence to support such outrageous accusations? It seems not. Several people on this post, who have actually attended caucuses this year, have attested to the fact that it is not accurate. But Clinton just makes outrageous and unsupported statements (she also offered no evidence to support her claim)and has her own "goons" shamelessly spread them on. This just gives credence to Goebbel's claim that an outright lie, if repeated often and blatantly enough, will start to take on the hue of truth.

By the way, intcamd, you would make a better impression if you learned how to write English. "Worser" is not a word. I suppose Hillary is leading in the uneducated vote. That figures.

Posted by: marecek | April 19, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

There is a great danger that the extreme left in the Democratic Party who is pushing Obama has all the intentions of moving at any cost. Their intention is to close the process once the Primaries are completed because they know that they could be jeopardized if not. (I wonder if Dean would push to totally ignore Florida and Michigan, which is wrong).

If Obama is elected, he would be beaten and trounced in November.

So, the party will be once more the PARTY OF DEFEAT!!!

I hope that a good number of Democrats think carefully this November before throwing a vote for Obama!!!

So, there is still time to reconsider and vote for Hillary, who at the end of the day will prove to be our best bet!!!

I hope that it does not result into REGRETS!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has morphed into the Half-Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy -- now coordinated by Hillary.

Douglas E. Schoen, Mark Penn's business partner, is advising the Clinton campaign to adopt a strategy that amounts to character assassination against Obama. Yeccccch.

If Hillary is nominated, I plan to vote Libertarian.

Posted by: oldhonky | April 19, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Good grief...next headline will be Democrats eat their young!

I was annoyed MoveOn endorsed Obama after a fast poll of members...i thought MoveOn should remain silent until we had more questions on some of the hard questions. However, Clinton's scathing comments are inexcusable.

The infighting and personal insults throughtout this ridiculously long and unfocussed primary may well destroy our party. Even if it doesn't cost us what should have been an easy election, it certainly doesn't bolster my faith that ANY of our candidates can bring order to the mess we are in.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Oh, give me a break! More petulant whining from Hillary Clinton who has not only lost this nominating contest but is now proving herself to be a sore loser as well.

I respect MoveOn (of which I am not a member), especially for the work they did to help elect a Democratic Congress in 2006. But let's not exaggerate their influence. The Obama campaign was growing into a genuine grassroots juggernaut long before MoveOn endorsed him in February. Of course he was happy to have their help, as Hillary would have been when she asked for their endorsement. But MoveOn members are just a part of the Obama movement, and far from the dominant part.

I attended my precinct caucus here in Minnesota which went 4-to-1 for Obama, with roughly four times as many people participating as in any previous election cycle. Of the 100 or so caucus-goers in our precinct, to my knowledge the only MoveOn member was my wife---who wasn't even in the room for most of the caucus, except to make a brief appearance to cast her ballot. The rest of the time she was out in the hallway with the other Obama precinct chairs, helping to direct the overflow throngs to the proper rooms for their precincts and talking them through the process, for which caucus attendees, including Hillary supporters, were extremely grateful. There was no intimidation, no ill feeling---just a lot of excited and enthusiastic Democrats, happy to have the chance to meet each other face-to-face, not only to cast their ballots for President but also to adopt issue resolutions, elect precinct officers and delegates to the state senate district conventions.

The Obama campaign was there in force, well organized and effective, having thoroughly canvassed and phoned very registered Democrat at least twice; but it was totally an Obama campaign effort, not MoveOn. The Clinton campaign, by contrast, had almost no organizational presence either before or during the caucuses, and when a couple of Hillary volunteers showed up, late, they were so clueless that they excitedly phoned the Clinton campaign office to tell them that it "looked like a great turnout for Hillary"---only to call back later, crestfallen, to report that every single precinct in our state senate district had gone 3- or 4-to-1 for Obama. Hillary Clinton has no one to blame but herself for that level of organizational ineptitude. She lost fair and square, under a system Minnesota has used for many, many years with no complaints. Her whining now is just sour grapes.

Posted by: Brad K | April 19, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

I STOPPED DONATING TO MOVE ON.ORG AND QUIT BECAUSE THEY BECAME VERY MYSOGENISTIC AND WOMAN HATING.

MOVE ON PAID FOR A POLL THAT STATED AMERICANS ARE LINKING THE WAR WITH THE BAD ECONOMY. THEY WANT TO USE THAT ARGUMENT AGAINST MCCAIN AND CLINTON.

BUT OBAMA VOTED TO PAY FOR IT. OBAMA SIGNED THE SPENDING BILL WORTH BILLIONS.

MOVE ON.ORG AND CLEAN COAL ORG. WANT OBAMA TO BE THE NOMINEE BUT THE DARN "BITTER WORKING CLASS THAT CLING TO THEIR GUNS AND RELIGION" DO NOT. HE CAN NOT GET THE FEMALE AND WHITE MALE VOTE. THEY DON'T LIKE HIM, NEVER HAVE AND NOW NEVER WILL.

WHAT MOVE ON WILL DO NOW IS CAMP THEIR ACTIVISTS TO CAUCUS STATES AND HOPE THEY CAN INTIMIDATE THE NEXT SET OF CAUCUSES IN S.D. AND N.D. AND MONTANA.


Posted by: GRACE | April 19, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

A Prediction--you heard it here first.

Soon after Hillary Clinton officially loses the Democratic nomination, she will condemn the Democratic Party and announce her support for John McCain.

This once-admirable person is degenerating into something sad and sick. I had thought that the Bosnia story had to be an isolated aberration, but now it seems that she is losing touch with reality altogether.

I do not hate Clinton, and up to a few weeks ago I would have voted for her unhesitatingly, even though I support Obama, if she won the Democratic nomination, because America cannot afford 4 more years of disastrous Bush-league politics under McCain. Now I am not sure what I would do--but fortunately it looks like it will not come down to that choice. Barack Obama has survived all the mud that Clinton and McCain have been slinging at him, and his support is growing.

And by the way, I cannot help but observe the intensity of hatred against Obama expressed by some Clinton supporters. This is exactly what Obama has been talking about--the old politics of vilification. God almighty! After almost 8 years of Bush's ceaseless demonization of political opponents, haven't we all had enough of that? The point is not that everyone has to support Obama--but can't the Clinton supporters just voice their concerns without spewing venom? And I would hope that Obama supporters would likewise express their views without rancor. If there is any hope that America can climb out of the dark pit of fear and hatred that Bush has dragged our nation into, we have to be able to work together. Please don't give solace and comfort to the thugs of this administration--right now, they are beaming with pride and satisfaction at how successfully they have torn apart the social fabric of America, even to the point where Democrats are at each other's throats. That HAS to stop. That, precisely, is the old politics that America MUST get past.

Posted by: Steve | April 19, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Joyce, I do know that President McCain has taken a screwed-up view of the Issue. I do not Like that Fact!

However, I can still believe that you CAN teach an old dog new tricks. I am TRYING with John!

First Step, get him to wake up to reality beyond Iraq. Second Step, get him to view American Sovereignty as being as valuable as Iraqi Sovereignty! He sure seems to want to preserve theirs! Final Step, make him realize our WAGES having been Decimated by Unfair and Illegal Competition is the Root of the Economic Plight of Americans!

Throwing alternatives for our Amigos de Latino Americana, to invading HERE for a better Life, is what I am trying to do-BUT Nancy Pelosi wants to prevent!

"Typical Dimocrat"! ;~)

I believe that between John McCain's GOOD Intentions, and this Big Stick in my Hands, that he will make a Good President for this Country, and our Neighbors.

BUT, he needs a Business Genius like Mitt Romney BADLY! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 19, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

who is Barack Obama; or Barry Obama or Barack Husein Obama? I have not heard nor read anything much about him except for his not so great associations. does that mean his well qualified because he was tutored, religiously by the preacher Wright? Open your eyes Obama supporters. or better yet sharpen your brain. Hillary is the best choice for the US presidency. Keep up the fight, we are ehind you.

Posted by: marinel | April 19, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

There is a great danger that the extreme left in the Democratic Party who is pushing Obama has all the intentions of moving at any cost. Their intention is to close the process once the Primaries are completed because they know that they could be jeopardized if not. (I wonder if Dean would push to totally ignore Florida and Michigan, which is wrong).

If Obama is elected, he would be beaten and trounced in November.

So, the party will be once more the PARTY OF DEFEAT!!!

I hope that a good number of Democrats think carefully this November before throwing a vote for Obama!!!

So, there is still time to reconsider and vote for Hillary, who at the end of the day will prove to be our best bet!!!

I hope that it does not result into REGRETS!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Fishers IN said....
"I guess Barack has a lot of friends in these parts of the world"
-------------------------------------
Good! The Bush/Cheney administration has done such damage to our nations' respect in the world. It will be good to have a fresh start with President Obama...an honorable, intelligent, articulate man who can begin to restore us to the moral high ground we expect.

Posted by: Joycee | April 19, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I am a life long democrat who voted every election for a democrat candidate. But the way the primary is going now I will vote Republican this year.I am a Hillary supporter and if Barack will win the nomination I will support John Mccain. I don't like the DNC party because it is run by left leaning organization.

Posted by: Juvie | April 19, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama has a lot of endorsements. Wonder how the endorsement from Hamas will play out. Who's he going to flip the bird to next?

Posted by: John | April 19, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

OK. so 15 months ago Sen. Clinton was the prohibitive favorite, with the Establishemnt locked up, massive fundraising availability, and by far the highest name recognition in the entire bunch of candidates. Does she seriously expect us to believe her current position is due exclusively to the faults and evil intentions of others? She has spent, what, $140 million dollars so far- if she has not been able to get people to support her, just maybe it is at least partly her own fault.

