• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Geo

Beach Fanatic
Dec 24, 2006
2,740
2,795
Santa Rosa Beach, FL
You may be right. Here is what a columnist in the St. Louis Post Dispatch said last week:

Hillary Clinton has just the right strategy — for 2012
By Bill McClellan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
04/25/2008

Bill McClellan
[More columns]
[Bill's Biography]

Sometimes you have to tip your hat to people you don't necessarily like, and I feel that way these days about the Clintons. Bill and Hillary are smarter than the rest of us. They're playing chess while we're playing checkers.

That's because we're looking ahead a couple of months. Who will get the nomination? Or we're looking toward November. Who will win the election?

The Clintons are several moves ahead of us. They're looking toward 2012.

It became clear a couple of months ago that Barack Obama was going to get the nomination. Given the way the delegates are allotted on a proportional basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis, Obama's lead became insurmountable during his winning streak. And there was never a realistic hope that the superdelegates would overrule the will of the voters. If they did, there would be chaos. The party would risk alienating its single most faithful bloc — African-Americans.
So let's play chess. Let's look ahead. Let's assume that Obama wins the nomination. If you are the Clintons, what then?

You've got to hope that he loses the general election. If he wins in 2008, he'll run for re-election in 2012. That means the next chance for Hillary would be 2016. She'll be 69 by the time that election comes around. (She'll be 61 in October of this year.) Chances are, her time will have passed.

Also, the odds will be against the Democrat in 2016. This is true no matter how Obama does in 2012. If he were to win re-election, we would have had eight years of a Democrat in the White House. After eight years, people are usually ready for a change. Plus, there would be a vice president who might seek the nomination.

Things wouldn't be much better if Obama were to lose in 2012. That would mean that in 2016 the Democratic nominee would be facing an incumbent president, always a difficult task. The following election would probably favor the Democrats, but even chess players can't plan that many moves ahead. Besides, Hillary would be 73 by November of 2020.

So once it became clear that Obama would win the nomination, the only move left was to work toward his defeat in the general election.

Which is exactly what the Clintons have been doing, and doing with great success. Obama has lost most of the luster he had just a couple of months ago. Back then, he was a phenom, a force of nature. I remember when Caroline Kennedy personally handed him the crown once worn by her father. Obama inspires young people the way my father did, she said.

It was true, too. Young people were mesmerized. And not just young people. African-Americans and affluent whites. The well-educated flocked to the Obama banner.

How humiliating that must have been, how unfair that must have seemed. Hillary grew up in an affluent suburb. She went to Wellesley College, and in 1969 gave the commencement address, the first Wellesley student to do so. Then she went to Yale Law.

Now she was abandoned by her own kind and left with the working class. It's one thing to be the candidate of the working class if you're a Huey Long, somebody who has come from the masses himself. But to be one of the Best and Brightest and suddenly you're dependent upon the proletariat? That would sink most people.

But not Hillary. She became pro-gun, anti-trade. Her husband worked a seamier side of the street. He compared Obama to Jesse Jackson, and when people complained, Bill said he'd been the victim of a "mugging." When Obama supporters complained about the "racially charged language," Bill said they were playing the race card. Whenever anybody complained about the Clinton campaign going negative — she and John McCain were ready for that 3 a.m. call, but not Obama, she said — Hillary said it was nothing compared to what the Republicans would do in the general election.

By going negative, the Clintons got Obama to go negative, further tarnishing him. His chances in November become dimmer by the day.

Perhaps it's better, really, to lose this nomination. The economy is a train wreck. The boomers are about to retire. Iraq is going to fall apart no matter who gets elected. So let John McCain inherit the mess. After four years, the country will be ready for a change.

The Democrats will look to Hillary. Why didn't we nominate her back in 2008? What made us think that Obama ever had a chance?

She'll take on McCain. He'll be 76. She'll seem youthful, competent. The comeback kids will have done it again.

My hat is off to them.


Very interesting and entertaining article. I came to SoWal from STL and have always enjoyed Bill McClellan. A few things to keep in mind, though-

STL Don started the post by saying something along the lines of-
You may be right [to InletBchDweller that Wright is on the Clinton payroll] because take a look at this article in the STL Post Dispatch...

Just because one person said this (albeit tongue in cheek) and then the STL Post Dispatch printed it doesn't make it any more or less true. There was no actual reporting done here and the opinion isn't based on any fact. Bill McClellan isn't a political writer. He is more along the lines of Chicago's late Mike Royko. He writes creatively, enjoys causing controversy and then prints all the letters that people flamed him with (including comical responses to their feedback)...

I think this is great and very entertaining. The only problem is there is a segment of the population who read it, believe it and then act upon it at the polls...

