Home

Voters Fall in Love in the Primaries. In the General Election, They Fall in Line.

Submitted by mark karlin on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:38am.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

rr

Randi Rhodes

February 22, 2008

We were listening to progressive radio on Thursday afternoon. Randi Rhodes was quoting Bill Clinton on some advice he gave her: "Randi, in primaries you fall in love; in general elections, you fall in line."

Given the range war over the primaries that has broken out on BuzzFlash and other progressive sites, it is a quotation worth remembering in terms of taking the White House back from the Republicans.

Thanks, Randi, we needed that "longview" perspective.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash | delicious delicious | digg digg | yahoo yahoo | technorati technorati
Technorati Tags:

» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version

Oh, that's why I prefer

Submitted by andreea.360 on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 2:00pm.
Oh, that's why I prefer falling in love with the zappos shoes than with men! I don't like these mixing work with my personal life..and most of us should keep it apart don't you think?
» login or register to post comments

DID OBAMA JUST REMEMBERED HE WAS BLACK TO GET THE BLACK VOTES???

Submitted by VoteResponsibly08 on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 11:00pm.

Obama is skipping African-American event
By WILLIAM DOUGLAS
McClatchy Newspapers

Tavis Smiley
WASHINGTON -- Presidential politics will take center stage in New Orleans on Saturday at the annual "State of the Black Union" symposium, where the hottest topic is likely to be which candidate is there and which one isn't.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will address a largely African-American crowd of thousands in New Orleans' convention center, where thousands of the city's poorest residents sought shelter in squalid conditions after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Clinton's Democratic rival, is skipping the event. He'll focus instead on campaigning in Texas and Ohio in hope of delivering a knockout blow to Clinton in those states' presidential primaries March 4.
The Republican presidential candidates, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, also declined to attend the symposium, which television and radio talk show host Tavis Smiley organized and will host.
Obama's refusal to attend and Smiley's criticism of him for doing so have stirred debate within the African-American community and the blogosphere, taking both men to task.
"On one side, there are people who feel he [Obama] is about to make history and you [Smiley] are trying to mess it up," said Ronald Walters, an African-American political science professor at the University of Maryland. "Then there are others who feel that Obama needs to address issues important to African-Americans more than he has."
Obama's campaign offered Michelle Obama to speak on her husband's behalf, but Smiley declined the offer. Obama then sent a letter to Smiley officially turning down his invitation because he'll be campaigning in Texas and Ohio, where he still trails Clinton in opinion polls but is narrowing the gap.
Smiley called Obama's decision "a critical miscalculation and a missed opportunity."
Clinton, meanwhile, is attending because she has to try to woo back African-American voters who have deserted her in droves, political analysts say.
Within a year, African-American support has flipped from favoring her to backing Obama by as much as 80 percent to 90 percent in recent primaries.
Clinton could receive a cool reception from African-Americans, who think that her campaign -- especially her husband, former President Clinton -- injected race into South Carolina's Democratic primary last month to try to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate."
"Her coming to the event, it's a bit of a risk. She could get a chilly reception," Walters said. "If it hadn't been for South Carolina, she could go into the forum expecting a good reception."
Minyon Moore, a Clinton campaign adviser, said the New York senator doesn't know what to expect Saturday.
"After all that's been reported and said, what hasn't changed is the commitment of Hillary and Bill Clinton to civil rights and racial equality," Moore said. "If people are willing to listen to her, we'll win the day."
MY WORDS, IF HE CAN'T DO IT FOR HIS OWN PEOPLE WHAT CAN HE DO FOR US THE LATINOS..HERMONOS NO SE DEJEN ENGANAR.....

» login or register to post comments

Obama: we can do it!! yes we can we can not vote for Obama

Submitted by VoteResponsibly08 on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:51pm.

The Real Barack Obama

Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:06 AM

By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size

Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America helps crystallize who Barack Obama is.

To be sure, the wife of a candidate is perfectly free to have views that are distinct from her husband’s. But on a matter that is so fundamental to one’s being as love of country, it is difficult to imagine that Michelle Obama would publicly twice make such a statement suggesting disdain for America unless she felt it comported with her husband’s views.

Equally important, her statement aligns perfectly with the hate-America views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s minister, friend, and sounding board for more than two decades. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in his church magazine Trumpet. “White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

Wright has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in December, honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement, saying he “truly epitomize[s] greatness.”

Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals.

Those who think two of the closest people to Obama could publicly make anti-America statements unless Obama himself felt that way, are fooling themselves. To date, Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than a great orator, rendering the statements of those around him even more important in illuminating his true character and agenda. During his Senate career, he skipped 17 percent of the votes and sponsored only one bill that became law. That bill was to promote “relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

Bereft of official accomplishments, Obama has distinguished himself mainly by being against measures that protect American security, such as finishing the mission in Iraq. If we were to leave Iraq quickly, as Obama vows he would do, it would become a launch pad for al-Qaida attacks on the U.S.

Obama avoided voting on extending the Protect America Act, thus putting America at risk when immediate interception of terrorist communications is required. Last August, Obama voted against a measure that would have allowed the U.S. to continue to monitor overseas conversations of terrorists like Osama bin Laden without first obtaining a warrant.

If his radical vote had prevailed, bin Laden would have been given the same rights as Americans.

To this day, Obama has not distanced himself from most of Rev. Wright’s comments. In a statement supposedly issued to address the matter, Obama ignored the point that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Farrakhan and that Wright’s church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader. Instead, as outlined in a Jan. 17 Newsmax article, he disingenuously claimed he thought the magazine bestowed the award on Farrakhan for his efforts to rehabilitate ex-prisoners.

Neither Wright’s encomiums about Farrakhan nor the Trumpet article mentions ex-prisoners.

Similarly, after John McCain’s wife Cindy responded to Michelle Obama’s remarks by telling a Wisconsin rally, “I have, and always will be, proud of my country,” Barack Obama told a radio interviewer that his wife did not say what people think she said. He then proceeded to rewrite her comments, claiming that she had meant she was encouraged by the “large numbers of people” who have gotten involved in the political process. Michelle Obama then made a similar revision of her remarks.

In her speech in Milwaukee, Michelle Obama said flatly, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

And what has been wrong with America up to now? That it gave Michelle the opportunity to attend Princeton and Harvard Law School? That it gave Barack Obama the chance to attend Columbia University and Harvard Law School and become a U.S. senator making more than $1 million a year from book royalties?

Was it that America stopped Nazi Germany from continuing to murder millions of Jews? That America has provided Africa and other countries with $15 billion to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV and that another $30 billion is on the way? That 46 percent of all Americans classified by the Census Bureau as poor own their own homes, 76 percent of them have air conditioning, and 75 percent of them have at least one car? Or that America allows us to express our views freely without fear of being put in jail, as is the case in Russia?

A lawyer, Michelle Obama is perfectly capable of expressing herself precisely. In fact, she spoke from a written speech.

Those who do not want to believe she meant what she said — and that Barack Obama could not be so close to Rev. Wright if he did not himself believe in much of what he has said — are in denial.

The real Barack Obama is starting to emerge, and for those of us who are grateful to America for everything it represents, it is not a pretty sight.

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

» login or register to post comments

OBAMA HAS BEEN RUNNING ON HIS WORDS...

Submitted by VoteResponsibly08 on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:40pm.

I AM SORRY PEOPLE. OBAMA HAS BEEN RUNNING ON HIS WORDS, HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN ABOUT HIS WORDS..ALL TH ETHE CANDIDATES RAN ON EXPERIENCE, THEIR KNOWLEDGE ON NUCS,THE POOR. OBAMA HAD HIS WORDS THAT INSPIRED PEOPLE SO YES IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT HIS WORDS ARE NOT HIS WORDS. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERN HE WAS LIVING IN A HOUSE OF WORDS THAT BROKE AND CAME TUMBLING DOWN. THERE HAS GOT TO BE SOME HONOR HERE AND HE DOES NOT HAVE IT. HE HAS BLINDSIGHTED THE YOUTH, WHITE, BLACKS LATINOS AND THE MEDIA HAS GIVEN HIM A FREE PASS. BUT REALISTICALY HE HAS LIED WITH HIS EMPTY WORDS AND PROMISES. YES WE CAN DO IT! SI SE PUEDE
WHAT AND QUE..NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN THAT WILL TAKE US TO THE WORSE RIDE OF OUR NATIONS TIME.

» login or register to post comments

Hillary a Hypocrite in Claiming Plagiarism Against Obama

Submitted by SkeeterVT on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 7:43pm.

Even as Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of committing plagiarism in Thursday night's debate, she committed an act of plagiarism herself when she said that Obama's campaign slogan -- "Change We Can Believe In" -- was really "Change that you can Xerox."

She committed plagiarism by her unauthorized use of the Xerox Corporation's name -- which is a registered trademark. I'm sure that the folks at Xerox won't look too kindly at Clinton's use of their trademark without their consent.

» login or register to post comments

sorry skeeter!!

Submitted by VoteResponsibly08 on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:44pm.

All Obama had was words... we all fell in love with his words, be believed his words. He used them to put people down. he used them to inspire..however they were not his !!!
Hillary will win and she doesn't God Help us all!! We must not forget!!!!!
One of the reasons that Hispanics respect both Clintons is federal appointments and their championing of diversity.

During his 8 years in office Bill Clinton had 366 federal judicial appointments including 104 women, 23 Hispanics, 5 Asian Americans, 1 Indian American, and 61 African Americans.

Clinton famously stated in 1992 that his cabinet would look like America, and he followed through with real diversity in his appointments including cabinet positions for the following Hispanics, Frederico Peña, Bill Richardson, Aida Alvarez.

Overall Bill Clinton appointed more women to his cabinet that any other president in history with 11 total appointments including:
Madeleine Albright, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, Alexis Herman, etc.
Bill Clinton had 2,160 total senate confirmed appointments of which 592 were women. Both Hillary and Bill have promoted diversity…real diversity and they have delivered.

Hillary is not a stranger to the Hispanic community. Her long-term fight for healthcare for children and for universal healthcare resonates with Hispanic communities. She has consistently promoted the interests of Hispanic communities. And she certainly is not a stranger to areas like south Texas.

Obama has no track record with Hispanics at the federal level and a very limited record in Illinois.
Everyone accuses Hillary Clinton and her husband of being divisive. Well, isn't that exactly what Michelle Obama is when she says she will not vote for anyone BUT her husband! What arrogance and hubris!!

Everyone criticizes Hillary because they feel Bill will influence how she will run the country. Well at least he has experience - and things were better while he was in power than they have been at anytime during the last 7!! If Obama wins, it appears clear that Michelle will want to have her say as to how the White House will be run. Well, two people with no experience do not equal one with experience.

America is so desparate for a saviour that they have created one in Obama - like he is the second coming of Christ ready to save the world!! He is a man - just a man- a politician no less, who is making so many promises he is sure to fail. Wake up people.

» login or register to post comments

Votesresponsibly Has A Religious Vision

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 9:12am.

Votesreponsibly shares with us his religious vision:

"America is so desparate for a saviour that they have created one in Obama - like he is the second coming of Christ ready to save the world!! He is a man - just a man- a politician no less, who is making so many promises he is sure to fail. Wake up people."

Well, at least he's not screaming like Caiaphas to crucify him.

» login or register to post comments

Bewear Hiliary Bearing Gifts

Submitted by askolnick on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 9:03am.

Voteresponsibly apparently thinks we should vote for Hillary because she's married to Bill:

"During his 8 years in office Bill Clinton had 366 federal judicial appointments including 104 women, 23 Hispanics, 5 Asian Americans, 1 Indian American, and 61 African Americans."

Clinton famously stated in 1992 that his cabinet would look like America, and he followed through with real diversity in his appointments including cabinet positions for the following Hispanics, Frederico Peña, Bill Richardson, Aida Alvarez.

Overall Bill Clinton appointed more women to his cabinet that any other president in history with 11 total appointments including:
Madeleine Albright, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, Alexis Herman, etc.
Bill Clinton had 2,160 total senate confirmed appointments of which 592 were women. Both Hillary and Bill have promoted diversity…real diversity and they have delivered.

In other words, Hilary is just the Trojan horse by which we can sneak Bill back into the White House.

Thanks Voteresponsibly. We citizens of Troy appreciate your frankness.

» login or register to post comments

Clinton is wrong

Submitted by gabbyone on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 7:14pm.

I am a big fan of Bill Clinton, but on this issue I disagree. I have never been nor will I ever be a "hold your nose voter." I will not vote for Obama if he wins the nomination but I will not vote for McCain either. I have never seen such vitriol from anyone like I have seen in the past months from Obama supporters on every progressive website. I think the kind of people a candidate attracts
say a lot about him and I sure don't want this crew
of "progressive Democrats" in charge of anything.
Today someone on this site went after a person
because they said they were a liberal Democrat in 1968 and
he claimed that was impossible....then please tell me
who were the supporters of JFK in 1960, RFK who died the year of the convention and excuse me but Hubert Humphrey
was about as liberal as they come. When this election began
I said, I would be able to vote for any of the Democrat on
the ticket because we had such a good slate, but after a year of the Obamanistas, not a chance.

» login or register to post comments

Progressives Are As Unrealistic About November as Conservatives

Submitted by SkeeterVT on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 8:55pm.

As an independent voter, I've got a question for you: When are you progressive purists going to wake up and smell the coffee?

Neither major party's nominee can win in November without the support of independent voters. We independents make up a third of the general electorate -- and whether you progressives like it or not, we independents are overwhelmingly centrist moderates who don't particularly care for either progressives or conservatives.

It the principal reason why we're independents: The Democratic Party leans too far to the left and the Republican Party leans too far to the right. And now, we independents are forcing both parties to move toward the center.

Is it any wonder, then, that progressives and conservatives alike are unhappy with us independents? Of course, it isn't. But can they do anything about it? Hell, no! Like it or not, we independents will decide who will get the keys to the White House in November.

And we independents have made our preferences abundantly clear: Barack Obama on the Democratic side and John McCain on the Republican side. No more hard-line ideologues. Conservatives don't like McCain? Too bad. Progressives don't like Obama? Tough cookies.

Even if Hillary Clinton succeeds in pulling off an upset and wins the Demnocratic nomination, she will LOSE to McCain in November, because she has FAILED MISERABLY to win the support of us independents.

Why? Two words: BILL CLINTON. He's already had his eight years in the White House. Independents are as unwilling to put up with a second Clinton presidency as they're fed up with the sedond Bush presidency.

You see, we independents have a problem with the idea of America being governed by a dynasty. Lest we forget, this November will mark the 20th anniversary of George Bush Senior's election to the presidency.

George H.W. Bush. Bill Clinton. George W. Bush. Hillary Clinton? NO WAY! After 20 years, we independents are not willing to see the Bush-Cinton dynasty continue beyond January 20, 2009.

I swear, you progressives are as unrealistic about winning in November as conservatives are. Without us independents, Clinton's going nowhere. Deal with it.

» login or register to post comments

It's BuzzFlash I'll No Longer Support

Submitted by Midwest Progressive on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 2:26pm.

Your policy is supposedly to not endorse candidates in the primaries. But it's obvious you support Obama and just don't have the fortitude to say so formally.

I'm a Clinton supporter that will vote for Obama should he get the nomination. But I will no longer be a BuzzFlash donor.

MP

» login or register to post comments

Hillary Bashing

Submitted by no impunity on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 1:57pm.

The issue with the Clintons is simple. In matters of their constituent's interest, they will explain to us how you have to recognize reality and take what you can get. On the other hand, if it is a matter of their ambition, they will fight to the death. I remember a comment in the movie War Room, about the Gennifer Flowers affair, somebody says Bill "took three bullets to the heart and just kept coming." Then he became President, and on issue after issue, when Republicans attacked, Bill triangulated. How long did it take him to dump Lani Guinere - 3 days? From everything I've seen, Hillary and Bill are in deep agreement about this - the left has to fall in line. What the democrats need is a leader who will unite the left and center left - not somebody who will tell the left to fall in line. The reason I don't like the Clintons is because they treat their enemies better than their friends. If you don't like the vacillating, ineffective mess that the democrat party has become, you don't want another Clinton leading it.

» login or register to post comments

Get real. This is about the survival of the planet.

Submitted by cagey on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 1:26pm.

For crying out loud, isn't ANY Democrat more likely to be better than ANY Republican? We HAVE to unite behind whoever runs against the GOP of Death. We HAVE to put our differences aside for the time being. There's too much at stake, and not just for us...for the world.

» login or register to post comments

Amen

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 6:52pm.

Amen, cagey.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

» login or register to post comments

This is about the heart and soul of America

Submitted by hpdonle on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:46am.

If Democrats are foolish enough to make Hillary Clinton their nominee when she is such a divisive and polarizing political figure this is one person (and I know many others) that will not vote for her or the Republican (personally I'll vote for the socialist candidate whoever it might be). For the record I am a twice wounded US Marine Corps combat veteran of Vietnam. Hillary gives the White House to the Republicans for at least another four years. Time for her to shuffle off the stage.

» login or register to post comments

Have you forgotten....

Submitted by VoteResponsibly08 on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:47pm.

Have you forgotten what Hillary has done for you?? Look it up buddy!!
Thank you for serving our country! I am one that appreciates your bravery and courage.
I will be voting for Hillary so that our boys, girls, moms, dads get taken care of because of her push for them!
Research and you will see.

» login or register to post comments

Hillary bashing

Submitted by andyod on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 12:00pm.

I keep looking for the evil in Hillary. Was it the starting and failing to get a health care program passed?Was it being faithful to her marriage vows? Was it becoming a senator for New York? Getting reelected? Was it wanting to be president? Was it voting for the war, as they put it, when most people in America voted for the war? There must be something deeper and more evil than that to generate such hatred of her as the Barack followers display. I can understand democrats opposing her for president. But Democrats hating her with the passion displayed in the Huffington Report where her supporters, lifetime democrats are characterized as"attack dogs" leaves me wondering what has become of the Liberal Democratic party I have supported for fifty years.The party of the working class.We have become an elitist party of college students and their wealthy parents. Not since the hippy movement that supported McGovern burnt Chicago during the Democratic Convention when they did not get their way at every turn have I seen my party filled with hatred for one on their own and I cannot believe Hillary is that bad!Surely New York would never have reelected her if she was.
Oppose her yes but don't destroy one of your own with venom and hatred.Why don't even do that to the Republicans even as the Swift Boating of McCain has started.

» login or register to post comments

History Bashing - Exposed

Submitted by askolnick on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 2:30pm.

As a student newspaper reporter covering the infamous 1968 Chicago Convention police riot, let me straighten you out.

First, Chicago didn't burn. Lots of beatings, lots of smashing, lots of tear gassings, but nobody burned down anything. Nearly all the violence was begun and carried out by the police (including violence against Mike Wallace and other credential reporters within the convention itself.)

Second, your claim to have supported the "Liberal Democratic Party" for 50 years is obviously a lie.

There is no Liberal Democratic Party. Hilarious! You're like an inept German spy trying to sneak behind American lines in an ill-fitting American Uniform, protesting, "But I am soldier proud for Jewish States of America to fight."

If you were ANY kind of liberal or democrat 40 years ago, you would know that the protests at the 1968 Democratic convention were peaceful until King Richard Daily ordered his police to violently break up the protest, and to smash the cameras and reporters covering the police riot. (I myself suffered a bad knee injury and a broken camera in one of the first attacks. I wasn't able to cover the rest of the convention for my college paper.)

And third, the "hippies" and thousands of other Vietnam War protesters who came to Chicago to petition the Democratic Party leaders did not support McGovern. Sheesh! Sen. McGovern wouldn't run for President for another six years! Most of the Democratic Convention protesters were supporting Sen. Eugene McCarthy.

Finally, Andyod, it's now clear you're nothing but an impostor, trying to fit into the cloak of a life-long liberal democrat. How hilariously your Republican hooves stick out from beneath this ill-fitting cloak.

» login or register to post comments

Conservative Values be damned.

Submitted by psyche on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 9:05am.

The Clintons did not bring us Camelot, Bill talked the Conservative talk and beat the Republicans in the Fiscal responsibility and Balanced Budget debate. The Conservatives responded by making him defend his "Private" behavior at every turn and he still beat them. They generated a hate machine that divided the country and serve no one, but their Corporate Friends...Times are a changing, they better get used to it. Barack will be a powerhouse at the Bully pulpit which GWB, a man of no talent, no worthy accomplishments and no ethics in the governance of our country.Say goodbye to George and for Gods sake, McCain is a convert to GWB's legacy of endless fear and distractions while Rome burns.

For the past 30 years the Conservative machine has been dismantling all that is "Liberal", painting us as extremist that want to take money from the rich and provide for the poor. Well since they defined what Liberals are, why aren't we defining what a "Conservative" is. Greedy, self serving, lying, abusers, closeted Family Value freaks, who abuse little boys, solicit Madams, go out trolling in bathrooms and spend the government tax revenues, (our Taxes) on their rich buddies, the large corporate welfare machine called "The Private Sector". We give subsidies in billions to Oil Companies, who posted record profits, profits gleaned by overcharging, not by improved efficiency of operations and who give nothing back in return, save a few more millionaires who don't deserve their pay because they abuse the trust and diminish the responsible role of Government, which is to serve and protect the folks intended to receive the protection of government, "We the People". We the People are not of one mind for a reason, some of us are Liberals and we think....That is nothing to be ashamed of..If you are a liberal stand up and be counted, if you want to disguise your leanings, be Progressive, but do go to vote, take part in greater numbers and fight the Corporate machinery which has strangled our representative government. Be a voice of Change, vote, bring your friends to vote, support the members of Congress who share your views..The Fanatics on the Religious Right do and they gave us GWB we can remind them of their error.

Psyche

» login or register to post comments

Health care

Submitted by GOPHater on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 9:05am.

I must say I was disapointed with BOTH of their health plans. Why can't we have a frickin' health plan like every other industrialized nation? At any rate, theirs will be a step forward as compared to what we'd ever get from a repug.

» login or register to post comments

Why is Bill Clinton So NOT My Guru?

Submitted by commonsense on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 8:07am.

Oh, good. Now we have quotes from Chairman Clinton on the questions of love and politics. He speaks here from personal knowledge. Those people who made the mistake of falling in love with him had better fall in line. And really, what do either of the Clintons know about love? Two of the biggest phonies on this earth are attempting to force you to allow them to love you (and not in a good way). You know what that is called my friends? They make you promises in the primaries and stain your dress in the elections.

» login or register to post comments

Show some commonsense

Submitted by askolnick on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 9:45am.

Commensense, today's BuzzFlash editorial recalled this Bill Clinton quote in order to provide a much needed "longview prospective" of the 2008 Presidential race.

If Bill Clinton passes you by and tells you you just dropped your wallet, would you refuse to pick it up and walk away, because he's NOT your guru??

Show some commonsense. Good advice is good advice.

» login or register to post comments

If Bill Clinton Saw Me Drop My Wallet, Goodbye Wallet!

Submitted by commonsense on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:14am.

An impeached president and his moll, that is the choice commonsense is encouraged to support? The American electoral process cannot do any better than that? Here Americans have the chance to reject the failed politics of the past twenty years, to climb out the swamp, and you use a lame scenario to finesse commonsense? Should the calamity of yet another Clinton administration befall this nation, all those who now carry the Clintons' dirty laundry will be nowhere to be found. If all their fondest hopes and dreams do come true, I will be the first to say I was wrong. But if it turns out that Clinton the Second proves even more of a disaster than Clinton the First, where will you and all your Clinton enablers be? In some pub with Bill, buying rounds off what you found in my wallet.

» login or register to post comments

Huh?!

Submitted by askolnick on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:55am.

And this has to do with the "long view perspective" advocated in this editorial, how?

The "Oh, How I Hate Bill Clinton, I Can't Stand It" page is somewhere else.

Sit down. Take a stress pill, read the editorial and my comments more carefully. Neither the editorialist Mark Kalin, Randi Rhodes, nor I are "Clinton enablers... carrying the Clintons' dirty laundry."

We just recognized commonsense and sound political advice when we see it. Once progressive democrats choose a candidate to kick the Republican criminals out of the White House (and hopefully into jail, we better fall in line, or else McCain and Putin will be having a bloody foot race to see who will rule the most corrupt and powerful police state in the world.

» login or register to post comments

Looking Backward

Submitted by commonsense on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 12:01pm.

If you had any commonsense you would realize that you are enablers, and dirty laundry is too polite an image. I'm a progressive but not a progessive-at-any-price progressive. Your bogeymen - Putin, McCain - anyone else you want to dredge up? Snidely Whiplash? The Phantom of the Opera? are a laughable exercise in political theatre. The Clintons are incompetents and their experience is as valid as a falsified resume. They represent exactly the interests that you seem so anxious to oppose. Votes for the war, NAFTA, top-down imposition of health care reform, not even a nod to conventional morality, all of this and more is supposed to add up to a progressive's dream? Yours is the most REgressive point of view one could concoct.

» login or register to post comments

Please commonsense, show some

Submitted by askolnick on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 2:38pm.

Commonsense, please take a stress pill and sit down and read more carefully. You're too hysterical to think clearly. You're attacking people for supporting Clinton who are outspoken critics of her campaign.

Get a grip.

» login or register to post comments

Wow. And the hate

Submitted by Fdcgjc on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 7:20am.

Wow. And the hate continues. Why comment on a post if you're not even going to read it?

To blow the plagiarism issue so out of proportion. A two-word phrase, given to him by Deval Patrick, who told him to use it -- yeah, that's a really deep character flaw. Talk about phony. Hillary has plagiarized her husband's entire term as president and claimed it as her very own experience.

A man who worked in the worst neighborhoods of Chicago for $10,000/year, trying to improve lives; a civil rights attorney; an amazingly effective state senator in Illinois who has proven that not only can he work across the aisle, but he can actually steer Republicans to the progressive side and get real legislation passed. Unfortunately, when Hillary reaches across the aisle, she's caving to Republicans.

In the U.S. Senate, he wrote and passed legislation with Dick Lugar on securing loose nukes and biological weapons-- one of the true national security issues that the Republican congress and the Bush Administration totally ignored. His depth of understanding and his effectiveness at getting Republicans to sign on was remarkable for a freshman senator. Ethics reform, transparency in government, children's health care in Illinois, legislation on earmarks (he is the only one who has openly published the causes and job-building programs that constitute his earmarks. Hillary will not). These are just examples of his achievements.

You like Hillary better, fine. But to make such destructive comments, especially after reading this post -- it's just petty.

» login or register to post comments

You said: "A two-word

Submitted by Fast on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 1:51pm.

You said: "A two-word phrase, given to him by Deval Patrick, who told him to use it -- yeah, that's a really deep character flaw. Talk about phony."

Well, not exactly...it's the cadence, the context and all....I don't give a RA if it's palgiarism or not...but your characterization is inaccurate and incomplete. To me second verse looks just like the first.

From Baltimore Sun article:

...Last weekend in Wisconsin, responding to statements from rival Sen. Hillary Clinton that she offers solutions while Obama merely "makes speeches," Obama told a stirred-up crowd, "Don't tell me words don't matter."

" 'I have a dream' - just words, " he said. "'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' - just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' - just words? Just speeches?"

A number of videos have appeared on YouTube, showcasing Obama's speech and Patrick's.

"'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' - just words? Just words," Patrick says. "'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words? 'I have a dream' - just words?"

The title on one YouTube video that displays the two speeches in split-screen: Just words. Just not Obama's......

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.speech19feb19,0,5877868.story?track=rss

» login or register to post comments

He told him to use it.

Submitted by andyod on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 9:23am.

That type of acknowledgment would get you railroaded out of Harvard on the first bus home.Ask Oprah about plagiarism; and she only runs a book club.As for two words; compare the speeches again.Isn't ear marks a bit grand for self flattery?As for writing legislation that the Republicans ignored I thought he could reach across the aisle, or was that another effort to reach to Reagan Democrats which failed?I know the guy is a saint so no need to labor the point.

» login or register to post comments

Not citing speech writers is NOT plagiarism

Submitted by askolnick on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:21am.

Speech makers who use words provided them by others are NOT committing plagiarism, whether or not they cite the author of those words.

Politicians, corporate executives, civil servant administrators, and many others routine employ speech writers, who provide them with words that are rarely if ever attributed.

(Do you think George Bush would be able to deliver anything but crude jokes and wisecracks if he didn't have a team of speech writers working for him?)

In this case, Sen. Obama used not just material prepared by his speech writer, he used some lines given him by his friend and political campaign co-chair.

As someone who has worked as a public information officer at a major university, I can assure you that the President of Harvard regularly uses words prepared for him without attribution in his speeches, without any danger of being "railroaded out of Harvard."

Nevertheless, interesting choice of words -- to be "railroaded out on the first bus home."

» login or register to post comments

Not citing.....

Submitted by andyod on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 12:15pm.

Interesting that Bush is your default setting
for integrity.But with an oldnick byline not surprising.Glad you recognized the mixed metaphor.I realize that phrases contain words but they are still phrases which, if taken from another, should at least contain quotation marks in writing and acknowledgment in speech.Am I too fussy?
Regards Andyod.

» login or register to post comments

You should be more fussy

Submitted by askolnick on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 2:48pm.

You should be more fussy about your words.

What kind of crack is that about my name? (Which by the way is not "oldnick.")

And where did you come up with Bush being my "default setting for integrity"? Nothing I wrote is related in anyway to Bush's integrity, or lack thereof.

The point I made is that it is a universally accepted practice for public speakers NOT to quote or cite the people who help them prepare their speeches.

This has not been an ethical issue as far back as I can recall -- until now, where some people are grasping at silly straws to throw at Obama.

» login or register to post comments

Falling in line

Submitted by andyod on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 12:46am.

I have been watching and listening to Mr.Obama for over three months and I am convinced that he is Charlie McCarthy.His jerky motions, his using words which are put in his mouth by another speaker from another time. His catch phrases which he asks the crowd to repeat. Some one got Bush elected and someone is going to get this phony guy elected President of the United States. He endorsed Lieberman* but nobody questioned it.His wife is ashamed of being an American and nobody questions it.He does not appeal to the poor and the helpless nobody questions that because the Media needs color and viewers.Nancy Polosi and Oprah support him because they want to remain the top females in America. Oprah, who hauled a writer over the coals for using false stuff tolerates her man stealing speeches.There is something wrong. This whole thing does not pass the smell test.A man who says he will reach over the aisle to his opponents yet cannot reach over Senator Kennedy to shake hands with Hillary Clinton; when asked to say something nice about her said "she is alright" Remembering Clarence Thomas only adds to my foreboding about this puppet person.
*"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf." Barack Obama, March 30, 2006,
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

» login or register to post comments

Not Falling for Line

Submitted by askolnick on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 10:40am.

"His wife is ashamed of being an American and nobody questions it."

"Oprah ... tolerates her man stealing speeches."

Barack Obama = Clarence Thomas

"There is something wrong. This whole thing does not pass the smell test."

What is wrong and what does not pass the smell test is your entire attack.

Michele Obama NEVER said she was "ashamed of being an American."

Oprah (I'm fairly confident) doesn't tolerate anyone stealing anything.
Sen. Obama certainly didn't steal anything. The author of the few lines Obama
used in his speech says he asked the Senator to use them.

And Andyod's comparing Barack Obama with Clarence Thomas? What possible thing
do these two have in common? Thomas is a "bizarro" version of Obama.
So what is it that these two people have in common that Andyod finds so alike?
Just wondering what it could be.

Anybody?

» login or register to post comments

I ain't voting for Obama He

Submitted by Ujuswantobonths... on Thu, 02/21/2008 - 8:55pm.

I ain't voting for Obama He is going to be a disaster for Dems especially just wait and see. At the end no national Health care. I read his position on it today and it is just a bunch of chair shifting on the titanic We need single payer insurance for all americans We can start with every child born in america is insured PERIOD!

» login or register to post comments

Are you under some delusion

Submitted by Fdcgjc on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 7:28am.

Are you under some delusion that Hillary has a single payer health plan? That you're not going to pay for it? And it's Obama who is mandating that all children be covered.

Hillary's plan is like Massachusetts: where people who don't qualify for subsidies have been socked with huge premiums for health care that they cannot afford. Obama's plan makes it affordable first.

All that being said, who thinks any of these plans aren't going to be torn apart, re-written, turned inside out before they become law? The minutiae is ridiculous at this point. Both candidates will make a priority out of health care. But who is best suited to convince legislators to sign on? When the Republicans have such irrational, blind hatred for Hillary. It's Obama who has over a decade of experience of actually working with people and convincing Republicans to come to our side. Who can get in front of the American people and inspire them to call their legislators and get health care passed? Who can finally bring Republicans and independents back to voting for their own interests, instead of getting sidetracked by wedge issues?

To use single payer health care as a reason to knock Obama. Then you haven't read Hillary's plan (Hillary takes a good deal of money from the insurance industry, by the way).

And with "president" McCain WE GET NOTHING. So calm down.

» login or register to post comments

It's Either Obama or "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran" McCain, Stupid!

Submitted by SkeeterVT on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 7:11am.

You've got it BACKWARDS, Pal! It's Hillary Clinton who's going to be a disaster for the Democratic Party. The Republican right-wing attack machine has been gearing up for an all-out war against Hillary for FOUR YEARS. All those right-wing "527" groups have their anti-Hillary attack ads at the ready and waiting to launch them if she becomes the Democratic nominee. The neofascists on right-wing talk radio have been salivating for Hillary to win the nomination so that they'll have something to justify their high salaries with.

Barack Obama would deny those idiots what they want the most: a bogeywoman they can get their right-wing jollies off against.

The majority of Democrats -- and independents -- KNOW THIS. And that's why they're going to DENY Hillary the nomination. They're SICK AND TIRED of all that right-wing attack venom.

And let's get this straight: Neither party can win in November without the support of independents -- who, whether progressives like it or not -- are mostly centrists.

Bottom line is, the voters have spoken: Hillary Clinton will NOT be the Democratic nominee. Deal with it and rally behind Barack Obama. Unless you want "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran" John McCain as our next president.

» login or register to post comments

Obama gives progressives new opportunity

Submitted by combuilder on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 11:31am.

Barrack Obama may be able to bring a landslide of progressive values to Congress, and the White House. I will support him whole heartedly if he is the Democratic nominee, and I hope he is.

It is troubling though, to see that many of my fellow Obama supporters sound more like Repub Trolls, than progressives.
When they talk about Hillary Clinton, the phrase that comes to my mind is "Hook, Line and Sinker".

This forum is a strange place to see long discredited Republican talking points represented as common knowledge. Will these folks believe in the barrage of miss information that awaits Obama?

The fact that so many progressives have bought into this Media BS proves that when the Mainstream Media has a dog in the hunt, a lot of Dems can't wait to prove they're just as naive as new born babes.

Time to address the real problem, the MSM media's advertisers = enablers of miss information. Time to BOYCOTT!

» login or register to post comments