As for the caucuses, last time I looked, all candidates had access to the rules at the same time- her campaign made a deliberate decision not to bother to organize in the caucus states. Was that because MoveOn.org and other groups infiltrated her senior strategy sessions and sabotaged things?

If you are going to print silly statements like Sen CLinton's, you at least have a responsibility to point out where they diverge from fact.

Posted by: amazed | April 19, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Hispana,1,362,125 persons donated to Obama's campaign (and counting). How many people donated to Hillary and McCain's coffers?

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 10:49 PM
-----------------------------------------------------
Shall we investigate what maneuvers have been employed by the Obama camp to obtain these donations, specially by the rich donors? It smells pretty dirty!!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I suspect the Obamanuts may be underestimating McCain. He is a tough old bird. His family is from the warrior caste and has been fighting our wars for generations. He has just about every medal except the Congressional. I know this sounds so boring and yesterday to the Obamanuts, but it still resonates with a lot of folks. He has a little temper, but he probably won't be flipping the bird on TV. There will be a profound contrast between the two if Obama is nominated.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

MOVE ON WAS STARTED BY THE HUNGARIAN BORN JEWISH MAN GEORGE SOROS. THE BILLIONAIRE MADE HIS MONEY IN THE CRASHING BRITISH POUND. SOROS IS THE ONE WHO COINED THE "WE'RE SICK OF THE BUSHCLINTONBUSHCLINTON YEARS" THAT OBAMA WHINES ABOUT. SOROS IS BEHIND THE CLINTON BASHING. HE SUPPORTS NANCY PELOSI, HOWARD DEAN AND HARRY REID WHO ARE ALL TRYING TO KICK OUT HILLARY CLINTON BEFORE THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IN AUGUST.

REID IS TRYING TO FORCE SUPERDELEGATES TO ENDORSE OBAMA BY JULY 1ST.OBAMA INSULTED ALL THE GUN & GOD STATES WITH HIS QUOTE, "AMERICANS ARE BITTER ABOUT THEIR JOB LOSS AND CLING TO GUNS AND RELIGION AND HAVE ANTIPATHY FOR THOSE OTHER THAN THEMSELVES."

REID, DEAN, PELOSI AND THE CLEAN COAL ORGANIZATION WANT THE DELGATES TO HURRY UP AND PLEDGE OBAMA BEFORE HE SAYS SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS OFFENSIVE. OBAMA OFFENDED THE SAME WORKING CLASS GUNS AND GOD FOLKS THAT THE DELEGATES NEED TO GET RE-ELECTED IN NOVEMBER. NOW IF THEY PLEDGE OBAMA SENATORS, CONGRESS AND GOVERNORS ARE RISKING THEIR CAREER. IT IS NOT COOL TO ENDORSE OBAMA. HE LOST HIS LIKEABILITY.

THE DILEMA IS HOW DOES MOVE ON AND PELOSI KILL OFF CLINTON WHEN SHE'S ON A WINNING STREAK. SHE'LL WIN PA,IND,KENT, AND W.V.?

1.THEY INTIMIDATE DELEGATES AND FORCE THEM TO ENDORSE A CANDIDATE BY JULY.
2. MAKE CLINTON QUIT THIS SUMMER. WHICH ONLY INSIGHTS FEMALE VOTERS TO GO VOTE FOR HER.

MOVE ON SOLD MY EMAIL WITHOUT MY PERMISSION TO ELITIST JOHN KERRY WHO THEN SOLD IT TO ELITIST OBAMA. THAT'S HOW OBAMA GOT HIS DONOR NAMES.

THE MOVE ON THUGS COME AND INTIMIDATE THE POLLING CAUCUSES. TWO LEADERSHAVE TO BE PRESENT TO PROTECT EACHOTHER FROM GETTING SHOVED BY OBAMA'S MOVE ON THUGS. THAT'S HOW OBAMA WINS CAUCUSES. FILM FOOTAGE SHOWS HOW VIOLENT IT IS IN CAUCUS SIGHTS.

VOTERS NEED BRING VIDEO CAMERAS TO THE CAUCUSES AND FILM THE MOVE ON ACTIVISTS INTIMIDATE VOTERS AND SEND IT TO THE FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO INVESTIGATE THE LEGITIMACY OF THESE CAUSES AND TAKE CRIMINAL ACTION. CAUCUSES ARE FREE PRIMARIES COST MONEY.

Posted by: GRACE | April 19, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Hispana, admit it! Clinton was the one who threw Patti Solis Doyle under the bus after parading her around like a show-horse until she outlived her Latina usefulness to Hillary.

Loyalty is a one-way street for both the Clintons.
--------------------------------------------------------
I have already commented on the fact that Hillary had all her rights to dismiss Patty Solis, because she was ineffective. And anyone else that does not perform. That has nothing to do with Loyalty. And she did not throw her under the bus as Obama did with his grandmother and then had the AUDACITY of bringing this story as a political event to pander to the public.

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Hispana,1,362,125 persons donated to Obama's campaign (and counting). How many people donated to Hillary and McCain's coffers?

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Joyce, I loved Hillary's Lament. Send to her when she fails to get the nomination in Denver.

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

rat-the...
You do know that your man McCain endorsed Bush's immigration reform. If you lived in Arizona, you would know that the Chamber of Commerce has a fit whenever our Governor tries enforce fines on the businesses that hire undocumented workers. You Republicans don't really want to stop the flow of cheap labor.

Posted by: Joyce | April 19, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Surprisingly thin skinned, for someone who claims she can take the heat of a presidential contest.

Posted by: euno | April 19, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Thugs R US - The Obama Campaign

Obama's state-senate candidacy was launched at Weather Underground bombers Ayers house in 1995.

Obama is nasty, ruthless and utilizes techniques not unlike those of a street hoodlum. He recently gave Hillary the finger and laughed about it on national TV. How did he get away with this? He also stole his position as senator by stealing it from the other contenders by having all his competition unfairly disqualified.
--------------------------------------------
And the sad truth about this is that it has been an insidious and underground approach orchestrated to bamboozle the american people and so many have taken the bite and don't know the truth!!! It speaks so well of how IGNORANT so many are to throw themselves under this individual that DOES NOT HAVE the qualifications for this position!!! Empty promises is what we have and I am afraid to see that history could be repeating itself in this country!!! Sometimes the better minds are the ones that get caught fast in a barrage of illusions and promises that could bring our destruction.

I hope that between now and June, some of you would stop and for once think that this time is very crucial and you stop from rushing into a decision that we might regret!!! Remember how easily the Germans were duped by a Charlatan that made so many promises and then destroyed so many lives!!!

THINK!!! THINK!!! THINK!!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Hispana, admit it! Clinton was the one who threw Patti Solis Doyle under the bus after parading her around like a show-horse until she outlived her Latina usefulness to Hillary.

Loyalty is a one-way street for both the Clintons.

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

One should never forget:
THIS IS WHAT GEORGE BUSH WANTED
THIS IS WHAT GEORGE BUSH GOT

And WE still have a live BUSH!

Posted by: harried | April 19, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

lucille,
You are right it is sad Hillary is treated like dirt but so many. I am grateful she is so strong and has Bill and Chelsea. I don't care what others say, I suspect she has a very strong marriage. It is touching to see Bill working so hard for her. They have given much to our country and are willing to give more.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton's comments are utter nonsense. I am an Obama supporter, a 76 year old (more or less) Caucasian male and I have never read one line of MoveOn.org's postings or posturings. I support Senator Obama because I think that he is the best possible candidate to maybe reunite this nation.

Posted by: KRay | April 19, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Lucille, Bill Clinton supported NAFTA and got a who lotta jobs sent across the water to low-wage foreign countries. Hillary supported NAFTA and tried to pull a fast one with Columbia with Penn and Bill. Besides, Hillary needs to run on her own meager record, not Bill's.

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Barack Hussein Obama was mentioned is this bbc article today:

Enda Nasution is one of the country's best-known bloggers. Two months ago he started a group on the networking website Facebook called "Indonesians for Obama 08".

I guess Barack has a lot of friends in these parts of the world

Posted by: Fishers IN | April 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is an ungrateful looser. She is a despicable person who cant stand that Obama beat her. She's the last great "white" hope in the Democratic party for those afraid to take a step into the future which include Ed Rendell, Florio in New Jersey and the rest. Obama is beating her like Jack Johnson, and god bless him.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | April 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

It's understandable that Clinton and her supporters would not like caucuses. (Obama has also won more primaries than she.) The fact is that the caucus system takes a lot more grass roots organizing. Obama's campaign has been better organized from day one. Clinton is the one who ran out of money, had to fire her campaign organizer for lack of organization, demoted her spokesman for conflict of interest. This is just one more reason to vote for Obama...he is a better planner. (Think war, economy, healthcare, etc.)

Posted by: Joyce | April 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Please save the whine for Hillary and Penn because the cheese is gone. You cannot blame Obama for Penn's bad advice to Hillary. Hillary spent $25M on the Iowa caucus on donuts, party trays, and snow shovels when it did not snow. You can't blame Obama for Penn's failed strategy of going after the big fishes and leaving the small fries (remember how the Clinton campaign dissed the small states? Of course not -- it's Clinton we are talking about). So now the math does not add up for Hillary. Too bad, not sad, that's life!

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

It is a sad day for me reading all these negaive comments about Hillary who we have known for so many years. She has worked hard for health care, the working family, the young and poor plus education. I feel so sad her supporters turned yellow and disloyal. What a pity we have such two faced friends. No, we don't need Obama as President since he is buying his votes and has been negative all through his campain. What a lier in sheeps clothing. Bill Clinton's 8 years were the best we've ever had and I am 80 years old. Can't believe these young pups that are falling for this Obama!

