Note to President Obama: With all due respect sir, ask Hillary about the vast right-wing conspiracy

[Ozymanithrax]

Hillary Clinton spoke of this in 1998.
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Perhaps, sir, you could also as President Clinton about this subject. He had something to say on it as recently as 2009. Though, he was wrong. It is as virulent as ever, only lacking control of a house of congress to begin wall to wall creation of gates.
Bill Clinton: 'Vast right-wing conspiracy' as 'virulent' as ever
I know that you promised to end politics as usual.
The Vast Right-wing Conspiracy did not get your memo.
I know that you are everyones President.
The Vast Right-wing Conspiracy does not accept that premise.

[babylonsister]

1. Some man on m$nbc mentioned this yesterday; it's there

and it's working.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Yes, they have a whole new generation of conpsirators...

to add to the old.

[elleng]

4. Been working for 50+ years.

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

[annabanana]

59. Rachel's sub.. the guy from The Nation..

"Imaging looking back fondly on the days of Kenneth Starr".. (or that gist) Expecting non-stop subpoenas if Repugs retake the House.

[elleng]

2. Correct. If he takes some of Rachel's suggestions, maybe he/we'll 'avoid' it.

[Maccagirl]

5. I expected Obama to stand up to them, maybe even to outsmart

and defeat them-so far, no go. I guess one man, no matter how powerful, will always be controlled by events, rather than the other way around. Obama's other flaw is the belief that the American people are adults. Al Gore and John Kerry's experiences should have taught him about that assumption. If this ship isn't righted, and soon, this will be the biggest lost opportunity ever.

[MadMaddie]

17. In order to defeat them we need more media outlets

New media outlets to get the truth out. We need more Ted Turners and other visionaries.

[Rageneau]

6. I was for Hillary because she KNEW the true nature of the right wing.

Barack had no idea who he was taking on when he ran for Prez. He thought he could work with Republicans, and he's wasted a year and a half learning what Hillary knew from the get-go. There is no dealing with these people; they must be stomped into submission.

Too bad Hillary is such a racist (as so many of my fellow Democrats told me). She would have made a great President.

[emilyg]

8. .....

:hug:

[AtomicKitten]

9. I disagree. It would have been 1990s redux. Same shit, different Clinton.

You seem to think a brash in-your-face posture is a successful strategy in dealing with adversaries. Just remember the wingnuts probably still have warehouses full of everything from Clinton peccadilloes to imagined crimes indexed and waiting.

And then there was http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-the-know/75363-new-book-claims-bill-clintons-affair-plagued-hillarys-2008-campaign">this wafting in the breeze.

I know many Democrats that weren't interested in a replay of that crap. No thanks.

You seem frustrated by Pres Obama's demeanor and civilized way of dealing with his adversaries. You seem to think he's weak. You don't seem to realize how he operates. His political savvy brought us this http://gawker.com/5005030/obamas-dave-matthews-tickets-beat-clintons-ideas-or-whatever">hilarious smooth move during the primaries; HClinton's "smooth move" (race-baiting) was leaking a picture of Obama wearing a turbin to Drudge. How'd that kitchen sink strategy work out for her?

Obama is smart and he's measured. He has racked up more legislative accomplishments in his less than 2 years in office than most presidents accomplished in two terms. I understand it may be cathartic in a sad way when you disrespect this president, but make an effort to do it honestly. HClinton lost fair and square and it's way past time to quit wistfully pining for the fjords.

[dionysus]

11. you win the thread

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Beacool]

14. If anyone played the race card it was Obama's campaign.

Of course it was done behind the scenes and the candidate remained conveniently above the fray. I remember Tim Russert waving the Obama campaign's memo at him during one of the debates.

What better way to tarnish an opponent than to label him/her a racist?

Same bull was pulled during the GE and continues to this day. Oppose Obama on anything and sooner or later someone is going to call that individual a racist.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

16. .

:eyes:

[dionysus]

19. now Bea, are you tring to start a kerfluffle? let me pay you off...

:hi:

[Beacool]

21. Banky!!!!

:woohoo:

I need it, a thunderstorm came out of nowhere and everybody piled in the house. The kids playing Wii and the grownups in the den. I escaped to a bedroom. It would be the perfect time for banky and I to take a nap.

:D



:pals:

[AtomicKitten]

23. You sound exactly like Andrew Breitbart and Geraldine Ferraro with your accusation of reverse racism

And for that you should be ashamed.