Cheers, G
 
Last edited:

STL Don

Beach Fanatic
Mar 7, 2005
324
17
"I think this is great and very entertaining. The only problem is there is a segment of the population who read it, believe it and then act upon it at the polls..."

Count me in on this. I thought it was great and very entertaining. I also think it is totally believable that this is what Hillary is up to and it's pretty sad.
 

Geo

Beach Fanatic
Dec 24, 2006
2,740
2,795
Santa Rosa Beach, FL
"I think this is great and very entertaining. The only problem is there is a segment of the population who read it, believe it and then act upon it at the polls..."

Count me in on this. I thought it was great and very entertaining. I also think it is totally believable that this is what Hillary is up to and it's pretty sad.

Hi Don,

Don't get me wrong. It might be true. And I don't slight you for thinking it is. I haven't made up my mind but I am certainly intrigued by the possibility...

What I really meant by my words that you quoted is that I have an issue with the fact that so many people in this country accept things as truth (and then act upon it) solely because it was printed in the paper, e-mailed to them, or said on TV...

No slight intended for anyone who believes it based on Bill and Hillary's own merit...

:lol:
 
Last edited:

Furthur

Beach Lover
Jan 21, 2008
92
14
S.R.B.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, explaining this morning why he had waited so long before breaking his silence about his incendiary sermons, offered a paraphrase from Proverbs: "It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Barack Obama's pastor would have been wise to continue to heed that wisdom.
Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.
Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.
In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.
Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."
Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."
Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.
"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."
That significantly complicates Obama's job as he contemplates how to extinguish Wright's latest incendiary device. Now, he needs to do more than express disagreement with his former pastor's view; he needs to refute his former pastor's suggestion that Obama privately agrees with him.
Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full "context" of his sermons -- yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.
His claim that the September 11 attacks mean "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?
Wright defended it: "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."
His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."
He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").
And he vigorously renewed demands for an apology for slavery: "Britain has apologized to Africans. But this country's leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I'm not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, does this hurt, do you forgive me for stepping on your foot, if I'm still stepping on your foot. Understand that? Capisce?"
Capisce, reverend. All too well.
 

Furthur

Beach Lover
Jan 21, 2008
92
14
S.R.B.
The above article was written by Dana Milbank at the Washington Post.com on 4/28
It also references the bit that SJ mentions about an apology to Africa.
 

rapunzel

Beach Fanatic
Nov 30, 2005
2,514
980
Point Washington
Yes men

I typed this about 10 this morning, before the daily Mediacom outage, and couldn't post it at the time. I apologize if it loops back...

What bothers me the most, out of all of this, is that it seems Americans only want to associate with and listen to people with whom they basically agree. People should not seek to be our leaders because they associate with people who sometimes say provocative or controversial things?

I wonder how many people watched Moyers, the Detroit NAACP speech, and the Press Club speech. I'm betting none of you commenting. Wright actually did very well on the first two, and it was the final Press Club event at which he stumbled -- badly. Wright came across as thoughtful, professorial, and challenging in the Moyers interview, and said some inspirational and thought provoking things in Detroit. He actually reminded me of a good professor who throws out several theories from academia on a subject, and lets the students discuss and hash out what's good and valid, and what doesn't pass muster. He clearly feeds off not just applause, but also the negative feedback of his audience -- he doesn't expect them to passively listen, he invites participation.

A wonderful professor (not from or familiar with DeFuniak at all) remarked that Wright on Sunday reminded him of the old Chatauquans, and that it was a shame that we didn't have discourse like that in our country anymore. I agree. Few of the ideas in that speech that seem so new and offensive to many were new to me, and I understand the historical roots of some of the ideas, even if I don't agree with them. The real shame, for me, is that so few Americans had ever heard them.

So few Americans want to be challenged, and are only too ready to completely discredit a man who's life, on balance, has been one of many good and great works. He is a retired Marine, a minister who gave much to the least of those in his community, and an elder who deserves a modicum of respect. So he's out of touch with the times, what older person isn't? Gosh, on this very thread Bob just a equated a minister helping the homeless, sick, and needy of Chicago with Hugo Chavez. Um, the Red Scare is kind of 1960. Still, your wisdom and perspective is always appreciated.

And for those of you who don't think Barack Obama is angry, you couldn't be more wrong. Obama is genuinely a nice guy -- and I think the very diplomatically phrased "Jeremiah Wright in no way speaks for me or this campaign nor does he represent my views at all," was Obama speak for SYMFPH. Let's hope Rev. Wright has a translator. There should be an arena to discuss and debate his ideas, but the American media isn't equipped to handle intellectual discourse. We only like to hear people tell us things we all pretty much agree on, we want to passively listen and absorb, and we want to do it in 5 minutes or less. So, I hope for the sake of this country's future, Rev. Wright will go gently into the good night of retirement but I fear, with the media's encouragement he will continue to rage against the dying of the light and keep everyone distracted from the things that really matter.
 

rapunzel

Beach Fanatic
Nov 30, 2005
2,514
980
Point Washington
Grab your tin foil....