Posted by: lucille | April 19, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Redson,
With all due respect. How did Obama engineer Ryan and his wife frequenting sex clubs and then having Ryan's wife protest when he (Ryan) asked of her one sexual act too bizarre for her tastes? Such power you attribute to Obama. I guess the so-called myth of the 'Mystical Negro' is not a myth at all. Now you have me frightened. Batten down the hatches. The mystical coloreds are coming to destroy our way of life. Beware!

Give the hype a rest, will ya'. B

Posted by: bldlcc | April 19, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I have been looking at presidential election results over the last 40 years or so and it's very hard to make a case for Obama winning in November. Many of the states like MS where the Obamas are so proud of winning PRIMARIES haven't voted Democratic in the general since Carter in 1976. And he was a centrist, not some MoveOn limo lib. Some like WY are just slam dunk red. Only the Southern centrists LBJ, Carter, and Clinton have bucked this trend. The Obamanuts are trying to book passage on the Titanic. Only the voters in PA can stop it from sailing. Cross your fingers.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse


Poor Hillary.

Well I certainly hope that MoveOn DID affect her ratings.

It would mean that at least SOMETHING in America can stand in the way of unbridled lust for power.
The Bush/Cheney fiasco was beginning to make me have my doubts on that one.

Posted by: wardropper | April 19, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

"When are the people going to come forward and challenge this totally UNFAIR and DISCRIMINATORY process? It stands as an UNDEMOCRATIC process and it should be challenged!!!!!!!"

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:14 PM
_________________________

Sounds kinda funny from you in that you did not feel this sentiment when you thought Hillary would win Texas outright; you screamed when the Texas "Two Step" got Obama more delegates. But Clinton and her people did not do their homework on this hybrid (Obama's people were on it a year ahead of time). So what's good for the goo se . . .

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 10:22 PM
---------------------------------------
This is exactly my point!!!! Obama only won the Texas vote because of the CAUCUS process. The popular vote and the Primaries were won by Hillary!!!! Many stories surfaced on complaints on intimidation, dirty tactics used by the Obama team deployed to win these CAUCUSES.

So, it is time that we eliminate such a SUBJECTIVE process that causes so many concerns for the population. The party should institute a democratic and inclusive process that would not cause so many concerns and perception problems. Now tell me that this process is democratic or one that comes across as dirty Union-teamster practices.!!!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

raticida-I say a whole lot more than your petty snipes.

Then, realize, you do not know what I have confided to both President McCain and (HOPEFULLY) Vice President Mitt Romney. I am way too smart to blurt out such things on the Internet.

BUT, suffice it to say; Ninny Peloser and the Dimocrat Congress are doing exactly the most "Estupida" thing they ever could, when it comes down to HELPING our Amigos de Latino Americana!

BELIEVE ME, when I say that just because I want Illegal Employment Stopped so we can restore Fair wages here in the US, does not mean I do not want to exert our influence to improve many other people's Lives in this entire Hemisphere. Why, should ONLY the US be the land of Opportunity?

Believe me AGAIN, when I tell you, and every other Hispanic who thinks I am somehow their enemy, that first I am not, and that there are BETTER Opportunities available!

The Protective Laws of Mexico's, are the BIGGEST Reason, Mexico is Backwards!

However, there are MANY other places in this Hemisphere NICER than Messico! ;~)

Look to Mitt and McCain! The Executives! :-)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 19, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

"It's my party! And, I'll cry if I want to. Cry if I want to. You would cry too, if it happened to you." Life imitating art at its fractious best. B

Posted by: bldlcc | April 19, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

in 1995-1996 i'm framed by the intelligence community, local government, and entertainment industry.
for 4 years they just threaten, commit fraud, interfere with my work options and commit battery, though they avoid addressing the lies they told to justify their conduct and won't try any of the cases, knowing they'd have to perjure themselves.
when i figure out what's going on, in 2000, i file a civil suit in federal court in minneapolis, before judge frank. i'm homeless and he dismisses the case. i later acquire information that leads me to believe he knew a lot of the background and didn't bother to disclose it.

in los angeles in 2001 i file another civil suit, at least getting the benefit of some hearings. for the next 7-8 years the government and industry lie through their teeth and thousands (at least) are routinely disciplined for covering up what they did. during this time the community, true to form/its history of reprisals against whistleblowers, attacks me with energy weapons and by spiking my food, with angel dust, stimulants, detergents, poisons, and steroids, representing that i'm being used to pay a societal debt, "community service", something i need to do to avoid prosecution.

my poitical allies are way smarter than them though, and the evidence is 100% conclusive that they framed and entrapped me. nevertheless these forces, mostly republican and including bush, are preventing me from finding work apart from the intelligence community/federal government, refuse to pay on obviously valid legal claims in spite of my constitutional rights--they acknowledge the claims but will not pay--and some attempt to hold me accountable under the secret rules of the community--preferring to save face even if it means contuing to make false allegations and commit illegal acts of punishment.

i recently filed a summary judgment motion in that 7 year old case, testifying that they've been microwaving me for several years in an attempt to cover up their crimes--ya can find it in central district of california, case 01-4340--the community, with bush sitting idly, continues to microwave, threaten, even send 'dept of education' letters that coincide with insurance docs and microwave attacks, the message there being the agencies that broke the law by entrapping and framing me--it's actually a federal offense--are now trying to beat me into submission, and that ain't a metaphor--they've attacked me with microwave weaponry every day for the past 4-5 days, often training the weapon at on my forehead/top of my skull, for an hour a day.

for his part bush and his allies on the right try to control me, and my speech, by regarding me as a federal employee subject to his rules, despite everything i've said, done and written. he knows that he's wrong, that some of his friends are on the hook, and tries to make me pay by re-defining what i do for a living, calling it government service and placing me in harm's way and/or 'disciplining me'. perfect example huh? take a government whistleblower, interfere with his options, and then employee him as bait for the community to attack. what's wrong with this, of course, bush is properly a defendant, his father is properly a defendant, and he exploits the situation by trying to regard my employment as secret to keep the case out of a public courtroom.

within the last 4 months the federal government has killed two animals in my care, animals i regarded as pets. over a 25 year span, it's now obvious that they have killed or stolen, 3-4 of my cats and killed a squirrel monkey by poisoning it.

that's your federal government, and bush and the callous dicks in his employ have sought to keep the case details secret, in an effort to perpetuate the illegal treatment.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

The Caucus process is a highly suspect process and it will prove to be a problem if Obama is elected as his wins are mainly due to this process. His team decided to use this process and I suspect that his staff was trained to employ bulling tactics to intimidate many of the voters. This process is not geared to caption all of the voters, does not allow privacy and it is proven to detract participation for fear of reprisal. When a significant number of the voters are discouraged and disenfranchised, it calls for serious investigation and reform.

So, the chances are that Obama's election could be DEGELITIMIZED by the process that elected him. The Democratic Party needs seriously to review this process which is totally ANTI-DEMOCRATIC and screams HIGHLY SUSPECT!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

"When are the people going to come forward and challenge this totally UNFAIR and DISCRIMINATORY process? It stands as an UNDEMOCRATIC process and it should be challenged!!!!!!!"

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:14 PM
_________________________

Sounds kinda funny from you in that you did not feel this sentiment when you thought Hillary would win Texas outright; you screamed when the Texas "Two Step" got Obama more delegates. But Clinton and her people did not do their homework on this hybrid (Obama's people were on it a year ahead of time). So what's good for the goo se . . .

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Thugs R US - The Obama Campaign

Obama's state-senate candidacy was launched at Weather Underground bombers Ayers house in 1995.

Obama is nasty, ruthless and utilizes techniques not unlike those of a street hoodlum. He recently gave Hillary the finger and laughed about it on national TV. How did he get away with this? He also stole his position as senator by stealing it from the other contenders by having all his competition unfairly disqualified.

Besides this Obama is surrounded by unsavory characters such as Ayers; or the white and American hating Rev. Wright and super delegate Senator Meeks who hates whites even more than Rev. Wright; a wife who openly hates America; his Kenyan half brother Islamic Jihad terrorist Abongo "Roy" Obama; or his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi; or his close advisor Robert Malley who advocates supporting and helping the terrorist group Hamas; or Mr. McPeaks, Obama's military advisor who open believes American Jews are the "problem" and "Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel"; or Obama's most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been a important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama's rise to power.

Is this the role model we want for our children?
Do we hate ourselves so much as to elect someone into office who is so clearly intent on destroying this country, intentionally or inadvertently? Or are we blinded by our fear of not wanting to seem racially prejudice so we vote for skin color and not the man.

Posted by: Samuel Redson | April 19, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Obama supporter here in Nevada and I can tell you that at my precinct it was Hillary's people doing the intimidating. Furthermore, Bill Clinton was bullying people over at the casino sites. The Clintons thought the party faithful would support them in the caucuses and it didn't turn out that way. That's why they're mad. Simple as that.

Posted by: Lilly1 | April 19, 2008 10:12 PM
------------------------------------------

Where did you hear this as the news from Nevada complained about the opposite happening in Nevada, Texas, and many other states.

Similar stories narrating anecdotes of the Obama team harrassing and intimidating anyone with oppossing views. Just like the various stories of Obama's connections not surfacing in the media, these incidences have been squashed and ignored because it could result in major troubles for the Obama camp.

The Republican Party has this tidbit and will exploit it in the fall!!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has morphed into the Half-Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy -- now coordinated by Hillary.

Douglas E. Schoen, Mark Penn's business partner, is advising the Clinton campaign to adopt a strategy that amounts to character assassination against Obama. Yeccccch.

If Hillary is nominated, I plan to vote Libertarian.

Posted by: oldhonky | April 19, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

i swear she sounds like she was responding to someone who just asked her, "why do you think you lost the nomination?" she already sounds like a loser.

hillary, this was so appropos! time to "move on"?

Posted by: bev | April 19, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I managed to round up enough like minded Clintonistas to join me at the caucus in our small precinct and we beat the Obamas like a rented mule on 4 days notice. But I still don't like caucuses. Give me a good old fashioned election any day.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Hi hope James Carville is following this story, because in it is an encyclopedia of the Clinton version of "loyalty." If it were not for MoveOn.org the story of her husband's presidency would have been vastly different. And this is how she pays them back?

No wonder Richardson knew true loyalty when he saw it!

Thank goodness Obama is trying to change the political vulture culture of politics!

Posted by: Ethan Q | April 19, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Shame on MoveOn. They are worse than the conservative "Right Wingers". I use to read the Nation but not any more. I use to believe in MoveOn, but not any more. What in the world would we want to elect any one from the far right or left? God help the USA.

Posted by: Lucille | April 19, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

When are the people going to come forward and challenge this totally UNFAIR and DISCRIMINATORY process? It stands as an UNDEMOCRATIC process and it should be challenged!!!!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Obama supporter here in Nevada and I can tell you that at my precinct it was Hillary's people doing the intimidating. Furthermore, Bill Clinton was bullying people over at the casino sites. The Clintons thought the party faithful would support them in the caucuses and it didn't turn out that way. That's why they're mad. Simple as that.

Posted by: Lilly1 | April 19, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Conspiracy to the right of me!

Conspiracy to te left of me!

Posted by: enemil | April 19, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Blame Move-On for caucus losses?? That's ridiculous. Hillary should blame her own campaign. I live in Minnesota - worked with the Obama campaign. The campaign put staff organizers in Minnesota in September. Organizers and volunteers were canvassing from September on. They put over 30 staff in the state after Iowa. Hillary did not put any staff in the state until December. And her campaign never put more than minimal resources.

John Sherman - Saint Paul, Minnesota

Frankly her campaign blundered - and to blame Move-on for the loss in Minnesota is just blowing smoke.

Posted by: John Sherman | April 19, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton, for whining!

Posted by: Will | April 19, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

The Caucus process is a highly suspect process and it will prove to be a problem if Obama is elected as his wins are mainly due to this process. His team decided to use this process and I suspect that his staff was trained to employ bulling tactics to intimidate many of the voters. This process is not geared to caption all of the voters, does not allow privacy and it is proven to detract participation for fear of reprisal. When a significant number of the voters are discouraged and disenfranchised, it calls for serious investigation and reform.

So, the chances are that Obama's election could be DEGELITIMIZED by the process that elected him. The Democratic Party needs seriously to review this process which is totally ANTI-DEMOCRATIC and screams HIGHLY SUSPECT!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 19, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

jacksmith,
We appreciate your support for Senator Clinton, but maybe just a little less cut and paste? Por favor?

Posted by: John | April 19, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

rata - Tu habla mucho, pero no dice nada!!

Posted by: Raticida | April 19, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Pretty good way to gauge success, if moveon.org is against you, then you're doing well.

Posted by: Q-bert | April 19, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

This just confirms that Hillary is a crypto-conservative, so Moveon rightfully supports Obama. Since Hillary couldn't win in November without Moveon's activist membership, she should consider which side her bread is buttered on...

Posted by: Rich | April 19, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Back in 1992, Alexander Cockburn reported the remarks of a top Arkansas AFL-CIO official who said of Clinton:
He'll pee down on your pants while patting you on the back.

Posted by: Ted | April 19, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY'S LAMENT

I rant, I rave
I shed some tears.
Can't they count
my 35 years?

It's my turn now,
don't they know?
I wasn't supposed
to have a foe.

Don't they know
it's me, me, me?
I smell a male
conspiracy!

I'll show those guys
I'm done with tears.
Pour the whiskey.
Pass the beers.

I'm old enough
to be his Mama.
How dare they
vote for that Obama.

I got him good,
tag - you're elite.
But it blew back
- now I'M EFFETE!

HOPE and CHANGE
I guess we'll see,
if folks want that
or more Bill & me.

Uh-oh, now here
comes another loss.
Barack just got
thumbs up from THE BOSS.

Another debate,
a tag team we forged.
I really kicked butt
with Charlie and George.

We slammed, we slimed,
We gave it our all
We roasted and grilled him
Yet Obama stood tall.

I thought I'd get kudos
for my clever attack.
But today all I hear
Let's back Barack!

They're cheering him now
those voters in Raliegh
He just brushed the dirt off
And everyone's jolly!

This week I thought surely
more supers I'd won.
But, darned if he didn't
just get Boren and Nunn!

54 percent
to my 35
He's got the big mo
While I took a dive.

The conspiracy against me
In my mind, it's proven.
The right, now the left wing
I'll blame it on Move-On.

Barack keeps on chuggin'
He's still doing good.
Riding the rails like
The Engine That Could.

JEC

Posted by: Joyce | April 19, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Jacksmith, if you think Obama's getting all the Republican 'cheating' votes, think again. We the Cheaters, otherwise known as agents of Operation Chaos, have been voting for HIllary. Obama's strength is real. It's Hillary that isn't as strong as she seems.

Besides, it is not illegal to register for a party and vote in that primary. IT isn't cheating. IT's politics. Remember all the Canadians who voted in wisconsin for John Kerry? THAT's illegal.
+++
I doubt you're one of Rush's dittoheads...If you were, there is no way you would be saying Obama's strength is real. Anyone who listens to Rush regularly would not be giving any kind of kudos to Obama...Rush is ruthless on Obama. His dittoheads are ruthless on him (Obama) as well.

Posted by: Badger | April 19, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

She was just making an observation and of course it is immediately spun negative because it's Hillary. I live in a caucus state. Caucuses reward the demographic with extra time and the ability to get out. People with impairments such as age or disability, family obligations, and work responsibilities find it much harder to attend. Some people work so much they are just too tired. I heard these stories over and over when calling people to get them to attend. Caucuses are not elections, not even close.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

So Hillary who do you blame for losing the ones that had voting? Yourself? Bill? Penn? Or a vast Right Wing conspiracy?

Posted by: Move On Hillary | April 19, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary lost the caucuses for the simple reason that her original "Forty States Don't Matter" strategy placed little importance on them. She was going to win the big states and that would be that. Once that strategy blew up in her face she cast about to place blame everywhere but on her own decision-making and strategic ability.
Among the many reasons I don't support her candidacy is the memory that under Terry McCaullife the state Democratic Parties were bled dry, all funds went to the DNC. This led to twelve years of Republican majority in Congress. I have no doubt that Hillary would put McCaullife back in charge , and the Fifty State Strategy would be ratcheted back once more to the Forty States Don't Matter congressional strategy, so that even if she could overcome her 55+% negatives and win the White House, the down tickets would be left to twist in the wind.


Posted by: Ron Morgan | April 19, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Whole, best Northern Europe and the best United States in part

Scandinavian countries are for the American like the society that doesn't understand easily. In American's common sense, the rise of the decrease and the government distrust of making to stiffening, economic energies of the society, and the life satisfaction rating is sure to advance if the tax and the social insurance premium become heavy (If high income earner's national burden rate rises). However, Scandinavian countries are maintaining the income level and the life satisfaction rating of the world most significant.
The world is led also in a flexible and reformed point like an industrial structural reform etc. of Finland that was rapidly transfigured from the public pension reform of Sweden and the labor market reform paper pulp in Denmark to the IT advanced country.
In addition, the working hour of woman and trouble person's advance into society and rather shorts has the home life, the leisure activity, and the advanced country that enhanced it with the high birthrate.
The world admits "Affluent society" to be achieved.
Why can Northern Europe achieve "Affluent society" though the national burden rate is high around the high income earner?

This reason is that a social system that reduces the person who doesn't work unexpectedly simply is in order. Perhaps, the greater part of Americans might be imaging "It is made to gather only the person who can operate full and to work", "Efficient". However, if he or she sees in the whole of society because it drops out of labor market, the person with this who cannot operate full is ..inefficiency.. method of making manpower hoarded. Moreover, the home life cannot help being sacrificed, and it becomes the cause of the falling birthrate if overworking and working. Northern Europe is opposite ..that.., the workload and working hours are decreased for the profit impossibility or the person who not is, and it suffices ..the temporary admission of leave-taking... The working environment corresponding to individual's circumstances is being offered.
It is enabled that everyone keeps working. The load of labor a person decreases because everyone works, and the enhanced home life becomes possible without relation to long working hours and death from overwork. Time enough for the man and woman and the child care can be spared because "Work-life-balance" is excellent, and it is not easy to advance in the falling birthrate. "Fallacy of composition" is caused in the whole of society because the United States is "Best in the part" in which each enterprise individually advances efficiency improvement, and it becomes inefficiency consequentially. On the other hand, Northern Europe is "Whole and best" to give priority to efficiency improvement in whole of societyFallacy of composition is avoided in the whole of society though it is seen inefficiency for a corporate unit. Therefore, it is very efficient.

Of course, cost in which those from the labor market such as the income security to the person temporarily resigned due to birth, the child care, and sickness and Vocational Training and reeducating to the unemployed who drop out are lost is covered by the government spending. As for the national burden rate, only the amount rises around the high income earner.
Wealth from the high income earner to the low income earner is distributed again.
And, a lot of people are sent to labor market as a result, and the high standard of living has been achieved. It expends ..this.., and pay enough "Remove it profitably. " exactly. It can be said a high national burden rate that centers on a height profitable person is a cheap shopping (expense account) to avoid fallacy of composition and to achieve the bountiful life on the face of things.