The Nation: " 'Reverse Racism' Is A Weapon Of Mass Distraction"

On the other hand, on the basis of the edited tape, Beck bashed Sherrod as a reverse racist on his morning radio show ("Have we suddenly transported into 1956, except it's the other way around?” he queried). Later that afternoon, as word of the full video was coming out, he defended her on his Fox show, bashing anyone (though not himself or Breitbart) who was stupid enough to take her speech out of context. At the same time, he kept hurling reverse racism charges, asking, "When was the last time the NAACP didn't give someone the benefit of the doubt right away who was African-American?”

As for Breitbart, well, he’s still being reverse-whipped on his reverse-plantation, crying out in anguish, “How long, O Lord?” Last night on John King show, Breitbart didn’t so much defend the cleverly edited smear he’d promoted as try to change the subject, harping repeatedly on videos that he insists “prove beyond a shadow of a doubt” that the Congressional Black Caucus members who said they were called the N-word at a Capitol Hill Tea Party rally back in March are lying to make the TP look racist. (Here are the videos and they prove nothing.) More weirdly, Breitbart suggested that Sherrod was hoodwinking CNN, asking King, “You're going off of her word that the farmer's wife is the farmer's wife.”

Let’s be clear about the media hoopla over reverse racism this past month, from Rush Limbaugh’s claim that Obama is causing high unemployment as a “payback” for black slavery to Michelle Bachmann’s assertion that Obama is creating “a nation of slaves” to Fox host Megyn Kelly’s eye-popping claims that the New Black Panther Party is somehow immune to prosecution by the Obama justice department: We are not in a race relations crisis. We are in an economic crisis. And these manufactured racial melodramas are meant to frighten Vilsackian Democrats to never dare do anything that might ruffle Tea Party feathers, like push through a desperately needed second stimulus or nominate Elizabeth Warren as head of the consumer protection agency.

Ferraro Cries Reverse Racism

According to Geraldine Ferraro, Barack Obama is “lucky” to be black.

If he were not black, she believes, he would not be leading in the race for the Democratic nomination today.

Those 1,403 pledged delegates he has won so far? It’s because he’s black.

Those 13,278,372 popular votes he has received? Black.

The 30 or so contests he has won in states and territories? Black, black, black.

What a lucky guy.

Ferraro, who was part of Hillary Clinton’s financial team until she stepped down Wednesday, does not see an America where racism exists, only reverse racism.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” Ferraro told a California newspaper. “And if he was a woman , he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.”

After this set off the proverbial and predictable firestorm, Ferraro responded by saying: “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

Dumb, that’s how that is.

Ferraro also said she is “absolutely not sorry” for what she said.

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT26WFbNp7g

"The Clinton Campaign doesn't want to change the tone. They want to make the 'kitchen sink' bigger."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmLh8WGDbRE&feature=related

"Hillary Suborns Racist Comments"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

"The Democrats are throwing the election away and for what? An inadequate black male who would not have been running had it not been for a white woman who was running for president."

* edited for typo

[Beacool]

30. I don't care how many links you post.

The fact is that Obama's campaign learned quite well how to play the race card. Even that jerk Dick Morris, who absolutely despises the Clintons, said that Bill didn't have a racist bone in his body. Axelrod, et al. knew perfectly well how bringing that up would be a festering wound. Call someone a racist and watch them coward in denial. The Clintons didn't know how to handle the claim and it stunned them. Bill in particular was seething with anger at the accusation. Later on McCain's campaign didn't know how to handle it much better either.

Interesting how the accusation is still thrown at those who oppose Obama. I have no doubt that there are some people who have an issue with Obama's race, but most have an issue with his policies. Or do you think that if Obama was 100% caucasian the conservatives would be cheering him on? Ask the Clintons about that........

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

40. The history on this is already written.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2007/12/">David Corn, CQ Politics, Dec 2007

And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush."

What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes."

A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible."

[Beacool]

42. So what?

Some hated Obama's assumption that with his very thin resume at the national level he was ready to be president, and yes they thought him to be very arrogant (ditto for the campaign people around him). That's one thing that characterized them. I personally never heard one person in the Hillary campaign who objected to him based on his race.

:shrug:

[butterfly77]

57. Still mad huh...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Nicely done!! n.t

[AtomicKitten]

45. .

:hug:

[jaysunb]

60. +1000

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

62. -1

The Democrats are staring down another 1994 because Obama's obsession with bipartisan fantasies and his pathological conflict aversion prevented prevented him from calling out the far right and placing the blame where it belonged at every opportunity (as FDR did so effectively).

Instead, he went about enabling, legitimizing Republicans- asking for "their ideas" and even adopting their policies, which allowed them to regain support even while associating his administration with banksters, insurers, PhARMA and other "popular" groups.

So- rather than relegating them back to the fringe for a generation- where they belong, and where the could and should have been- we now have about even odds of their taking back the House and making substantial gains in the Senate.

Whatever anyone thinks of Hillary, she wouldn't have played it this way- and surely wouldn't have been seen grovelling to the likes of Lieberman.

[Bobbie Jo]

63. !

:applause:

[Beacool]

13. Hear, hear!!!

:applause:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Let me get this straight: The Clintons *knew* about the Republicans? If that's so, then

why did President Clinton cave, embrace, and sign so many Republican policies and laws?

In fact, I would argue that many of the problems that Obama now face are directly due to Bill Clinton's Republican-lite policies--NAFTA, media consolidation, DOMA, DADT, Glass Steagall, etc...

Rather than opening primary wounds, please be intellectually honest!

[Skip Intro]

37. Same here. Well said. nt

[Radical Activist]

7. Obama is already fighting them better than Clinton ever did.

Let's face it, Obama has more progressive accomplishments than Bill's eight years of deregulating industry and giving in to Republicans.

[Spagettio]

22. In which sense did Clinton give in to Republicans?

?

[Radical Activist]

24. Clinton deregulated the lending industry,

allowed media consolidation, horrible welfare reform, free trade, no action on climate change, gave up on health care after losing once, a long list of deregulation throughout the economy that Obama had to reverse. There are much longer and better lists out there.

[Spagettio]

25. How was welfare reform horrible?

?

[Maccagirl]

27. In every way, even when he didn't have to

the facts and record speak for themselves.

[CBR]

28. 1996 Telecommunications Act. nt

[pansypoo53219]

10. it's a vast VAST VAST rite wing.

they hated clinton but it's been cubed loathing for obama. a BLACK NORTHERNER! FROM ILLINOIS! just like that other bastard lincoln! NORTHERN AGGRESSION!

[Beacool]

12. 10 years later the Clintons were hit by the left wing conspiracy.

He should ask her about that too.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

15. It wasn't a conspiracy, she lost.

Democratic voters chose Obama.

Ask Hillary Clinton about that, she'll tell you the same thing.

[Beacool]

18. Nope, Hillary won the votes of more registered Democrats than Obama.

;-)

[ProSense]

20. Like

James Carville, Lanny Davis and Mark Penn?

Doesn't say much and doesn't change the fact that she lost...two years ago.

[Beacool]

31. Yes, those three and close to 18 million more.

:D

[Whisp]

26. I could never trust a person who could make up shit like Tuzla.

ever.

no one has come close to trying to explain that psycho moment

[Beacool]

32. Oh yeah, because your candidate was 100%truthful.

Please...........

:eyes:

[Whisp]

36. give me one example where Obama made up a big fat Tuzla-like lie.

just one.

pyscho Obama is not.

[AtomicKitten]

44. Well she did win an award for the Tuzla story.

The Pinocchio Test

Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport "under sniper fire" and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story.
Awarded: Four Pinocchios.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html

Rating scale:
ONE PINOCCHIO: Some shading of the facts.
TWO PINOCCHIOS: Significant omissions or exaggerations.
THREE PINOCCHIOS: Significant factual errors.
FOUR PINOCCHIOS: Real whoppers.

[Whisp]

46. she just misremembered!

quit picking on Hillary!!!!
It was an honest desperate political campaign tactic, erm, error in judgement, yes, thats what it was, a simple error in judgement.

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

65. that must be it

:hi:

[Skip Intro]

39. Is it possible she was misquoting her own memoir? Is it possible it was an honest mistake?

I think it is possible.

Here's an old report from NYT:

-----

Asked today to square her recent descriptions with these accounts, Howard Wolfson, her spokesman, referred to several contemporaneous news accounts that described the region as hostile. He then added: “It is possible in the most recent instance in which she discussed this that she misspoke in regard to the exit from the plane, but there is no question if you look at contemporaneous accounts that she was going to a potential combat zone, that she was on the front lines.”

Asked at a later point in the call to clarify his comment, Mr. Wolfson said that news accounts at the time made clear that the area in which she was landing was “a potential combat zone and was hazardous.”

He said that in her memoir, “Living History,” she wrote about sniper fire in the hills and “clearly meant to say that” when she brought it up last week. He said she had described the event many times the same way and that “in one instance she said it slightly differently.”

A third reporter then asked about it, prompting Mr. Howard to read the relevant passage from her book, in which she wrote: “Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children.” He repeated that this was the one time in which she misspoke.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/clinton-misspoke-about-bosnia-trip-campaign-says/

--------

I don't have a problem with that explanation. I don't see it as a case of her just making shit up, concocting a lie. She was busting her ass on that campaign, and yes, I do think it entirely possible she misspoke, unintentionally misrepresented the episode. If she were given to lying, wouldn't there be a wealth of evidence - a history of such?

Obama, on the other hand, ran a campaign of vagueness. He called himself a blank slate upon which people could draw their dreams and hopes. But if you want some instance where he flat out said something that wasn't true, then, it does come to mind that just before or shortly after winning his Senate seat, he pledged not to run for the office of president in 08. Using your criteria, I guess that makes him a flat out liar, too?

[Beacool]

41. Exactly!!!

I don't know what happened to her at that point. Other that I saw plenty of her back then and the woman was extremely sleep deprived and bone tired. I don't think she intentionally meant to misinform people. She told the correct story in her biography and at other times before that episode.

It was a war zone and they had been warned that they may have to take evasive maneuvers to land. Still, people will continue to bring this up as one more reason to attack her.

If she was really interested in playing the victim, she would have brought up the many death threats that she has endured in the past and present. For instance, she insisted on going to the Goma refugee camp in Congo against The UN's and her own security's advice. She thought that it was far too important and wanted the world to see the terrible conditions that women and girls endure.

http://www.worldpress.org/africa/1561.cfm

:hi:

[Whisp]

47. so how close exactly are/were to the the Clinton campaign if you saw her so frequently.

""""I don't know what happened to her at that point. Other that I saw plenty of her back then and the woman was extremely sleep deprived and bone tired. I don't think she intentionally meant to misinform people. She told the correct story in her biography and at other times before that episode.

It was a war zone and they had been warned that they may have to take evasive maneuvers to land. Still, people will continue to bring this up as one more reason to attack her.

If she was really interested in playing the victim, she would have brought up the many death threats that she has endured in the past and present. For instance, she insisted on going to the Goma refugee camp in Congo against The UN's and her own security's advice. She thought that it was far too important and wanted the world to see the terrible conditions that women and girls endure.""""

======
could that have Anything to do with you lambasting Obama for everything he says and does, still to this day long after the primaries?
That you can find no value whatsoever in our Democratic President, is that because you still pine and mewl about Hillary losing?

no big surprise

if you saw her plenty back then, then you worked for her campaign did you?

[suzie]

50. She forgot about landing under fire because she was sleep-deprived?

What's next, the Dimetapp defense? She simply lied and it hurt her greatly.

It was a good indicator that she had a much thinner political resume than Obama. Anyone so naive as to think they could get away with that kind of fake self-aggrandizing story would have been in desperate trouble when dealing with politicians, other world leaders, and U.S. military leadership.

[Beacool]

51. Are you serious???????

Here, read this article.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/25/1745397/hillary-hits-home-runs-on-tour.html

There are many more like this one.

Yeah, she would be in "desperate" trouble dealing with politicians, other world leaders, and U.S. military leadership.......

Funniest thing I read in a while!!!!!

:rofl:

[suzie]

52. It was a political neophyte's mistake.

Hillary ran for the Presidency without any of the kind of political credentials normally expected from a candidate. Senators are not usually gifted with a Senate seat because their spouse is politically powerful.

She is far more of a political neophyte than almost any other woman we see on the national stage, who have made their political careers on their own. Which the Tuzia debacle demonstrated quite well.

It was the second time she'd committed what would be a career-ending faux pas for anyone else--whose main claim to a political career is not having been married to a very popular former president.

The first was the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" comment, which might have been accurate, but was simply politically stupid and indicative of her complete political tone deafness.

She's a political neophyte who never had to get through the political fights that other men and women have. As Secretary of State, she can get by with that.

As President, other world leaders would have ripped her apart.

