Obama Then And Now: RW Talking Points?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Oliver Willis writes:

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates sure feel a strong need to echo right-wing attacks versus Sen. Obama. And thatís fine with me. At the end of the day this will teach us that no matter what the Clintons cannot be trusted anywhere near the leadership of the Democratic party in the future.

(Emphasis supplied.) I guess when Obama's camp says Hillary will "say and do anything," that repeating a "Right Wing attacks" is ok to Willis. But let's leave that aside. Willis' post reminded me of what Barack Obama said in 2006 about Dems and religion:

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Seems like Barack Obama forgot to heed to his own repetition of "Right Wing attacks." He appears to have "taken the bait" in his San Francisco remarks. Obama 2006 is quite harsh in his criticism of Obama 2008.

< Is The "Creative Class" Blogosphere New to Politics? | Jimmy Carter Won't Endorse Before Convention >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    kate harding (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    had a devastating post, the other day: obama is not a **ing progressive.

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    There is also a pattern of unbelievable f^cking tone-deafness from a man who's constantly praised for his oratory. He is either deliberately using right wing framing when he talks about gay marriage, abortion, and Social Security, or he doesn't realize he's doing it, and either way, it should be a huge red flag.

    when i heard his purple america convention speech (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:17:06 AM EST
    i was in ireland, and it was very late, and i went to bed thinking- that guy is going to be president, some day. the next day, i was thinking about it, and it hit me that he was essentially arguing for clintonesque triangulation. the irony that he now condemns what he's really running on.

    In case anyone is wondering (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    Not only do I NOT like Clinton's attacks on this, I think she is making a mistake. She is defusing the story.

    But I really HATE the shameless hypocrisy of the Creative Class blogs now. Willis' post is one of the most shamelessly hypocritical I have ever seen.

    They have all lost their minds.

    as with kerry and his vietnam record (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    sometimes you let others carry the conversation. do it yourself and it weakens the effect.

    I disagree about Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    I think she absolutely needs to say loud and clear to those voters Obama dissed that she doesn't think that way and vigorously disagrees with what he said.   Otherwise, Obama's idiotic comments can damage the entire Dem. Party, not just him personally.  She absolutely needs to speak out on this personally, I think.  (That said, obviously, she needs to do it carefully.)

    She should have focused on what (none / 0) (#33)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:58:37 PM EST
    she is doing, succeeding with every demographic by showing how she would work on the problems they're experiencing. That said, he's made a terribly revealing statement.

    If you start by sneering at the voters you need with a "cling to" dismissal, you will not design policy that will help them.

    I am surprised that the wealthy were convinced by that answer. Frankly I think he sidestepped the answer:

    I would want someone who would say, "yeah, I do need to work on that demographic better...I know I can help them, and I want to, but they just don't know that about me yet. But I'm working hard on it. If I had more ad money I could reach them..."

    Really he was signalling to these wealthy guys, "Who cares about these dregs  of society that you'll outsource anyway, right? The're toast. Stick a fork in them. They just use up all your tax dollars on their expensive healthcare. "


    If it's her last chance... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    she could overplay.  I want to see the debate.  She has to save the blow for that.  

    I disagree with you (none / 0) (#21)
    by ajain on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    While these may be right-wing talking points, I think she is right in what she is saying.

    This is a huge General Election problem.
    Even Politico realised this, with their new article, this morning.


    She should not have defused it (none / 0) (#35)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    by changing the subject:

    "cling to their guns or religion" is the real issue.

    "Bitter", schmitter. Every Democrat in the country is beyond bitter! Nothing shamefull about bitter.

    Since she represents the poor, the old, the disenfrandchised, the children, the disabled - she needs to show by kindness how he represents the heartless wing of the Democratic party, by deriding those who "cling".


    I think the real issue (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:42:37 PM EST
    is that Obama clearly implied that small town Midwesterners are bigots.  No one wants to be painted that way.  I grew up in small Midwestern towns myself.  Some people in every place or class are bigots.  And some are not.  Generalizing like that is not smart for any politician.

    also true (none / 0) (#54)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:55:24 PM EST
    (Hi Boston Boomer! All the people I miss from the old dailykos, now here...)

    I think your priorities are in the wrong place (none / 0) (#24)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    You are say you understand that she's doing wrong,b ut post multiple diaries in which you also reinforce right wing talking points. The whole "elitism" shtick, and indeed, the "creative class" comments are standard ways of address progressives. How does this help? You did this to me yesterday when I disagreed with you. I really don't see how you think what you are doing in the way you are doing is going to help us win in the fall. What Obama is having to apologize for, by the way, is the way in which the story has been spun, not what he actually said. I think your priorities are in the wrong place.

    you are wrong (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    Obama's problem isn't how the story is spun - it's what he said.  Which essentially was that these small town folks have economic problems but are too ignorant to recognize the economy as the cause so they blame outsiders while clinging to guns and god.  And he was explaining this in san fran, like some anthropologist circa 1905 just come back from a trip to nepal.

    But if you are so unhappy with clinton's actions, I can only assume you are emailing the obama campaign to complain that they are now calling her an elitist because she has money.  The same RW attack that was used on edwards, roosevelt, and kennedy.

    Elitism isn't about personal wealth.  It's about an attitude.  There are millionaires that are the farthest thing from elitist and starving students who are the epitome of snobs.

    Obama's attitude brought him this trouble - he has no one to blame but himself.


    I invented creative class? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    Sorry, Obama effed up politically. And if you can;t deal with that, you are no better than the rest of the creative class.

    I thought you were.


    Paul Rosenberg just posted this from Great (none / 0) (#26)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    American Hypocrite, and it succintly describes my problem with you and others here. The core issue is that you would leave Democrats not being able to say anything about anything. If you think Clinton , who was originally attacked in the 90s in this manner, will be immune or safe- I think that's a mistake. If you think other Democrats down ticket won't be attacked in this manner. that's a mistake. I think you get this. I think you take the wrong lesson from it. Namely, to be safe, say nothing that challenges. Anyway, this was about Edwards haircut- remember that? Here's the process:

    "STEP 1 A new Drudge-dependent gossip (Ben Smith) at a new substance-free political rag (The Politico)--or some rightwing talkradio host (Rush Limbaugh) or some credibility-bereft right-wing blogger (a Michelle Malkin)--seizes on some petty, manufactured incident to fuel clichéd caricatures of Democratic candidates.

    STEP 2 The old right-wing gossip (Drudge) employs his old, substance-free political rag (The Drudge Report) to amplify the inane caricatures.

    STEP 3 National media outlets, such as AP and CNN, whose world is ruled by Drudge, take note of and begin "analyzing" the "political implications" of the gossip, thus transforming it into "news stories."

    STEP 4 Our Serious Beltway Journalists and Political Analysts--in the Haircut Case, Tim Russert and Brian Williams and Adam Nagourney and the very serious and smart Substantive Journalists at The New Republic--mindlessly repeat all of it, thereby solidifying it as transparent conventional wisdom.

    STEP 5 When called upon to justify their endless reporting over such petty and pointless Drudge-generated matters, these "journalists" cite Steps 1-4 as "proof" that "the people" care about these stories, even though the "evidence" consists of nothing other than their own flocklike chirping"

    My problem here with Clinton, who I would be happy to have as our nominee, is that she did the exact same thing here for her own political gain. Obama has been guilty of this in the past. Now, to me, this is a time when Clinton has done it. Its unacceptable from either of them.


    Clinton WILL hurt down ticket Dems? (none / 0) (#29)
    by OxyCon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:12:06 PM EST
    "If you think Clinton , who was originally attacked in the 90s in this manner, will be immune or safe- I think that's a mistake. If you think other Democrats down ticket won't be attacked in this manner. that's a mistake."


    You mean like this?

    NRCC Continues to Hammer Democratic Congressmen with Obama Remarks
    April 12, 2008 1:00 PM

    Focusing this time on Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., the National Republican Congressional Committee is trying to damn local Democrats with the comments about small towns made by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
    "Americans don't want liberal politicians like Barack Obama who believe Washington is a substitute for faith, personal responsibility and belief that the Constitution guarantees our freedoms.
    UPDATE: The NRCC says it's going to send out similar news releases about Democratic Reps. Nancy Boyda and Dennis Moore of Kansas, Bruce Braley of Iowa, Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Joe Donnelly, Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Gabrielle Giffords and Harry Mitchell of Arizona, Ron Klein of Florida, Nick Lampson and Ciro Rodriguez of Texas, Rick Larsen of Washington, Tim Mahoney of Florida, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Jim Matheson of Utah, Jerry McNerney of California, John Salazar of Colorado, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Zack Space and Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Bart Stupak of Michigan, and John Yarmuth of Kentucky.


    thats not what I wrote (none / 0) (#48)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    well (none / 0) (#38)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    It was very helpful of obama, the, to just confirm the stereotype.  The RW didn't even have to make something up!

    I appreciate him making all democrats look bad.  "This is what they really think of americans behind closed doors."


    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    Honestly, if that is what you think, then you really are not bright about politics.

    basically your arguement is that I am ridiculous (none / 0) (#47)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    got it.

    btd's point is about the hypocrisy. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kangeroo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    why have obama's supporters never cared thus far when obama and his supporters do much worse things in the same vein to hillary, and with unbounded enthusiasm?  your silence thus far when he's pulled this crap daily--or what's more, your having piling gleefully onto the bandwagon--speaks for itself.  oh, but when hillary is ostensibly the one doing it (surprise, surprise!) you're suddenly soooo outraged and indignant.  um, and you expect us to listen?  you have no credibility.

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:12:04 AM EST

    Here's another Obama comment (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    that basically condemns in advance the "bitter/cling" comments.  According to Politico, it's from that Charlie Rose interview.

    ""If we don't have plausible answers on the economic front, and if we appear to be condescending toward those traditions that are giving their lives some stability, then they're going to opt for at least that party that seems to be speaking to the things that...provide them with something solid to stand on."

    It's breathtaking.  Is he even aware that what he said in Marin is completely in opposition to this?

    the biggest problem (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    is all those pics, like the one from snubgate, where Obama is looking down his nose in disdain.  They've already got a poster of that same pic being parodied ("Snob") over at No Quarter.

    Man, I love No Quarter.


    Snob mugs, t-shirts (none / 0) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    and it looks like refrigerator magnets over at Michelle Malkin.  Don't blame me, someone else here linked to this yesterday when it had just a picture, and it has now expanded to products.



    true enough BTD. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:35:27 AM EST
    Pols are vessels.

    unfortunately, in sen. obama's case, people are starting to realize how empty this particular vessel is. in large part, due to his lack of actual on-the-job experience.

    running wholly on intangibles will only get you so far, at some point there must be some substance. we don't know what that might be because i'm not certain he does.

    Look at how Willis attacks Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by OxyCon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    Here is a shameless Willis attack on Hillary, that many can even say is lower than what a right winger would do:

    Hillary Clinton's Spiritual Adivsor Doug Coe And His Curious Admiration For Nazis And Communist Killings

    Google it if you want a link because it's too long to post here.

    Anyway, I pointed out in Willis' comments how that attack blew up in his face because Obama went to the same prayer meetings.

    About the divisions in the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM EST

    I don't think Obama's dividing the Democratic Party. I think he's just showing exactly where the divide is. And like it or not there is a little truth, too much IMO in Republican insistant that liberals are elitist.

    I noted at kos and Huffington Post and several other blogs before the election of 2004 that all too many of the comments were scathingly dismissive of Republicans as Trailer Trash, Bubbas, Poor White Trash and other similar insults that many of us as Hillary supporters now hear on a regular basis. And no, not all Obama supporters are "creative class/highly educated/misogynistic elitists". Nor are all Hillary supporters "low-income/low-information, less educated racist Archie Bunkers".

    That division has always been there between the Elite Democrats and the Blue-collar/Reagan/Moderate Democrats. It has just become far more evident in this election.

    I'm not articulate enough to explain it but anglachel certainly is. I think this post is spot on and explains a lot about what's happening in the Democratic Party and why so many of us are feeling alienated. And that doesn't even begin to get into the misogynistic issue.


    Naturally, IOKIYO (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:04:25 AM EST

    See, that idiotic Lakoffian stuff (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    It's all that "framing" claptrap.  My god, say what you feel.  Some post modernist  Berkeley prof finds language nuance and hamstrings everyone into a contrived language of politics.  That is why Obama and his campaign will fall apart.  They played out the Hope stuff and now what do they have.  You cannot work from a script all the time, you get busted.  You have to develop your voice.  I think Hillary is brilliant at that.  In any situation she can speak like a politician.  The Bosnia thing was her only mistake that is why they make so much of it.  

    Say what you feel? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    Sorry, the job of POL precludes that. Do not be as naive as some of the Obama supporters.

    What I mean is (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:14:44 AM EST
    not what you feel, but what you believe.  Obviously he does not believe the unity shtick that is why it's falling apart.  No one can sustain that level of contrived language.  You can be political, but you cannot do that constricted lakoffian structure.  Whatever...

    Um (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    Well, we disagree. Pols say what they must to get elected. It is voters who have to decide what pols have to say to get elected.

    Pols are vessels.


    I agree, but there has to be something (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    (this is an idea in progress)

    Obama as a vessel, is completely contrived.  Hence his discomfort. They took a charismatic, smart guy and like a Mr. Potato head made him into a presidential candidate.  I think too early.   Maybe it's seasoning, cause if you say stuff long enough, you have to start believing it.  What I get from Obama is that he does not believe what he says.  But Hillary feels like she does.  McCain, appears like he believes what he says.  

    Obama is awkward with his own speech, he makes mistakes, big ones.  He hesitates. He does not have a flow with political language cause he is constantly thinking of the playbook.  


    Except for the subset of people (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    who turn them into gods and devils.

    The reason they played out the hope stuff... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    ...was because they deviated from it in order to demonize the Clintons. Now they can't go back to it, even though it would have been a winner for them. I honestly think, and I know that many disagree with me, that if the whole Obama campaign (surrogates and all) had taken "the high road" they would have been impossible to beat because he does that really well. When he becomes just another politician, he's easy to deflate.

    GOLD STAR (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:13:52 AM EST

    Same old Obama (none / 0) (#17)
    by Universal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    Barack Obama is a hypocrite, which is not a surprise. "The Politics of Hope" should be relabeled  "The Politics of Nope," as in "Nope, there's no attack which is beneath me."

    "Senator - Punjab" anyone?

    Obama is an ivory tower enmeshed pol who has an affinity for eccentric spiritual advisers and whose wife seems to have a deep dislike of the country which allowed her to achieve two Ivy League degrees.

    Dissonance much?

    Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal" AKA "RokSki"

    to add (none / 0) (#23)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    Let us not forget that the obama campaign was making snide references to "cattle futures" (among others) just a month ago.  I'm sure josh et al deplored those uses of RW talking points.  Unfortunately, he's been kidnapped so I can't ask him.

    I hate to break the anti-Obama vibe going on here (none / 0) (#25)
    by jericho4119 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    But just what is wrong with what he said?  I have lost my job.  I have MS and my medication costs $4000 a month.  To describe me as bitter is spot-on.

    Obama said that we, as citizens, have been hearing politicians trope across our country for decades and consistently these politicians have told us "they feel our pain".  And yet, at the end of the day, our jobs continue to disappear just as fast as always.  And the very people who have jobs that cannot be outsourced preach to us about "training", as though that were a solution.

    The very people who have health care provided by us, tell us that we need to search for "the best health care provider" as though we were comparing car dealers.

    I'm bitter.

    Sorry about your troubles (none / 0) (#27)
    by rilkefan on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    but are you clinging to guns or religion or xenophobia as an explanation for them?  Note that Obama was (if I read him correctly, and given the location and audience I suspect I do) deriding your concern about outsourcing.

    Also note that HRC's healthcare plan is more ambitious than Obama's.


    Willis is an advocate for Obama... (none / 0) (#30)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    that's his choice, that's his right.

    He's not objective, that's obvious.

    I wish that you had made this diary about what Obama said in 2004 (to Charlie Rose), what he said in 2006 and what he says now rather than about Oliver Willis because I think the subject would be eminently more substantive.

    Never Heard Of Willis or Saperstein. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sweet Sue on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    So this Saperstein person wants Obama to banish the only Democrat to win the Presidency twice since WW11 from public life. Who are these "progressives" and why do they want to destroy the Democratic Party?

    Another BTD Hit (none / 0) (#43)
    by Oliver Willis on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    I didn't like those statements from Obama, but then you had to go back a few years for them and not in the midst of a presidential election where Sen. Clinton has decided to use the same lines of attack as John McCain and Fox News.

    I'm wondering what this creative class bugaboo you're on about now is all about. I work for a living and come from a lower middle class background.

    Sorry Oliver (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:55:38 PM EST
    If you mean finding RW talking points - I told you the ones that have been your staple and that of Obama for this entire campaign - Hillary is a lying piece of crap who will say or do anything.

    I picked the 2 year ago statement because Obama 2005 critiques Obama 2008. did you NOT get hat?


    The Truth Is Inconvenient (none / 0) (#51)
    by Oliver Willis on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:06:38 PM EST
    Can anyone objectively look at this campaign and not find a pattern of throwing crap against the while and hoping it will stink coming from Sen. Clinton? You seem to think this means that Obama can't play politics while I acknowledge he is a politician in a political fight, yet he's found a way not to sound like Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans while doing it.

    Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, is continuing the pattern the right began against her and President Clinton and directing it at Sen. Obama.


    If anyone has sounded like he came (none / 0) (#53)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    out of the RW school it is Obama and his followers.  After all they blame everything on Bill Clinton and go out of their way to say that his administration did not help the middle class.  Sorry but to me your words sound hollow.

    this is way too long for a comment (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    Please, this isn't the first time you've done this. Don't corral the thread.

    yes, sorry (none / 0) (#46)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    i'll send you a cheque because i do feel bad about abusing your bandwidth.

    Fabulous (none / 0) (#45)
    by zyx on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    Long, but worth it!

    wow. (none / 0) (#52)
    by kangeroo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    i totally respect and appreciate jeralyn's rules (which help keep all of us sane here), but remarkably well put--i was moved by your comment.

    i live in SF too, and your comment just now made me think of starting an informal SF chapter for pro-hillary TL folks (for venting, socializing, moral support, etc.)  while blogs are an essential staple in my political diet, i'd like to get reacquainted with more of that old-fashioned face-to-face contact thing.  i wonder if there's already any such group here?  if anyone here's from SF/the bay area and is interested, lemme know.  :)

    clinton banishment not enough (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mia T on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:08:16 AM EST
    "forever 'banish the Clintons from public life.'"

    clinton banishment not enough (YouTube)

    by Mia T, 5.10.08

    "What kind of people are the clintons?"

    With that post-SC clinton-race-card rhetorical question, Bob Herbert of The New York Times nailed it. What kind of people, indeed.

    It is not sufficient simply to banish the clintons, as some Democrats are now urging.

    The Left is beginning to understand what some of us have always known. The clintons are woefully unfit. Dangerously self-serving. Psychopathic, actually.

    Rather than simply banish the clintons, it is more important--it is critical, in fact--to revisit all the charges lodged against them, charges that the Left had dismissed out of hand. We, as a country, must understand just who those two are. We must make certain, to quote clinton administration veteran Brad DeLong, that  "Hillary Rodham Clinton is kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life."

    The husband, too.  We will not survive another clinton. Indeed, we may yet not survive the first.

    To make sure their reputation always precedes them, to make sure they are permanently wreathed in a miasma of horror, to keep the clinton jackboot firmly on our collective throat, the clintons never miss an opportunity to spread the rumors around themselves.

    By repeating every allegation of clinton murder and mayhem--while affecting an incredulous air, of course--the clintons intimidate and silence their critics even as they marginalize the enemy. The outrageousness of the clintons' crimes, actual and apparent, will always work to the clintons' advantage, making the disabling of these flagrant psychopaths all the more challenging. But disable them we must. 'For the children.'

    So, for starters, the Left must reexamine the following:

    1- The 120 redacted pages of the Barrett report.

    Quoting Mark Goodman, avowed liberal, registered Democrat, clinton colleague:

    'An abiding theme in the redacted pages, insiders say, is the Clinton camp practice of using the IRS to punish its enemies. Mr. Clinton plainly did not leave this illegal practice behind in the Oval Office. By all accounts he has maintained a tight grip on a number of government departments and agencies, notably the Justice Department and the IRS, the folks who can deal the deadliest damage.'

    2- The rape of Juanita Broaddrick by bill clinton and the threatening of her 2 weeks later by hillary.

    "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women." (Carl Bernstein)

    3- Why the clintons ignored terrorism for their entire tenure.

    "Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line." (Michael Scheuer, head of CIA bin Laden Division under clinton)

    4- The death of Ron Brown.

    Brown died in a plane crash mere days before he was to testify about clinton Commerce-Department corruption and, in an apparent touch of vengeful clinton 'inside-joke-ism,' mere days after he told clinton, "I will not go down alone."

    Brown was alluding to fingering hillary clinton as the mastermind (so to speak) of the trade-mission-seats-for-campaign-cash illegal scheme.

    Brown's conveniently fatal Croatia trip that wisked him out of the country post haste... and out of reach of the court system in perpetuity... was booked for Brown by the clintons immediately after he issued that warning.

    Recall clinton's jubilant air at the Brown funeral-- jubilant until he spied the camera, that is.

    NOTE: The call by Jesse Jackson and the Black Caucus for the required autopsy of Brown, whose head contained what a government pathologist (who voted for clinton twice, btw) said looked like a bullet hole (image), was hushed by a payoff made right under our collective nose: the clintons' Wall Street Project. The WSP yielded millions over the years for Jackson and his cronies.

    5-And, oh yes, Rwanda.

    "[T]he object of Power's derision has just finished spending millions on TV ads implying that Obama would be responsible for the countless deaths of millions of American children sleeping at 3 a.m. Tut, tut. Nothing monstrous about that.

    Power was rightfully awarded the Pulitzer for her finely written and downright horrifying book A Problem From Hell which, in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered. The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don't know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team - from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher - just let it ring.

    And as more than one researcher has amply documented the case, the bloody paralysis of the Clinton administration in the face of the Rwandan genocide owed not at all to a lack of information, but rather to a lack of will. A reviewer of Power's book for The New York Times, perhaps summed it up best, saying that the picture of Clinton that emerges from this reading is that of an 'amoral narcissist.'"

    hillary 'a monster' (Samantha Power, clinton and Genocide)

    Destroying Obama (clinton legacy of lynching update)

    Clinton, Genocide and a Campaign Gaffe.
    by Marc Cooper.
    March 7, 2008