On the other hand, the United States is heading for the direction where best in the part such as "Self-responsibility" and "Limited government" is strengthened further. Appropriate intervention of the government is indispensable to clear away fallacy of composition and to improve the efficiency of the whole of society. However, the American cannot slip out the stereotype "The more it decreases the intervention of the government, the more the efficiency of the whole of society rises".

Posted by: patriot | April 19, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Jacksmith, if you think Obama's getting all the Republican 'cheating' votes, think again. We the Cheaters, otherwise known as agents of Operation Chaos, have been voting for HIllary. Obama's strength is real. It's Hillary that isn't as strong as she seems.

Besides, it is not illegal to register for a party and vote in that primary. IT isn't cheating. IT's politics. Remember all the Canadians who voted in wisconsin for John Kerry? THAT's illegal.

Posted by: Dave | April 19, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

At some point, those who do not repudiate her racist McCarthyism and dishonest divisive campaign will be exposed under the bright cleansing light of day.


There are times in ones life that speaking up against that which is obviously wrong and unjust is not just an option, but a duty. Many in the Democratic Party have consistently avoided their duty in this regard, enabling her behavior- and it is shameful.


Clintons and Rove do not have a monopoly on retribution. Obama would not think in terms of retribution. But many of his supporters are keeping score and will exact retribution to show that the Clinton McCarthyism, Racism and Rovian tactics will not go unnoticed or unpunished.


Those who do not repudiate her campaign will find that they have limited political careers and will be on the outside looking in, wishing they had done the right thing.

Posted by: Fides | April 19, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Max says
"once the repub attack machine reveals obama's ties to Islamic money"...

But what do we need the republican attack machine for? Max has just revealed them here! And I'll bet Hillary reveals them just before the Dem convention.

By the time Republicans get to attack anyone, all the ammunition will have been used up by the two of them attacking each other.

Posted by: DAve | April 19, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is losing and she's lashing out at her friends. Well, I understand. She is frustrated. Which ever Democrat gets elected in November, that person will have the opportunity to undo the damage of Bush/Cheney. It will be a long, hard struggle.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | April 19, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

I think the comments will help Hillary. After all didn't Congress and the Senate overwhelmingly make their stupid vote to condemn Move-on's ad? Move-on is seen to the moderate democrats the same as the far right is seen to the moderate republicans.

When McCain critized the Religious Right in 2000, it helped gain him popularity with the Independents.

Posted by: Badger | April 19, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

To jacksmith -
You "might be an idiot" if you think that Hillary Clinton physically being in the White House counts as her experience. If it does, I am going to claim that I have experienced childbirth because I was in the delivery room when my wife gave birth to our 3 children.
You also "might be an idiot" if you don't know your history well enough to know that the Clinton health care proposal failed because the narcissistic Clintons refused to compromise with anyone. There were several compromise proposals (some bi-partisan, some that were claimed to be better than the Clinton's plan), counter proposals that the Clintons refused to work with anyone on. The insurance company resistance is a red-herring issue to mast the fact that the Clintons do not compromise with anyone. That is historical fact.

Posted by: Mike - WA | April 19, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

operation chaos is in full effect

Posted by: chaos fan | April 19, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons should "move on". This incoherent, narcissitic nonsense has to stop. I voted in the Washington State Democratic Caucus and there was no pressure by either side. A few people spoke about their candidate but I doubt that anyone changed their mind based on what was said by others. The reality is that the Clintons do not like any situation or scenario where people can be remind about the Clinton past and politics.

Posted by: Mike - WA | April 19, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

seattleguy, the "baking cookies" comment was originally made by Hillary herself while her husband was in the White House. If you'd listen to what was actually said, Barack was DEFENDING Hillary, not tearing her down. He said that she was being misinterpreted and he knew that wasn't who she was or what she stood for. He was decrying the methods she is using now as being the same as those once used against her.

Posted by: Anne in TX | April 19, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Quoted from bjbprice:
"As one who called many voters to vote for Hillary across the nation, I can attest to the following as a significant reason why the caucuses were disastrous for Hillary: They depressed participation by those who supported her because they had to work, serve in the military, take care of others, were old or ill and could not attend, lacked the personal fortitude to go argue with people about who should be supported, had other obligations at the time set for the caucuses, could not travel to the caucus site at the county seat or other location, etc. Since no absentee ballots were available for those who could not attend, they were simply excluded from participation. People I called in California (a non-caucus state where all can mail ballots) did not give such explanations for their inability to participate because they could participate at their convenience. In California, Hillary won. It is time for caucus states to wake up and enfranchise everyone by following the California example."

Seems to me that it would be just as difficult for Obama supporters to get to the caucuses as Clinton supporters. Maybe Obama supporters felt more strongly about their candidate and were willing to go the extra mile to be there for the caucuses? Sorry, IMO, if you feel strongly enough about a candidate to vote for them for President of the United States, you should have the "personal fortitude" to argue their cause. There may be reasons why the caucus system should be done away with, but the arguments given above aren't good enough.

Posted by: Anne in TX | April 19, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She's a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Posted by: jacksmith | April 19, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She's a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Posted by: jacksmith | April 19, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...

Posted by: jacksmith | April 19, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Quit it. Now who is whining Hitlery?

Posted by: Larry Oregon | April 19, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

She's right.

The division in the party isn't the candidates' fault - they're doing what candidates do. It isn't the voters' fault - they're allowed to be divided. Democracy is a good thing right? But too little in this primary has been about democracy.

The DNC has caused it, with not only this FL and MI nightmare, but what Dean is doing right now, in trying to stifle the voices of the remaining voters. The media is doing it, by taking sides, slanting coverage, and focusing almost exclusively on rubbish. And the powerful democratic political action groups and other organizations, like moveon.org, dailykos, democraticundergroud, etc. are doing it, by only furthering the agenda of half the party and spitting in the face of the other half. Folks, remember these are the very people who keep saying this primary is divisive and must be ended! NO, THEY DON'T DECIDE ELECTIONS, WE DO! If we give our power to them, we'll never get it back!


Posted by: Teri B. | April 19, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

intcamd, the hubris of Hillary Clinton running on her husband's record is breathtaking! Somehow Hillary thinks she is actually entitled to the nomination like low-hanging fruit to be picked at will. She had no idea that she was supposed to actually campaign for the nomination and she underestimated the moxie, agility, and acumen of Senator Obama and his campaign. Truth be told, Hillary thought she was dealing with an Al Sharpton or (egads) Jessie Jackson. No, Hillary got herself a new kind of activist pol and she is getting beaten like she stole something.

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

the surge of obama's presidential campaign
for the democratic nominee is mainly driven by political leaders and supporters who only wants a piece of the spoils if by a miracle obama will be elected president. one, the media is scared to death to touch the race issue, when in fact it is part of the process, obama being black supported strongly by people of the same color.two, the media for what reason... is very naive on their investigative reporting... like his relation to that man in Chicago. third, the media failed to report obama's resume, so that the voters are well informed. four, the clinton's team is already establish in the event she will win the election. this is the same team of Bill Clinton that brought economic prosperity before the Bush administration, in spite of the relentless attack to remove Bill Clinton from office.

Posted by: fcanete | April 19, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

boy talk about double standard -- some of the comments against Hillary -- if someone said BHO should get out of the race and pick cotton that would be the worse thing --what jerk would make some dumb comment about her "baking cookies" More BHO wackjobs

Posted by: seattleguy | April 19, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

I cannot understand how you "Move-on", "Salon", and "Huffington Post", among others of the "Far-Left" groups are so Hell bent on destroying the Dem party in the 2008 General Election. I have looked at every scenario I can think of, and NO WAY Obama can win in 2008. This "IDIOT-OLOGY" thinking has cost the vast majority of American Citizens untold damage to their well earned and deserved support with their Medical and other support that have been denied by Repub Administrations. This "CHANGE" theme is nothing but a a bunch of CRAP from someone that has NO idea of what he is talking about.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

treetracker

The hubris of Obama groupies in taking Hillary supporters for granted is breath taking.

As a Hillary supporter, I have long resigned myself that this year's round is gone. The entire dem establishment and the media goons are deployed against her, and it is almost impossible at this point.

That said, one of the things that makes me happy is that 1/3 of Hillary supporters say in polls they will stay away or vote the Rethugs outright. Sucks, but we will live to fight in 4 years again. Nothing worse than agreeing with the goons who behaved this abominably in trashing Hillary.

As for your contention that your caucus was fine, who cares, one data point does not a good statistical sample. There have been multiple reports of voter intimidation and suppression by the Obama boors.

Besides, as the other poster said astutely above, the whole caucus system is a fraud. There is a reason we have a secret ballot in our general election. The caucus system is Neanderthal. What about people who want privacy? Not to mention people who have tim/work conflicts, can't take off for multiple hours, and a hundred other impediments.

The best example of this fraud was in TX. A small subset of primary voters again voted in the caucus, and Obama after having lost the state by several hundreds of thousands voters, then got more delegates. Then the Obama groupies celebrated as an affirmation of their values.

Posted by: intcamd | April 19, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has no one to blame but herself. She had no plan B after Super Tuesday, so when that went south she was not prepared for the caucus states. In our precinct here in Washington, there was a diverse group of people who showed up...young, old and all races. No one intimidated anyone. We voiced why we supported Obama. They voiced why they supported Clinton. Obama won our caucus by an 80% margin. It's time for Hillary to stop playing the victim...I can GUARANTEE you that will NOT work with leaders from other countries and she will look like a complete fool if she tries to explain her failures to work with them using that tactic. That said, if she somehow manages to wrest this nomination from Obama, we Obama supporters MUST vote for Hillary over McSame. Any you Hillary supporters better vote for Obama, if he is nominated. If not, the Repubs will continue their systematic dismemberment of this country and the Supremes will be completely conservative with no chance of a favorable ruling for the working man for the next 20-30 years. So ya'll better figure this out or all we working people will have left is service jobs working for the rich.

Posted by: treetracker | April 19, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

bjbprice wrote: "As one who called many voters to vote for Hillary across the nation, I can attest to the following as a significant reason why the caucuses were disastrous for Hillary: "They depressed participation by those who supported her because they had to work, serve in the military, take care of others, were old or ill and could not attend, lacked the personal fortitude to go argue with people about who should be supported, had other obligations at the time set for the caucuses, could not travel to the caucus site at the county seat or other location, etc."

Dude, that is really offensive not to mention ignorant to say. You are implying Obama won the caucuses because the majority of the those voting are less than usefull members of society?

Okay now that I think about your comment it really is somewhat amusing. Maybe the sad rationalizations and search for scapegoats to explain her loss to Obama for the nomination have started with your comment.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Let me say this, I am a Dem, but there is something Sen. Clinton is not telling you about Gov."Slick Eddy" Rendell and here it is: Gov. Rendell has changed the way most retired state works can receive health care. Most retiree's were able to receive health care from the Penna. Employee's Benefit Trust Fund (PEBTF), well not anymore. "Slick Eddy" with the stroke of a pen has stopped the retiree's from rec. the PEBTF,which was a secondary insurance to Medicare/Medicaid for the retirees. Now, the retiree's have to choose a health plan that is secondary to Medicare/Medicaid. This plan DOES NOT cover all the expenses that the PEBTF would have, because their secondary insurance is terrible with a limited network of doctors.

What does this mean: Retiree's now have a larger out of pocket expense for health care on a limited budget.

So Sen. Clinton, why aren't you talking about this. I thought you were for the blue collar worker.

Posted by: bigkz07 | April 19, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Here is a caucus for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUkyvpA_a8

5 to 10 thousand spontaneously marched from the Obama rally for 10 blocks clogging the streets to the tunnels under city hall chanting "Yes we can" and "Obama".

30 to 60 thousand came out to here him speak last night.

Don't here a word about it do you.

The politics of the past are dead. Senator Obama has my vote.

Posted by: Deward Bowles | April 19, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

GO, 'BAMA!
GO, 'BAMA!!
GO, 'BAMA!!!

Barack Hussein Obama, (to be the) 44th President of the United States of America.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Had Mveon.org endorse Hillzilla, she would be singing their praises. Ah the feckless, loyal-less, Clintons.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

As a THINKING member of MoveOn, I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and did not support Obama for endorsement by our organization for the simple reason that his preparedness for the position is too slim.
As one who called many voters to vote for Hillary across the nation, I can attest to the following as a significant reason why the caucuses were disastrous for Hillary: They depressed participation by those who supported her because they had to work, serve in the military, take care of others, were old or ill and could not attend, lacked the personal fortitude to go argue with people about who should be supported, had other obligations at the time set for the caucuses, could not travel to the caucus site at the county seat or other location, etc. Since no absentee ballots were available for those who could not attend, they were simply excluded from participation. People I called in California (a non-caucus state where all can mail ballots) did not give such explanations for their inability to participate because they could participate at their convenience. In California, Hillary won. It is time for caucus states to wake up and enfranchise everyone by following the California example.

Caucuses are undemocratic dinosaurs that prevent people from casting their votes secretly and in a fair manner that allows all access to voting. Caucuses should be abolished. I am willing to join a lawsuit to make it happen, if someone is and attorney who will contribute her/his time.

Posted by: bjbprice | April 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Barack Obama was right with his analogy ,
They all were wrong , so why should they, " The Clintons " , have another shot at the Highest Office in the Land ??

Posted by: AJ Mesa , AZ | April 19, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn is a group of thugs and goons. Shame on them for intimidating the weak, feeble, shy voters who came into the caucuses to support some one else.

In their zealous bid to elect Obama, MoveOn had become worser than the goons of Dick Cheney.

For a long time, MoveOn bemoaned the suppression of first amendment rights at the hands of this admin. However, their dirty tactics at the caucuses, and the media campaigns of their surrogates (i.e journalists at WaPo, NYT, and other MSM outlets) are even worse than what Dick And Rummy espoused.

Shame on MoveOn. Shame on WaPO and NYT.

Makes sense, that why Hillary was begging for their endorsement!

Posted by: Larry | April 19, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

What is a shame is that MoveOn, funded by Soros who I used to admire, worked for a while to promote to give a voice to the suppressed who had no voice in the former commie countries.

Today, the same MoveOn has become a bunch of goons. MoveOn and its sister groups like Kos, HuffPo, AmPros, etc are all extreme and incredibly hostile to dissenting democratic voices. If one is even slightly Pro Clinton, their posts will not be posted, if some how posted then they will eventually be deleted, Clinton supporters out shouted and insulted, and worse of all, they take their tactics from internet forums to real caucuses where they scare and intimidate and outright cheat Clinton supporters from even voting.

None of that matters though; Obama will will this round, but will sink like a Titanic weighed down by Mt Everest on top.

As Obama is shred to pieces by the right wing attack dogs, you Obama nuts, please go back to your goons at MoveOn. Don't ask us CLinton supporters to come back and be united for the sake of party.

Posted by: intcamd | April 19, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

bissron

Slamming Moveon, a extreme group on the fringe, which is working to undermine the votes of millions of democratic voters in the caucuses, is not the same as attacking the democratic party itself.

MoveOn is some times just as dangerous as the crazies of Hamas; at the least, it is no worse than the right wing nuts such as Rummy and Dicky. Both are guilty of believing excessively in their own notion of justice, and trying to shut down other dissenting voices.

A large percentage of th country is more in the middle. Your golden eyed boy might win here on the back of shameful intimidation by MoveOn thugs, but that does not get him and you any farther than Mondale in 1984.

Posted by: intcamd | April 19, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Matt in Idaho,

No worries. Your sainted one, Hussein Obama has already been and will be disowned by millions of CLinton supporters in Nov.

Posted by: intcamd | April 19, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn is a group of thugs and goons. Shame on them for intimidating the weak, feeble, shy voters who came into the caucuses to support some one else.

In their zealous bid to elect Obama, MoveOn had become worser than the goons of Dick Cheney.

For a long time, MoveOn bemoaned the suppression of first amendment rights at the hands of this admin. However, their dirty tactics at the caucuses, and the media campaigns of their surrogates (i.e journalists at WaPo, NYT, and other MSM outlets) are even worse than what Dick And Rummy espoused.

Shame on MoveOn. Shame on WaPO and NYT.

Posted by: intcamd | April 19, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Remember folks, Hillary the Inevitable was to have this nomination signed, sealed and delivered to her via her lackeys by 5 February 2008. It did not happen and Hillary and her toadies had no Plan B; o man does it shows!

'Fess up, Clintonistas! Hillary ran a scat-poor campaign, throwing folks under the bus while driving it into a ditch. Moveon.org did not make her waste time and treasure on stupid stuff like party platters, expensive drapes and $1200 in Dunkin Donuts! Moveon.org is not to blame for HRC hiring expensive and ineffective, double-dealing hacks like Penn. Did Moveon.org cause Hillary to stiff vendors and not pay the campaign workers' health insurance premiums? Hillary is some kind of stupid! Now she looks to blame others because she knows the likely and unfavorable (for her) outcome; Hillary Clinton will not become the Democratic Party's standard bearer in the general election.

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

That's sad.

She's attacking an organization that was founded to help her husband get through his hardest time as President.

Moveon fought to move the nation forward, past all the petty political charges that the Clinton's affair brought.

Moveon is now trying to move past the petty divisive politics that dilutes the power of the people through fearmongering and distraction by the parties.

Clinton may be finished this year, but her attacking a group that was founded to help her husband is disgusting.

Posted by: nick, houston | April 19, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

When will Hillary step down? This is getting silly.

I laughed when Romney-bot said he was stepping down for the good of his party. But now I look back and realize he could have taken a page out of the Clinton playbook and seriously taken some hits on his opponent to advance his name for any future election.

If you destroy Obama, Mrs. Clinton, you will be disowned by millions. You'll wish you had it as good as Lieberman.

Posted by: Matt in Idaho | April 19, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Holy Moly!!!! Talk about whining. I thought that MOVE ON ORGANIZATION was started to help her husband out of his Monica Lewisnky mess. Hillary, get out of politics and bake those damn cookies.

Posted by: Mary Mansour, Alabama

LOL!!!

Posted by: tydicea | April 19, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

This stuff about only hard-core activists attending caucuses is nonsense. This may well have been true in previous election cycles, but not this time. At my caucus in Iowa, I was part of the most diverse group I've ever experienced in politics. There were young, middle-aged, and old people, black, white, asian, and hispanic people, first-time and veteran caucus goers, men and women, and rich and poor. Obama has brought an unbelievably diverse group of people into the political process. Don't believe this nonsense from the Clinton campaign about the caucuses this year. There has been record turnout in every caucus state this year and that's not because the same old party activists have come out.

Posted by: Iowa caucus goer | April 19, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is right on the mark. We who support MoveOn.org do indeed despise her and all she stands for, and we are utterly committed to Barack Obama winning the Presidency in November. Hillary is obviously angry and petulant, since it is clear she has already lost but refuses to admit it. It will be so good to see her out of the running by early June.

Posted by: David S. Robins | April 19, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Holy Moly!!!! Talk about whining. I thought that MOVE ON ORGANIZATION was started to help her husband out of his Monica Lewisnky mess. Hillary, get out of politics and bake those damn cookies.

Posted by: Mary Mansour, Alabama | April 19, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

HRC losing because they ran a very bad campaign, didn't have much of strategy, didn't focusing on offering America a clear vision to a better future that differentiate herself and the rest. 8 years in the senate makes her afraid to move agreesively and decisively and worry too much esp when Obama very good at trapping her and blowing everything out of proportion while complaining any legitimate questions regarding Obama mean spirited. Still, I think HRC is the best qualified. The two guys are idiots.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

First a request to the moderator, assuming there is one. Could you consider removing the long winded posts that have NOTHING to do with the original subject matter, i.e. "Tony's" April 19, 2008 1:30 PM regarding 'black liberation marxist ideology' or "Max's" April 19, 2008 1:25 PM rant about Obama being an imposter. You would serve your paper and the community well by screening out the trolls on your comment boards.

That said, regarding "Clinton Blames MoveOn for Caucus Losses: the ACTUAL subject of this thread:

First as you point out MoveOn was originally founded to support and defend the Clinton's. HRC's attacks on the group are more clear evidence of the truth to the adage "The Clinton's will always be there when they need you".

Second, as to HRC's "So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.": I attended both my precinct level and Legislative level caucus here in Washington state. Far from being organized both Obama and Clinton supporters, as well as the whole Democratic organization of both caucuses was more akin to herding cats. I thought the Clinton machine was this unstoppable organizational juggernaut. What does it say about her that she got her lunch handed to her in caucus states? HRC's people knew the rules in the caucus states going in, in fact their hacks at the state level wrote the rules months before the primaries began. It's not MoveOn's fault that HRC/Wolfson/Penn got schooled at the caucuses. And aside from the crowds being 80/20 for Obama, I saw nothing but respect and accomodation shown to HRC supporters by my NEIGHBORS at the caucuses. Certainly no intimidation or disrespect. Sheesh, just who is insulting us small-town folk here anyway?

Posted by: abbatrey | April 19, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Seriously folks. No Snarks!

The Job in question, is Commander in Chief. It is also called the Executive Branch. The Stereotype-George Washington.

HE(It), is the ENFORCEMENT Arm.

Of the three Main Choices, only one reflects the Background of a Senator who became a very good President. John F. Kennedy, and John McCain both served Honorably, but also were challenged while doing so! They, unlike Kerry, also remained Loyal.

What remains to be seen by ME, is Who or What McCain will bring with Him to the Ticket.

I could become his Ticket's biggest supporter, or I could just sit back, and allow the collective Stupidity that has developed in this Country to finally seal the Coffin shut! :-(

I kid nobody, when I say that the very thought of putting two Congressional lawyer CLOWNS, with NO Military or Business Management Experience, into the one Job in our Federal Government that should REQUIRE at least one or the other, IS SCARY AS HELL!

How friggin STUPID have the People of this once great Nation become?

For what it is worth, getting a Clue, and putting the Military Man where he belongs, WILL STILL HAVE THE TWO CONGRESSIONAL LAWYERS(Clowns or Not), Where THEY BELONG!

But for the sake of this Country McCain, get a Business Genius who is also a capable Executive ON BOARD!

McCain, YOU NEED Mitt Romney, just as bad as the whole country does;

Whether they are smart enough to realize it or NOT!

Uhhhh, John;

Are YOU?

Posted by: RAT-The | April 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

At least it's no longer the vast right wing conspiracy. BILLARY Clinton is a joke!

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | April 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 18, 2008
Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new -- an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.


David Brooks
Go to Columnist Page »
But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn't on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates' words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge -- in which case he would destroy his credibility -- or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Missing from this article (but in the Huffington post) are the numerous misstatements from Clinton and her campaign. She repeated a story (begun by Karl Rove) that Moveon didn't support Afghanistan's invasion (not true) and the "intimidation" her campaign manager cites (Nevada and Texas) either happened before Moveons endorsement (Nevada) or were after Hillary's comments (Texas).

Why isn't this causing an uproar?
Why isn't CNN all over this with a banner that reads "Clinton Slams Democrats"?
She accuses her own party of intimidation and its not news?

Posted by: bissron | April 19, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

No matter how much MoveOn thinks they are the movers, and the shakers as-far-as politics goes, the people who really have to be convinced about any of the candidates are the American people. After living in six different states during my life, and I ain't an old person, the experiences I have tell me that the person who really can move this country forward is a person who can work with all the varied aspects of both parties. At this point in time being too far to the right or left is not going to get anyone elected.
MoveOn has garnered a lot of negativity for itself over this last year on its own. Generating the ire of quite a few of the American people over their GENERAL BETRAYUS ads, the candidate they now openly support may not benefit from their involvement. While I did not support the invasion in Iraq, I waffled because Saddam Hussein had verbally threatened our destruction many times, and after 9-11 it seemed plausible to many, many people. General David Petreaus has served his country, and the soldiers under him in an honorable way under difficult conditions. As a mother of two sons in the military who serve this wonderful country, I felt that this was a shameful ad that should have been directed at the president, the one ultimately responsible. I do not want us to be in Iraq. We are there, and we must endure the care it will take to remove ourselves.
The debate on ABC did point out something very clearly in the issues that WERE discussed, that Mr Obama is not going to be elected in November. Why? Because ultimately, he really doesn't have a clue about Middle America which represents most of the voters in this country, and neither does MoveOn at this point in time.

Posted by: cynthia | April 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Typical White Pennsylvanian (1:43)wrote: "Caucuses should be discarded completely. They disenfranchise the elderly & disabled, those who work and for whatever reason (such as preferring a private ballot) are unable to spend hours talking about the candidate they support.

Which leaves them open to people who do not work, and intimidation due to the vote being public. That's just wrong."

I fully agree!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Caucuses should be discarded completely. They disenfranchise the elderly & disabled, those who work and for whatever reason (such as preferring a private ballot) are unable to spend hours talking about the candidate they support.

Which leaves them open to people who do not work, and intimidation due to the vote being public. That's just wrong.

Posted by: Typical White Pennsylvanian | April 19, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

What's with this man who is unable to talk unless he is hiding behind empty words? Obama was as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof, eyes bugging, nervously licking his lips
while fumbling for answers, and now he is trying to say that he won the debate. Obama was so out of his league. It was pathetic when he attempted to copy the answers of Senator Hillary Clinton, but without her knowledge, he kind of trailed off at the end of the sentence. Play back the debate for God's sake - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. However, Obama's toadies are trying to add their spin to the debate. According to the Boston Globe (4/17), it was the conservatives who first picked up the story of an Ayers-Obama connection on Feb.2 when British writer Peter Hitchens wrote about it in the London Daily Mail. Ayers and his wife are credited with launching Obama's political career in 1995 and introducing him to the Hyde community with a small house party when Obama was running for the state Senate. Who is this man Obama?

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 19, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

good to see that the idiots are in full force today. don't you guys have a kkk rally to get to?

Posted by: Andrew | April 19, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse


After telling us that voters in the ten remaining contests need to be counted, Hillary encourages pledged delegates and superdelegates to vote against the will of the people. This kind of leadership found support in the notion of "false consciousness" that originated in the philosophical writings of Marx and Engels.

"I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president." - Hillary Clinton in 2000

Posted by: Matt | April 19, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I attended the caucus that was held with our primary election here, and I strongly dispute that there was even a hint of intimidation or unfairness by either Obama or Clinton backers. Now, reports from a precinct down the road from me were a horse of a different color - but it was Clinton backers doing the intimidating, even stealing the paperwork after the caucus and refusing to turn it over to the elected chairperson until being confronted by a judge. I'm not trying to infer that this behavior was condoned by Clinton herself; I have no way of knowing but am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. (Snarkiness makes me want to say, "Not as far as I know...", but I'll refrain.)

We had a well-attended caucus that was won by Barack Obama, and I have never even met a MoveOn.org member. So, come on, Hillary, don't make excuses! Things are what they are, and a show of grace on your part would play much better than excuses.

Posted by: Anne in TX | April 19, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation

Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation
By Anthony B. Bradley

One of the pillars of Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America's economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).

Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of Blacks as victims of White oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."

In God of the Oppressed, Cone said that Marx's chief contribution is "his disclosure of the ideological character of bourgeois thought, indicating the connections between the 'ruling material force of society' and the 'ruling intellectual' force." Marx's thought is useful and attractive to Cone because it allows Black theologians to critique racism in America on the basis of power and revolution.

For Cone, integrating Marx into Black theology helps theologians see just how much social perceptions determine theological questions and conclusions. Moreover, these questions and answers are "largely a reflection of the material condition of a given society."

In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and Black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought" because of the shared human experience of oppressed peoples as victims. West sees a strong correlation between Black theology and Marxist thought because "both focus on the plight of the exploited, oppressed and degraded peoples of the world, their relative powerlessness and possible empowerment." This common focus prompts West to call for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers"--a dialogue that centers on the possibility of "mutually arrived-at political action."

In his book Prophesy Deliverance, West believes that by working together, Marxists and Black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. He appreciates Marxism for its "notions of class struggle, social contradictions, historical specificity, and dialectical developments in history" that explain the role of power and wealth in bourgeois capitalist societies. A common perspective among Marxist thinkers is that bourgeois capitalism creates and perpetuates ruling-class domination--which, for Black theologians in America, means the domination and victimization of Blacks by Whites. American has been over run by "White racism within mainstream establishment churches and religious agencies," writes West.

Perhaps it is the Marxism imbedded in Obama's attending Trinity Church that should raise red flags. "Economic parity" and "distribution" language implies things like government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases, government subsidized health care for all, and the like. One of the priorities listed on Obama's campaign website reads, "Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers."