The above article was written by Dana Milbank at the Washington Post.com on 4/28
It also references the bit that SJ mentions about an apology to Africa.

Check it out for yourself, and don't forget the comments!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2008/04/obamas_pastor_reignites_race_c.html

My personal favorite comment....
I have it on good authority that radicals within the powerful rightwing Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee are vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's refusal to accept special interest money and consequentially seek his crucifixion. The concern is that the Senator's policy prevents them from exerting influence or extracting favor from his administration should he become the next President in these United States of America. In an effort to allay their fears, Senator Obama has offered his assurance that if elected, an Obama administration would not be a foe- yet this does not seem to halt their resistance to his candidacy. Reportedly, Senator Clinton's campaign saw an opening to exploit the Jewish community's apprehension and began stoking the anti-Obama fire behind the scene.

In collaboration with the Clintons, they [the Jewish Lobby] dispatched a number of "candidacy assassinators" including former Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis, Florida congress woman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, California congress man, Brad Sherman, CNN news anchor, Wolf Blitzer [vis-a-vis Lou Dobbs], Independent Senator, Joseph Lieberman, the far right crippled Washington Post Journalist, Charles Krauthammer and others to torpedo Obama's nomination bid. The above mentioned Jews were mandated to fan the flames of hateful passion against the Illinois Senator using demagoguery and nefarious spin of the Reverend Wright issue to toxify the American voters. Their mission is to convince the public that Obama would be unelectable in November due to his optics and alleged third party association to Rev. Farrakhan. This while simultaneously promoting Hillary as the only friend of Israel. It is also reliably reported that Democratic Jews are being counseled to vote for John McCain as a penultimate option should Senator Clinton not get the nomination.

Take a look at the YouTube video where Rachel Maddow from Air America recently discussed the topic on her show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYzGzvXO0U

African American Leaders dub the Jewish and Clinton's anti Obama campaign, "mean spirited" but so far have opted to remain restrainedly tentative. They however suggest hypocrisy when Governor Rendell [who happens to be a Jew] is able to extol the virtues of Minister Farrakhan by praising his "goodness" and still remains an embraced surrogate of Senator Clinton. Elected Democrats have also taken note and are increasingly frustrated with the Clinton's controversial tactics of infusing racial divide into the electoral process. Appalling is how they describe her alliance to hawkish groups including John McCain to annihilate a democratic colleague and worry that it provides damaging ammunition to their nemesis [the republicans] that could derail Obama's candidacy should he become the nominee. Some are even calling her conduct treacherous and privately accuse her of deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic Party because of the unlikely odds of her fairly winning the nomination. Mrs. Clinton has also been criticized for taken the low road by exploiting the gender card to foster disharmony amongst the sexes. But who is willing to bell the Cat? After-all, the Clinton's wield influential power within the party and super delegates worry about political reprisals should they offer public criticism.

Additionally, the Jewish Lobby has tremendous financial reach and political clout. For decades they have been able to effectively manipulate the Holocaust to keep politicians beholden to their agenda. Those who resist or oppose are targeted with the anti-Semitic or Bigoted label [as evidenced by President Carter] in order to gain compliance. Some feel they run the risk of overplaying their hands in this instance though. Their chief Obama "Hit-Man", Lanny Davis is causing tremendous concern at the great lengths he goes to decapitate the Illinois Senator's chances of ever ascending to the Presidency and his conduct is described as vilely snake-like. The argument is that public opinion can boomerang if blacks are able to expose hypocrisy in what many now view to be a Jewish lynching of Senator Obama. Some posit that Jews have a historical pension for betraying visionary men who promise sweeping changes to the status quo. Coincidentally, it was they [Biblical Jews] who betrayed Jesus to the Romans so he could be crucified.

Posted by: Proud Republican | April 28, 2008 1:32 PM
:shock:
 

scooterbug44

SoWal Expert
May 8, 2007
16,706
3,339
Sowal
Holy crap!

:popcorn:

Just when I thought the arguments couldn't get any more farfetched and ridonkulous - The Jews killed Jesus and now they're after Obama because he won't take their bribes! :blink:

Economy, foreign policy, health care, dependance on foreign oil, our crumbling infrastructure ............. why bother to discuss those when we can blame a religious group for something that happened 2,000 years ago!

BTW crazy republican wack-a-doo - pension means an income for retirement, penchant means a strong inclination! The vocab is as well developed as the logic! :roll:
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter