This is just REALLY SAD...look what they are saying in the Scotish Papers

Hillary's woes take their toll on brand Clinton

UNTIL a few months ago Bill Clinton was the golden boy of American politics. As the most successful Democratic president of recent times, he opened doors across the world.
His Clinton Foundation and its Clinton Initiative offshoot led the way in global philanthropy, bringing industrialists, rock stars and world leaders together to promise action on poverty, Aids and global warming. He had every expectation of following his former vice president, Al Gore, by collecting a Nobel Peace prize.

Hillary's expected coronation as the next president seemed assured, anchoring the couple's place as Washington's supreme power couple and also as a multi-billion-dollar 'brand'.

But the battering his wife has taken in her losing battle with Barack Obama has threatened to change all that, with the 'brand' now under fire and the Clintons accused of using their good works as cover for making money and peddling influence.

It began in January with Bill's decision to wade in and help a campaign stunned by the unexpected phenomenon of Barackomania.

Breaking with the custom that former presidents do not take sides in nomination contests, Bill not only sided with his wife, but went into battle for her.

The plan backfired in spectacular fashion when he labelled Obama's opposition to the Iraq war as a "fairy tale".

And when he appeared to label Obama's appeal as limited to black voters only, the media christened him the campaign's "attack dog".

This image was reinforced by the sight of him staging angry confrontations with journalists. And then those journalists started to dig.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Hillary39s-woes-take-their-toll.4071541.jp

I sincerely mean it, this is very sad to me.

They could have chosen another path, but they went for the scorched earth policy -- gambled with it and lost.

:shrug:

how do I get alerted to your next ones? put me on da list

usually I forget :)

I did just repost this as an update:)

Thanks!

Truly.

The only time they EVER took a vacation together was when Hill needed to escape from D.C. and MonicaGate and from the pics that came back from that vacation, it looked like poor Chelsea was the imbetween communicator between the other two.

have been in such a way before.

Time for them to reap what they have sown.

positive to reap...Hill thinks God chooses her now for the presidency because bush is soon to be moving out ?

self absorbed to be embarrassed for themselves.

battering. The m$$$fm were all over Wright and that didn't stop Obama..has the m$$$fm exhausted hilary's LIES(snipers) like Obama's former pastor?

They could have taken a different approach but they instead decided to play dirty. I guess hanging around Poppy Bush and Karl Rove rubbed off on them.

Breaking with the custom that former presidents do not take sides in nomination contests, Bill not only sided with his wife, but went into battle for her.

broadcast instantly was not a good thing. Bill's evident anger and both of their lack of identity with the truth was their undoing. Randall Robinson said it best about Bill being a 'genius' in political performance art and 'believing in absolutely nothing'.

THANKS for posting this. :thumbsup:

:hi:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Hillary39s-woes-take-their-toll.4071541.jp

And if it still doesn't work for you...here is the rest of the page:

Already in 2007, the media had zeroed in on one of his top backers, data collection firm Info USA. The media reported that its chairman, Vin Gupta, is being sued by his shareholders for misspending company money after he paid Bill Clinton the equivalent of £400,000 for two years of unspecified consultancy work.

In January, the Wall Street Journal questioned another Bill Clinton consultancy contract, with US supermarket giant Yucaipa, claiming by being employed as a consultant Bill stood to make a £10m profit on his five-year association.

Then the New York Times

reported that back in September 2005, Canadian mining mogul Frank Giustra had flown Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan for a meet-and-greet session with the country's autocratic president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Bill Clinton backed the president to chair the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, despite the OSCE's criticism of the country's fraudulent elections. Three days later, Kazakhstan awarded Giustra valuable Uranium export contracts. Later Giustra donated £16m to the Clinton Foundation.

It was further revealed that Giustra and Bill were partners in another mission, backing a free trade agreement with Columbia, where Giustra has multi-million-dollar oil contracts.



The Clintons' reputation further soured in April when it emerged that Hillary's chief strategist, Mark Penn, was advising her on opposition to the trade deal while at the same time being paid as a lobbyist by Colombia to support it. Penn was fired.