Black Liberation Theology, originally intended to help the black community, may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism which ultimately leads to more oppression. As the failed "War on Poverty" has exposed, the best way to keep the blacks perpetually enslaved to government as "daddy" is to preach victimology, Marxism, and seduce blacks into thinking that upward mobility is someone else's responsibility in a free society.

Anthony B. Bradley is a research fellow at the Acton Institute, and assistant professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. His PhD dissertation is titled, "Victimology in Black Liberation Theology."

Posted by: Tony | April 19, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Omana is an impostor. His truthfulness about his past will make Hillary's fish tale about Bosnia a faint memory once the Republican attack machine shows Obama's ties with radical Muslims and their funding by Muammar Gaddafi. Hillary's gaffs may have mistated her experience, but Obama's fibs will expose his radical ideology, desguised as black Liberation Theology. Forget what Pastor Wright said about 9-11. The Black Liberation Theology of Trinity UCC enbraced by Obama is racist and devisive.

HOW CAN A PROFESSED "CHRISTIAN" WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON A PROMISE OF UNITY PROCLAIMING, "THERE ARE NO RED STATES OR BLUE STATES, THERE IS ONLY THE UNITED STATES" BE ANYTHING BUT A SLICK IMPOSTOR IF HE HAS EMBRACED THE IDEOLOGY AND THEOLOGY OF JAMES CONE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS, WHICH IS THE THEOLOGY OF TRINITY UCC? ACCORDING TO JAMES CONE AND REV. WRIGHT, "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." (James Cone, quoted in William R Jones, 'Divine Racism," in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed. Cornel West, Eddie Glaube, 2003.)

Hillary may have her faults, but Obama is unelectable in the general election because he is an impostor who will be exposed in the general election.

Barack Obama has stressed how Rev. Wright brought him to Christianity and that Obama embraced the teaching of Trinity church as a congregant in his campaign and in his published writings. These teachings are fundamentally racist and divisive. Obama has chosen to belong to this "Black Liberation Theology" church for almost 20 years. Hannity, no friend of Democrats, has been airing Wright's May 2007 interview incessantly to eventually emblazon the association of Wright, Obama and the divisive theology of James Cone on the American body politic once Obama secures the nomination.

The problem is that Obama, in his eloquent speech of Tuesday March 18, did not reject the Afrocentric theology of the Trinity United Church of Christ, nor the application of that theology as practiced by Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Moreover, not only did Obama fail to repudiate Wright, Obama failed to explain how he could belong to a church since the early nineties and embrace its "Black Liberation Theology" on one hand and run for the highest office in the land on the other.

It appears certain that comparing the attacks on Obama's association with divisive theology for almost 20 years following Obama's nomination will make "swiftboating" an inapplicable metaphor. Indeed, it appears almost certain that the damage that will be done to the Democrats following Obama's nomination could make the 1972 McGovern choice of Tom Eagleton as Vice Presidential running mate pale by comparison to 2008 election politics of juxtaposing sexy sound bites and undisputable facts.

Obama's ties to radical "Black Liberation Theology" will be just the beginning. The attack dogs will tie Obama's theology and his actions to radical African politics because the overwhelming majority of the press have not looked into Obama's associations with radical African politicians and Obama's actions in support of those radicals. For example, one only read the stories published in the New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/article/69273 ) on January 10, 2008 entitled "The Kenya Connection" and Investors Business Daily of January 15, 2008 (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?status=article&id=285292746454291&secid=1501 ) to realize that there is plenty of ammunition available to render Obama's nomination cannon fodder for conservative talk show hosts and television hit pieces that could make "Willie Horton" commercials look like political cream puffs.

Will Obama's ties to radical African politicians such as Raila Odinga, whose political campaigns have been funded by Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and who has forged alliances with fundamentalist Islamic factions cause the Democrats to lose the usually reliable Jewish vote? Will working class whites embrace a black Obama? Will an all attack on Obama resulting in his defeat in the general election spawn riots across America's inner cities?

These are troubling questions that deserve to be discussed now because the news media and particularly the traditional press have appeared to abdicate their responsibility to have vetted candidate Obama with the healthy skepticism that has long been the hallmark of the free press in America. It behooves us all to raise these issues now rather than become intoxicated with a candidate's oratorical skills and hopeful rhetoric only to later find out that the promise was far different than reality.


Posted by: Max | April 19, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.
Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.
Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."
Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.
It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.
Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 19, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

A Living Lie
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie.
That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.
Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.
There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.
Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk. However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 19, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

since arriving on the national scene in 1992, the clintons have been responsibilty-evading victims. there is always some "vast conspiracy" out to get them. nothing is their fault!

in the clinton's view most of the time it is the media that is treating them "unfairly". i challenge any one to into the archives and see for themselves. without fail, when something does not go their way, the clintons blame the media first with others soon following.

i don't know why the media never catches on to this schtick. it is just accepted and then to prove how "fair" they really are the media agressively interrogates the clinton's opponent. witness abc's political knee-capping of obama during the so-called "debate".

wake up democrats. do you really want another four years of clintons?

Posted by: a.g.c. | April 19, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Voters must ask themselves where, how and why Obama is getting all the $$$$$. What a damn shame if in the year 2008 the next American President is determined by the candidate who has the most $$$$ to spread the most lies.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 19, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

OOOps . . . made a typo in my previous comments. "far" is meant to be "fewer."

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 19, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely, caucuses bring out the activist base and the adversarial young people who want to force their opinions on long-time members of the Democratic Party. Also, caucuses do not reflect the will of the people because far people participate in the process because it is adversarial. Senator Hillary Clinton is voicing a well know fact, known to Democratic voters.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 19, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

yeah Hillary, better get rid of those 3 million Democratic activists. Gosh knows, you don't need those people to help you win. Add those to the African-American voters, the college-educated voters and the young voters and you can still win the nomination, right? Right?

Her ego knows no bounds.

Posted by: Ann | April 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

As a non amarican who enjoyed and still enjoys following the campain via written,televised and radio diffused media, I am amazed at how low candidates are willing to sink just to get the votes. The last few days have been like a dems Vs GOP campain. Hillary is doing a "fantastic" job for the GOP. Does anyone from the Dems especially the supers think, they can patch up the self inflicted damages the party is allowing Hillary+Bill to get away with. What happened to the the politically shrewd Bill? what I sense looking from the other side of the atlantic is that the Clintons have this feeling that the presidency somehow belongs to them. When all this saga started i was ready for a female dem candidate and to be frank, i was ready for a female president, so was all the world. But now, I am sure if there is ever going to be a female president of the USA, it won't be Hillary, she's done so much damage to herself that it would be difficult to come back and win the presidencial elections.

Posted by: jean-christian | April 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Ouch, that vote for Iraq will cost her a lot. She can only blame herself for her caucus losses. Now she must figure out how she can save her family legacy from going down the drain.

Posted by: Matt | April 19, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, can't you simply accept responsibility for your stuff? I mean you didn't give a rat's arse about the small-fry states since Iowa, and now you wanna belly-ache about Moveon.org and their support for Obama? Please! Spare me the whine because I already ate the cheese!

If anything, you need to look to Mark Penn and his high-priced advice for your cluster-mess of a campaign. Will Penn give you a refund?

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 19, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn.org is ignorantly giving away the Presidency to McCain.

MoveOn.org is a hateful organization with no class - as far as we know.

Posted by: Jkan | April 19, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

That's not Hillary whining is it? I heard yesterday from Bill and Hillary that Hillary doesn't whine! This can't be! The Clinton camp told an untruth to the American voter--I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Posted by: Sueb2 | April 19, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

NO Hi-liar-ry! You fail to understand something fundamental. You do okay with your nicely crafted televised image and shallow sound bites. But when people see you up close, as with the caucuses, they are turned off. The rest of us are getting turned off too!

Posted by: tydicea | April 19, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Hilary will lose this primary season. Perhaps she can come back in four years? Who knows these things? It was a great run, but it's time for this Clinton supporter to rally behind Obama! Go Democrats!!!

Posted by: Jose | April 19, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Please lets tell the whole story. Hilary, at the beginning of the race went after MoveOn's support. I was at that MovOn meeting when she asked for our support via satellite. We voted in February to endorse Obama. In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place. A bit of Sour Grapes!!!

Posted by: Josie | April 19, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton would today be a footnote in history, the has-been ex-wife of an impeached AND convicted president, were it not for the Democratic "activists" who helped save her husband's behind. And this is how she repays them...lying about them, and accusing them of being goons, instead of blaming her own poor campaign strategy for her failure to win the nomination.

I am reminded of a quote I heard, purported to be from a Jimmy Carter staffer: "You can depend on the Clinton's to always be there when they need you."

Posted by: Susan E. | April 19, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Who was Claiming "Green Power" to be CLEAN?

LOL! :-D

Bad News! College Children are very un-disciplined these days. They think Political Rallies are a great Opportunity for a "Rave". They learned it at their Bush-bashing Bashes! :-(

NOW, Working, Responsible, Older, Democrat Moderates;

REAP what you SOWED! :-(

BRATZ!

Gullible, manipulable, naive, BUT, VERY AGITABLE, Bratz!

The "Green" Party was a very much so, Double Edged Sword, to acquire! The World Labor Party, does not really like the US all that much!

Feelings are Mutual! ;~)

Clinton Moderates are welcome to the "Big Tent"-With the other Adults!, When the Smoke clears after the Greens and their Scorched Earth Policies STEAL the Democrat Party, and finally morph it into the Dimocrat Socialist Party Teddy always wanted! :-(

Posted by: RAT-The | April 19, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company