[Beacool]

54. And Obama had a vast wealth of experience.

Please...........

:eyes:

[suzie]

56. Compared to Hillary, yes, he did.

He started in politics on his own, not at the very top echelon. Which means he made the political mistakes earlier on, in a lower profile venue. It means that, like most politicians, he had to spend time kowtowing to those with seniority, established political power.

Compare that to Hillary Clinton, whose main political expertise was in making enemies lists of people whom she wanted to get rid of because they were knowledgeable about Bill's many antics.

Take a look at other women senators like Claire McCaskill or Olivia Snowe, who weren't gifted with a Senatorship and had to get through the regular political process. McCaskill was a state legislator, a county commissioner and elected county prosecutor. Snowe served in both houses of the state legislature and in the House before getting to the Senate.

You continue to want to impute political experience to Hillary Clinton that she simply lacks. Being a political wife is just not the same as being a politician. And starting at the top with a position which you've been gifted with is not the same as having to get out and run for office on your own, find financial backers, supporters.

Most of the leaders around the world gained power through the same methods as Obama, McCaskill, Snowe, in whatever political setup their country has.

Clinton would have been a total neophyte in dealing with them.

[Beacool]

61. Your knowledge of Hillary is so flawed that it's not worth continuing the discussion.

Ciao......

[suzie]

64. Claire McCaskill lost a race before she became a Senator, as have many

successful politicians. There are some lessons learned in losing, about pacing, unexpected happenings, people who endorse your opponent.

Hillary Clinton never had that experience, or any experience in a competitive campaign, which is why she lost the first time she got into a competitive situation, despite having everything going for her--finances, front runner status, endorsements.

The Tuzia comment was a rookie error in a campaign filled with them. It just illustrated her political lack of experience at a time when she couldn't afford it. And all the rationalizations, apologies for it only make it worse, like Hillary Clinton should never be held to the same standard as other candidates.

Trying constantly to rationalize Clinton's candidacy by exulting over every problem that Obama confronts is just sad.

[MellowDem]

48. Glad to see fact don't exist in the internets...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Michigan's votes didn't count, according to HC herself. And considering Obama wasn't even on the ballot, because it didn't count, kinda hurts your claim at popular vote supremacy. I know it sucks for Michigan, but those "votes" weren't actual votes, which is why they didn't count.

And this all points to the need for a major overhaul of our primary election system. The 2008 primary was a great showcase in how fucked up the process is. Not only is it not a really democratic process, based on popular vote, there are certain superdelegates who get to select the candidate with no representation from the people at all, and these were all lined up behind the establishment candidate, as they always are, but can influence the election early on by showing a very big early delegate lead. Then there are the spread of states, which basically don't give later states much if any of a say at all. So much for democracy. Most of America will never get to know the full slate of candidates, because by the time their time comes up, there are only 3 or 2 to choose from. Obama was lucky it lasted as long as it did, because he gained a ton of votes as he overcame Clinton's inherent name recognition barrier.

And two whole states didn't even get to vote.

It really was a miracle that Obama won that primary. Our election system, with its early states and superdelegates, is all about getting the establishment candidate up there. The only reason Obama won is because he exploited this system, in the Caucuses, where Clinton believed she had already won. He used the system against itself, which is hard to do to say the least and was only possible due to the Clinton team's complete overconfidence and incompetence about the Caucus system.

[CBR]

29. Not this shit again. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. I know, and it amazes me that this thread hasn't been locked down. More attempts to create

fissures within the Democratic Party. :puke::puke:

[Skip Intro]

38. Are people not allowed to hold and voice their own opinions? Would sweeping it under the rug make it

any less valid?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but the rules of the board clearly state that efforts to

create division within the Democratic Party is not allowed. This Hillary-Obama debate has gone on long enough. We can argue until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that the RULES state that this division is counterproductive, even if we have different opinion.

[Beacool]

49. The Democratic party is not monolithic.

There are various factions and not all of them get along. It is against democratic principles to try to censor people.

[butterfly77]

58. This is nothing new ..

they started even before he was inaugurated and they are still determined to take him down..

[Lilith Velkor]

55. You mean the same conspiracy that relentlessly attacks the left wing now?

That's some fucking conspiracy. :eyes:

[Forkboy]

66. Good lord.

:eyes: indeed.

[mstinamotorcity]

53. And while you are at it

throw the Southern Strategy in there too!!!!