None of these revelations, nor Bill Clinton's support of Leonid Kuchma, overthrown by Ukraine's pro-Democracy Orange Revolution, show anything illegal, but critics now accuse Bill Clinton of renting out his good name for profit.



Bill Clinton insists that he works for supermarket Yucaipa for philanthropic reasons, because it involves itself in "three things I care about: In under-served communities, in under-performing companies that are friendly to their workers and their families, and in minority-owned businesses."

The release of the Clinton tax returns caused further questions to be asked, in particular the news that Bill Clinton has made £20m for speeches since leaving the White House.

All of this might not matter if not for the fact that some of this money is being used to finance the Hillary Clinton election campaign. The couple have a joint bank account, and to date £5.5m of their fortune has gone to plug gaps in funding. Strict campaign laws make it illegal for corporations to sponsor US presidential nominees, leaving many wondering if the couple have found a spectacular loophole to sell influence.

The uproar has been further stoked by the Clintons' refusal to come clean about their finances. The details of much of Bill's consultancy work remain secret, as do the names of those who sign the cheques for his speeches. Likewise, Bill has refused to release the list of donors for his £90m presidential library, until his wife has made it to the White House.
CONT'D ON NEXT REPLY

Evidence of his tarnished reputation comes from a series of polls by ABC news and the Washington Post which show Bill's unfavourable rating jumping from 42% in January to 51% now. Polls also show that Hillary, partly due to a false claim to have braved sniper fire in Bosnia, is now is distrusted by 60% of the electorate.

This has prompted critics to zero-in on controversies from the Clintons' past, such as the money accepted by her brothers, Tony and Hugh, from felons who were granted presidential pardons by husband Bill.

And more damage to their reputation may follow. Hillary has launched a fresh wave of attacks on Obama, claiming on Friday that she was the best candidate for white voters, in a campaign which is in dire straights following her heavy loss in North Carolina.

With Obama supporters ridiculing suggestions that Hillary would be accepted as his vice president, her one remaining hope is that she can so tarnish Obama's reputation with negative campaigning that the party superdelegates, who have the casting vote, decide in August that she is the better presidential candidate.

This strategy is a long shot, with many party top brass demanding that the "supers" back Obama because he has won the popular vote.

A much greater risk is that another round of negative campaigning will further damage not just Hillary's election hopes but the whole Clinton philanthropic enterprise.

For all its billions in donor cash, the Clinton Foundation is a delicate flower. Sponsors and celebrities may shy away in the future if the suggestions of influence peddling cannot be silenced.

For these reasons, growing numbers of party insiders think husband Bill is poised to bring the curtain down, if only to protect their image.

"Forget anyone else, the only one she (Hillary] listens to is Bill," said one party source. "Bill's desperate to protect the Clinton Brand. He's got the sharper political antenna, he'll know when its time to fold up the tent."

What's in a name?

The Clinton Foundation: Opened in 1997, the foundation is a global organisation mandated to fight against poverty, Aids and climate change. Its aims are to match wealthy donors with needy projects, and claims successes such as getting drug companies to sell cut-price Aids medicines to Third World countries. Critics say much of the foundation's claimed successes are piggybacking on the efforts of others, such as the Aids drugs which drug companies had already planned to offer at cut price before the foundation took the credit. It has also been challenged over its refusal to name many of its backers.

The Clinton Global Initiative: An annual festival dedicated to rewarding good works, the Initiative, launched in 2005, attracts more than 1,000 participants, the majority from the world of commerce, who pledge to carry out specific projects to help the needy.

The William J Clinton Presidential Library: At £90m it is the most expensive and best resourced presidential library ever built, and serves as the nerve centre of the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, where Bill Clinton served as governor of Arkansas. Critics question why the list of donors is kept secret, and whether the donors are repaying favours from Bill Clinton.
The end.

Like the Gates foundation I think they both need to look closer to home too! Let's not forget the U.S. is in dire need also!

:hi:

The first post in the thread nailed it. They did it to themselves. And to borrow another line from the Clintons, if they imagine this is bad they should see what the repubs could have done to them.

That's why dems aren't supposed to pull this crap on each other. It's hard enough to deal with and educate the public about things when we stick together and stand on principle instead of the politics and morality of convenience. Start going after each other like that and the public has every right to ask what's the difference between the parties, and their key players.

It's just vetting, right?

More from the OP's link to the Scottish report.
(And who knows what dirty laundry is waiting to be aired by the GOP, should HRC be the VP nominee.)

"What's in a name?

The Clinton Foundation: Opened in 1997, the foundation is a global organisation mandated to fight against poverty, Aids and climate change. Its aims are to match wealthy donors with needy projects, and claims successes such as getting drug companies to sell cut-price Aids medicines to Third World countries. Critics say much of the foundation's claimed successes are piggybacking on the efforts of others, such as the Aids drugs which drug companies had already planned to offer at cut price before the foundation took the credit. It has also been challenged over its refusal to name many of its backers.

The Clinton Global Initiative: An annual festival dedicated to rewarding good works, the Initiative, launched in 2005, attracts more than 1,000 participants, the majority from the world of commerce, who pledge to carry out specific projects to help the needy.

The William J Clinton Presidential Library: At £90m it is the most expensive and best resourced presidential library ever built, and serves as the nerve centre of the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, where Bill Clinton served as governor of Arkansas. Critics question why the list of donors is kept secret, and whether the donors are repaying favours from Bill Clinton."

that were then funnelled into his wifes campaign in the form an a loan in which the clintons will earn interest.

very shady indeed

Such promise...but so flawed. They have made their bed.

misdeeds, miserable failures, etc., etc., in the world spotlight...NOW President Bill Clinton's also added on top Senator Clinton's?

I would like to add though that I do think they've done a great job with Chelsea and she does seem, comparatively, so well balanced and genuinely nice. I think she may have a political future if she so chooses. Hope not in the same vein as her parents' most recent path.

http://www.onebigdog.net/is-chelsea-clinton-hurting-the-poor/

I think she could have chosen something more appropriate to the so-called "help for the middle-class" message her mother and father spew out. It is obvious this hedge fund job does NOT help the middle-class and just how much does she do in order to get the pay-back from this. Just like Bill gets all the Millions from the Ruler of Dubai and others! Just asking?

You KNOW she has incorporated all their values - one tell is that she backed up her mother's lie about the sniper fire. The apple has fallen pretty close to the tree.

And there was some sickeningly sweet tribute to HRC on DU last night "Happy Mother's Day"; HRC was a wooooooooonderful mother; and Chelsea was a woooooooooonderful young woman. I replied that I didn't understand how any mother could vote against banning cluster bombs, and my mother's day thoughts are with the mothers of all the children maimed and killed by those pretty little bomblets, which are in bright colors, tempting children to pick them up. I am also thinking of the tens of thousands of mothers of soldiers and civilians maimed and killed since HRC voted authorization to Bush to invade Iraq.

I'm sure Chelsea loves her both her parents very much, and they love her back. But hey! Joseph and Magda Goebbels loved their 5 daughters and one son also.

what a horrible life!

The myriad wheeling and dealing by former pres. Clinton, as detailed in this well researched article,
is a small preview of what would have come to pass were his wife elected President, or even vice-president. More from the article cited in the OP:

"Already in 2007, the media had zeroed in on one of his top backers, data collection firm Info USA. The media reported that its chairman, Vin Gupta, is being sued by his shareholders for misspending company money after he paid Bill Clinton the equivalent of £400,000 for two years of unspecified consultancy work.

In January, the Wall Street Journal questioned another Bill Clinton consultancy contract, with US supermarket giant Yucaipa, claiming by being employed as a consultant Bill stood to make a £10m profit on his five-year association.

Then the New York Times reported that back in September 2005, Canadian mining mogul Frank Giustra had flown Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan for a meet-and-greet session with the country's autocratic president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Bill Clinton backed the president to chair the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, despite the OSCE's criticism of the country's fraudulent elections. Three days later, Kazakhstan awarded Giustra valuable Uranium export contracts. Later Giustra donated £16m to the Clinton Foundation. It was further revealed that Giustra and Bill were partners in another mission, backing a free trade agreement with Columbia, where Giustra has multi-million-dollar oil contracts.

The Clintons' reputation further soured in April when it emerged that Hillary's chief strategist, Mark Penn, was advising her on opposition to the trade deal while at the same time being paid as a lobbyist by Colombia to support it. Penn was fired. None of these revelations, nor Bill Clinton's support of Leonid Kuchma, overthrown by Ukraine's pro-Democracy Orange Revolution, show anything illegal, but critics now accuse Bill Clinton of renting out his good name for profit.

:shrug:

The Republican party.

n/t.

The Clintons, despite some badly compromised legislation (See Republicans Contract With America), have done a lot for this country.

It is almost hard to believe now that the reason health insurance was on the Clintons' first agenda at all, back in 1992, was because there was a mini movement for single-payer in the country. Labor unions, citizens groups, doctors' and nurses' groups, some business leaders, had all been agitating, making it an election issue in other races, writing letters, organizing meetings, protests, media attention. Bill Clinton rode that wave and immediately after being elected, while in the transition, he asked his allies to shut up; Wall Street was already breathing down his neck, the right was bringing heat, trust him and he would, as promised, "put people first" when it came to health care. A protest caravan that had been planned was canceled. One of the biggest players in the coalition, the unions, so flattered to have a president who actually spoke to them, were eager to comply. Bill gave the job of health care reform to Hillary, who studiously interviewed all the players, at one point asking Dr. David Himmelstein, a major exponent of a Canadian-style system "where's the power?" behind such a reform. "Seventy-five percent of the American people," he answered, to which she replied, "Tell me something interesting."

The people never have been interesting to the Clintons, not in organized, confident form. They have been interesting as election props and poll numbers, and interesting as victims, atomized, whose pain could be felt, causes championed, and misery exploited. They are interesting to Bill on rope lines, as exemplars of popular adulation and individuals to be charmed or lectured. Hillary used to hate the rope lines, hate being touched, and in the 1992 campaign she used to make sure that big men were around her to keep the plebs at bay. That changed as her ambition grew and she discovered Purell instant hand santizer. Having purelled universal health care as a live issue for a generation, she's back at it, just where she wants to be, as an answer to a murmured prayer, among a populace mobilized for nothing but elections.

Bill Clinton bribed and buttered up every member of Congress he could to pass NAFTA in 1993. The unions made speeches and phone calls and rallied here and there, but it wasn't much of a fight. And it wasn't the only issue that labor failed to make into an energetic public case. Even as unions were being crushed by employer intimidation during representation campaigns, they didn't fight en masse for labor law reform while Clinton had a Democratic Congress, and they didn't fight, after the long night of Reaganism, for a seachange in government priorities, for an industrial policy, for reinvestment to end the bleeding of their jobs and their communities and the class. Organized labor vowed to throw out the bums who had passed NAFTA, but ended up backing most of them for re-election in 1994, and did nothing to organize globally with other losers in the aggressively pro-capital regimen of neoliberal capitalism. The Democrats lost Congress, which only made unions (if not their members) more loyal. Clinton lectured delegates to the AFL-CIO convention in 1995 about how he was right on NAFTA and right in his vision of retraining and lifetime learning and the high-tech tomorrow, and the union men and women stood, clapping and hollering their approval. They told their members he was all that stood between them and destruction in the form of Republicans, and mobilized voters for his re-election in 1996 and that of his v.p., Al Gore, in 2000. Now workers come to Hillary's rallies and her "town halls" telling reporters of the multiple agonies of their towns and their counties and repeating the rumor judiciously planted by campaign supporters in the press and on the streets: "You know, privately she was against NAFTA from the beginning." Now she is the solution, the savior for everything that ails them.

Anyone who wants chapter and verse on how cynical the Clinton team was on the price of deindustrialization should read Louis Uchitelle's book of a couple of years ago, The Disposable American. And for a refresher course in the realities of the "peace and prosperity" that the Clintons promise to bring back -- and anyone who has trailed the campaigns in a primary state cannot miss that "the Clintons" are indeed running as a team promising to do just that -- there is Robert Pollin's devastating account of global austerity at the end of the '90s, Contours of Descent. But the larger point is how they got away with it. The prison population and prison labor (engaged in everything from taking reservations to sewing jeans to building furniture and transmissions for pennies an hour) mushroomed under Clinton's three-strikes-you're-out and kindred crime policies, and organized labor didn't fight. Prisons expanded, and organized labor didn't fight. (To the extent that more cops and more prison guards and more construction crews were real or potential union members, this development was sometimes even welcomed.) Privatization moved apace here as in so many other sectors, and organized labor didn't fight. The prisons filled with young black and Latino men, and black leadership didn't fight, Latino leadership didn't fight, the civil rights movements didn't fight -- not in any robust, sustained and visible fashion, just like the unions with job loss, NAFTA and the decline in real wages. Now one in less than 100 adult Americans is locked up. That was a blip in the news during the campaigns in Ohio and Texas. Hillary Clinton called for even more cops on the streets, more community policing and only lastly a review of sentencing.

Organized feminists didn't fight when Clinton continued Reagan's war on "welfare queens" in more polite language. They didn't fight as women were made peon labor, displacing unionized public workers, or as they were made a captive labor force for multinationals like Tyson's chicken. Or as they were threatened with eviction from public housing. Or as they were forced into more peon labor in exchange for that public housing. NARAL fought against the forced imposition of chemical contraception on poor women, but again on an issue that potently united the interests of organized labor, women, blacks, Latinos, the poor, there was no mass sustained, visible fight. ACORN launched a campaign to organize welfare workers, and pushed for them to get gloves while picking up garbage for a few dollars a day in public parks. There were protests here and there, just as there were strikes here and there, labor rallies here and there, marches of blacks and others angered by the criminal control system here and there during the 1990s. But mostly there was abject surrender.

Predatory lending increased, and there was no fight. Household indebtedness increased, and there was no fight. Deregulation marched on, leading the way for the current foreclosure crisis among other things, and there was no fight. Hillary Clinton's closest foreign policy adviser now, Madeleine Albright, said the death of half a million children because of sanctions on Iraq was "worth it", and there was no fight. The drug war escalated on American city streets and in Colombia with the bribing and arming of government-linked paramilitaries, and there was no fight. Bill Clinton wrote anti-gay discrimination into law in the Defense of Marriage Act and there was no fight. While he had a Democratic Congress and squandered an opportunity for banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in civilian life, he won cheers from gays and their bloc vote at the ballot box for fighting for their equal opportunity to be paid killers and cannon fodder.

Talk about the "kitchen sink"! If Barack Obama wanted to throw it at the eight years of First Lady experience that Hillary Clinton has made central to her resume for "the job" she says she wants us to "hire" her for, there is plenty there.

for recapping some of the issues of the 90's....

We need to be realistic about this era that some people feel so nostalgic about and want to return to.

No-bid contracts to Halliburton

the "no fly zones" and "iraqi liberatation act"

All part of Bill Clinton's legacy

Jamastiene haven't been back to acknowledge, defend or deny what we have all stated about 'their fond rembrance' of those Clinton yrs.

After all, the 90s were sandwiched between what? A Reagan, a Bush, and another Bush. The 90s were paradise in comparison.

Especially after the ravages of Bush the Younger it's logical to want to return to better days. But it's a simplistic viewpoint, which underestimates the extreme damage and abuses wrought by the Bush era. We are not in the same situation as we were in the 90's in any sense. It would take an essay to even begin to define those differences--good analyses are posted at DU from time to time. I give the Clintons credit for some things they managed to do despite the relentless attacks on them, but policy-wise there are many disappointments and failures. Hillary's current campaign has convinced me more than anything else that she is not the presidential candidate for these times, never mind the worrisome "dynasty" factor. Her heart may be in the right place but she's in a compromised position politically, despite all the positive rhetoric. She's too entrenched with the old guard. Bill's tenure as president was important for at least bringing Dems back into the game. If it had been followed by a Gore presidency as it SHOULD have been in a true democracy, who knows where we'd be right now? NOT in the toilet, I wouldn't think.

The urge to return to the Clinton era is characteristic of a downtrodden mentality that says, "we can't have anything better, so let's try to go back there at least." It reflects a quite reasonable level of anxiety after our recent trials as pawns of the corporate masters, but it doesn't really acknowledge the larger opportunities raised by the utter abject failure of the fascist Neocons. We now have an opportunity for far-reaching and substantial changes. We need a totally different kind of leadership, a leadership that can chart the course of the future. We need a vision that's large enough to encompass ALL the country's people and their myriad problems, not pander to a relative few at the expense of the many.

After the shocks of the Bush era, I'm betting that the country is ready for this new course psychologically, but it will not occur without turbulence. It is clear that many in govt will resort to criminal behavior to control this country. Corruption at every level of our society is epidemic. Fear of dealing with the rot at our core is what really is at the bottom of our fears about the future IMO. It won't be an easy job, and most average people have enough to do without worrying about saving Democracy on top of it all. But it really is up to us--the people--to keep pushing the Powers That Be. There are no magic solutions. We won't be able to coast no matter who is president. The next 4-8 years will be rough.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x358421
title: Frank Rich: Party Like It’s 2008

Excerpt:

"Running in 2008 was the single smartest decision he (Obama) has made..." (from the NYT article)

ASBOLUTELY. And the single biggest mistake the Clinton campaign has made is underestimating him.

It's a new millenium.

Out with the old.

Time for change.

When I became an anti-Clinton person.

I also remember NAFTA, Telcom deregulation, the giant sucking sound, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Perhaps you weren't old enough to vote then, but some of us realized in 1996 that the Clinton's were the WRONG leadership for this country.

two. that boat has sailed.

2000. Whenever I read articles here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/
I'm always surprised by how ignorant I am.

Hell, I even remember the 50's. I remember NAFTA, Travelgate, Whitewater, Monicagate, etc., etc., etc. I remember Bill Clinton throwing Robert Reich under the bus. They were only halcyon days by comparison to the present.

I remember thinking that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since Nixon.

loving and respecting the Clintons. I was heartbroken over Bill's Monica foolishness, but that didn't change my mind. I always felt he did the best he could with the Republican congress after 94. Wasn't crazy about NAFTA and such, but you can't give everyone everything they want. Always thought Hillary was OK too. I didn't like the way she went about trying to pass healthcare reform. She was exclusive and therefore unsuccessful. But I still liked her. They sure have changed my mind since the first of this year. I, too, think it is very sad.

The economy was good, but some of the things we gave up hurt us more in the long term.

I had a higher opinion of the Clintons before this campaign. I was turned off very early by the media's anointing of Hillary as the front runner, especially when there were so many other worthy candidates in the field. It was premature and misguided and anti-democratic--and more than a little suspicious. Those who said she was 'shoved down our throats" were not exaggerating. After the hijacking of the govt by the Neocons, what we saw in the promotion of Hillary was not comforting.

BUT ......................................

Through this arduous primary period & thanks to a strong candidate challenging Hillary (Edwards could have done it too, if not Obama) --we have learned how the marketing of candidates to our diverse population takes place these days. It's NOT a pretty sight. I could go on for several pages on the subject at this point. I think everyone here knows what I'm talking about. Sure "politics is ugly" but this is beyond ugly now--this is....well the best word I can think of is SICK.

There is ALWAYS a value in seeing the truth of things, even when the truth hurts, even when the truth hurts...

This country is in a crucible now, a crucible of self examination that is long overdue. We need to redefine what democracy really means to us, right here, right now.

Actually I'm more optimistic now. It's easier since Hillary was not my pick, though I am concerned about the effect on the party's prospects at this point. But I am optimistic because I do think the PEOPLE are leading now...instead of looking for saviors and relying on corporate media so much. This is what will really save us.

So I'm sorry the Clintons sank so low...wistful about it even--but we had to know it. And we wouldn't have seen it if she was not challenged by another candidate. This long campaign has been very informative and I'm sure will be processed for years to come.

Sometimes you see the worst come out when people are tested. I think this is true of the Clintons. They have run a campaign worthy of a street gang. Is this REALLY what we want in our leaders? Tough, yes. Thugish, no. So we're lucky we see this now and it's in our country's best interests to recognize it for what it is.

The better campaign has won this.

And this statement truely resonates... "This country is in a crucible now, a crucible of self examination that is long overdue. We need to redefine what democracy really means to us, right here, right now."

Amen

I'm just actually sick of the Bush's and I'm sick of the Clinton's.

When Bill Clinton took on the "Attack Dog" role, he had already made his second major step into losing his stature. The first was in taking sides and becoming her main surrogate. He could have played more the spouse role, while wielding significant "behind the scenes" influence. In retrospect, I wouldn't be surprised if they later agreed that this should have been the course to take.

But once they unleashed Bill as a Surrogate, the die had already been cast. He speaks off-the-cuff, always has, always will. It's hardly a stretch to imagine that he was going to say something that gets him in trouble.

Bottom line, they made this decision with open eyes. They were trading a loss in stature with what they thought was a better chance for a second run at the White House. Turns out it was a really bad bet.

stay? This is getting so ridiculously, excruciatingly painful to watch.

I only wish it was the US media...

I'm getting really tired...I better just go get some sleep.

Fuck the elitist scum.

"..."fairy tale"? When Clinton was referring to Obama having had to face no hard questions up to that point *about* his stance on the war. About Obama's stance as having a fairy tale quality for the lack of pertinent q's. You know? Like no one asked where Cinderella came from; or if her dad had a magic castle in some wooded, light-filled forrest in a far away realm. She was there. She danced. Her slipper fell off. And she left. Cinderella! The 44th Pres O'Da United States of Urmerika!

That's what's sad to me. That this primary runs on image & perception. No answers. And now Scotland is piping that tune. Sad indeed.

I genuinely feel sad for you.

What pointless drivel you people peddle here with contemptuous pride day after day. Your ego' and sense of self hating must have no bottom tsk, tsk...

Amazing.

"OBAMA FO YO MAMA", and that OP was posted by a BHO supporter. Now here are some of my questions for you:

Are you trying to suggest that I have no right to free speech? Are you trying to suggest that I have no right to express myself? Are you trying to suggest that I have no right to pursue happiness? No right to observe contemporaneous societal expressions & exchanges, and *then* express myself likewise? As other Americans do? Are you trying to suggest that only one group; *your group* of people are able to do so, or benefit from any of these articles? What? Just what the hell are you saying? Cause if that is any part of what you are trying to suggest then that dog just won't hunt.

Or...are you trying to accuse me of something? Cause if so, then you need to just go ahead and do that so that your ignorant, ill-advised accusation may be taken to the next level. Otherwise...

Blow it out your nose, grow-up, and stop being an ass

Nope. Just so long as you don't abridge mine and my ability to observe contemporaneous societal expressions & exchanges, and *then* express myself likewise. Barring that, we're in total freakin' agreement.

about sniperfire? She certainly took off with "bitter" and ran it into the ground. I think most of us would be a lot more compassionate to Hillary & Bill if they weren't such blatant opportunists. Obama could have buried her with her own lies, but he chose to take the high road. I'm sorry, but the same can't be said for the Clintons, at this point.

Obama spent months on that so-called high road, so he-himself never had to. That's what DU has been for :headbang:

weren't you? But you don't have the guts. Make your accusation, or be silent. This game of fools played on a ship of fools by fools is becoming very boring & very-very predictable. It is all that you have. You are stuck on stupid. And you can't get out of your little dog run, whaaaaa!

I've been saying for months now that Obama simply does not deserve people such as yourself as his supporters. He deserves better than you. You do not even have a clue what he is saying. Unity is the last thing on your mind. And your mind is imo brittle, intransigent, and riddled with inconclusive non-answers to some of what will be the most serious questions America will face in the very near future and why?

Cause you don't really care about anything but yourself. Clearly, certain BHO supporters here at DU, such as yourself, would do better for their candidate, DU, and themselves, to cease & desist with their threats & intimidations as: Time Is Of The Essence

Do not threaten me with your gibberish. You have established a grievous course upon which remedies are routinely sought.

It explains her whole losing campaign in a nutshell.

You hate Obama and you hate his supporters. What fucking else is new?

We made him. We're proud of him and believe it or not, he's very proud of us. Talk about being stuck on stupid.

Go bang your pots and pan outside his office to show him what a better class of supporters looks like.

for anyone else. But thank you for your testimony all the same, General Bonkers :eyes:

irrelevant to me, as are you. I fail to see how I threatened you, but as forementioned, have it your own way.

Oh, and by the way, I can completely see how someone with your gifts is attracted to Hillary, and vice versa. You must be so proud.

the lazy, and the dismissive sight-unseen for month after month after month now. It is tedium personified, Sir.

Here is imo your epic fail in that my guys have long since left the field: I'm not a per se HRC supporter. Your perception is that I am, because I simply offer an opinion, and set of life experiences counter to the ones that, it would seem, please yourself, and by extension your candidate.

By painting with so broad a brush you have erroneously dabbed a bit onto, for instance: Elizabeth Edwards, and RFK Jr. :shrug: And others here as well. Some people aren't concerned about such things. Some people are. My sense is that it discolors an even larger sample; while harming the Democratic Party in the longer term. But that's just me. Your take is your own.

Your deescalated stance, if while reminiscent, is duly noted. It remains ill-advised to paint fellow DUer's as racists, or people associated with racists on the verge of being TS'd for harboring such thought-crimes; when it is nearer the truth that to do so is a form of assault via character assassination & slander. In either event...

Peace, all the best, thank you for your time & posts, and let's win this thing for the Democratic Party :kick:

None of this is sad to me because they brought this on themselves. I cannot wait to see who challenges her for her Senate seat because she does not deserve that either. Hopefully they will be run out of politics for life.

I think everyone who is a Democrat can now officially stop yelling at Al Gore about not using Bill Clinton in 2000 as well. The Clintons are all about the Clintons and Bill is hard to control as shown by this campaign. Bill has also officially given up his status as Dem Part elder stateman and given it to Al Gore who has more class anyways. I once supported B.C. in the 90's against Newt and the Rethug Revolution. Its been sad to see him so out of touch and out of control. I think his rep has been damaged and it will take a long time to repair it.

I loved Bill in the 90s but there are not enough negative words to describe my feelings now.

I have disposed of all my Clinton memorabilia including both their autobiographies!

The blinders are off and whatever good he did and whatever esteem people had for him is lost. Such harm to a reputation is rarely, if ever, overcome.

crawl out from in W. Va. telling the W.Virginians that "America laughs and makes fun of West Virginians for being Hillary supporters"!

Everyone knows Obama is Scotch-Irish. Of course they would root for their favorite son. ;-)

other HRC lemmings elsewhere.

Bill Clinton's Message to Rural America,,,As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., avoids any real campaigning in West Virginia, the former president of the United States is out there ginning up resentments.

Bill Clinton has the right to say whatever he wants, of course. But he's a smart man. Brilliant, even.

He can do the math. He must know that it's quite improbable that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the Democratic presidential nominee.

So what purpose does it serve for him to barnstorm a state like West Virginia and tell rural voters that Obama and his elitist political/media cabal allies are mocking Appalachia?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/bill-clintons-m.html

they spent all those years building. This saddens me too.