This guy doesn’t need to be anywhere near the White House again. He simply cannot control himself in public — who let the Big Dog out? (SFGate):
“It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended,” one superdelegate said.The rage-a-thon continues below the fold.According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.
But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how “sorry” she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a “Judas” for backing Obama.
It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.
Turning toward the much more classy Richardson, look at how he addressed being called “Judas” by Clintonista James Carville. (WaPo):“Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that,” a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.
The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media’s unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.
“It was very, very intense,” said one attendee. “Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns.”
My recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation — particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.
While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.
Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack — driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president.
I repeatedly urged Democrats to stop attacking each other personally and even offered a DNC resolution calling for a positive campaign based on the issues. I was evenhanded in my efforts. In fact, my intervention in a debate during a particularly heated exchange was seen by numerous commentators as an attempt to defend Sen. Clinton against the barbs of Sens. Obama and John Edwards.
As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.
More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.
This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.
Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton’s wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?
And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.
As for Mr. Carville’s assertions that I did not return President Clinton’s calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.
I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.
39 Responses to “Bill Clinton flips out at superdelegates meeting when Richardson’s name comes up”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
One wonders why Bill Clinton was ever considered to be an asset to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The only way she can win is if the superdoopers give her the win; that’s simple math at this point. Why, then, would he go out of his way to piss off some of the superdoopers?
Ok, I’m Obama-leanng, but….
if BR did personally promise, then he is a liar and disloyal.
if he didn’t promise, then Bill’s lying - he said/he said.
But,” I never rec’d a message that Clinton called” - oh come on!!! Pick the option - a)the cell phone working? in which case he would’ve gotten a frantic message at the hotel/resort desk from an assistant; b)his office got a call and never relayed it - verified by checking the phone record (and firing the assistant); c)BR left explicit instructions not to be given any messages from “that President” or d) he did get the message and didn’t return the call. Sorry, I’m betting on one of the last options as a and b are just too far out of the reality ballpark.
I’d say that promising to endorse someone is worse than later going back on that promise. If Richardson was going to endorse Clinton, he should have done so immediately. However, I don’t think it’s particularly objectionable to privately pledge an endorsement and later revoke it, because in the interim many things can change one’s mind. In Richardson’s case, it was purportedly the “Race Speech” that finally drove him to endorse Obama.
Also, loyalty (to a person) is not something I’d cite as something to value in a political actor. The Bush administration is famous for demanding and rewarding loyalty, and you see what the result of that has been.
Are you paying more for your consultants, and getting less?
Phylosopher, do you ever go on vacation? Ever? Why is there a requirement that BR be reachable anywhere, anytime by anybody?
My bet is that Richardson sent his staff on vacation and shut off the damn phone completely so he could enjoy time with his family. I have encountered this in trying to reach people based in other countries - e-mail is bounced, phones are off, staff is out, voicemail is not receiving. That’s the way some very busy people stay married.
Wow, what a mess. This is exactly why we need to train our rhetoric on McBush. If Carville starts calling Bill Richardson Judas for attacking the Republican nominee instead of playing the “let’s trash Obama” game, then i’ll be worried.
BTW, is everyone clear that Carville’s loyalties lie with Bill Clinton rather than Hillary, who is, you know, running for President–constitutionally and all? And doesn’t everyone remember that Carville and Matalin are political operatives for opposing parties? And that Bill Richardson has been a prohibitive favorite on everybody’s VP list for a very long time? And that he’s got delegates? No wonder Richardson has such a long resume; he’s some kind of remembering-facts-from-recent-history-savant-genius-child.
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that Bill Clinton has probably done far more to hurt Hillary’s candidacy than he has done to help it.
Let me state an obvious caveat to that point… it is questionable as to whether or not Hillary would have been able to launch such a campaign if she had not been directly linked to one of the Democrats most successful leaders of the past 40 years… that said, he has not helped her in any way SINCE she became an official candidate, at leat not with his public actions.
I am, and always have been, very amibiguous in my feelings about Bill Clinton. He has been the best president we have had in my lifetime, and I am grateful for the peace and prosperity we enjoyed under his administration…
And while I hold far more contempt for the hypocritical right-wing attack machine that attempted to destroy a presidency for doing things that many of the most surly attack dogs in that movement were themselves guilty of doing (Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich, off the top of my head), I did not, and do not, hold Bill’s personal behavior and response in high regard…
The fact is, Bill is a slimebag politician. But a damn good one. And one that got things done that were good for Democrats. But still, he’s a slimebag… a slimebag as in “I wouldn’t want my daughter (if I had one) to be alone in his presence for any length of time” type slimebag.
And he hates losing… he’s a very sore loser. My biggest pet peeve is the “red-face finger-wagging” thing he does. To this day, anytime I see the video of him shaking his defiant figure claiming he “did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”, my stomach knots up.
The sensationalist sleazy press and the right-wing attack machine should never have been asking him those questions in the first place. But the fact is, they did. And given the opportunity to rise to the challenge and face his attackers head on, he did the most cowardly thing he could… he lied. At that point in time, he went from being somebody who could have been considered one of the great transcendental presidents of the 20th Century to a really good Democratic leader with enough personal baggage to make even his most ardent defenders cringe.
Hillary will be a great case study for future political scientists examining what could have been a magnificent run to become the first female president in our history… a candidacy that did more damage to itself than any outside force could have ever imposed upon it.
Somehow, by trusting her husband and his methodologies (Carville strategy, 50% + 1) as much as she has, she has managed to destroy what was considered to be an inevitable Democratic Nomination just last summer.
This is pretty selfish of me, but please could you start posting pro-Obama feminist news? The category of sites talking about how much a dick Bill Clinton or how much a bitch Hillary Clinton personally is is already filled by every other site I visit. Pro-Obama news, great, anti-McCain, bring it. Anti-Clinton only leads to people not wanting to vote for Hillary Clinton, not for them to want to vote for Obama. And we do need people to want to vote for Obama, people aren’t Democrats by default.
I don’t know how much of her campaign’s problems can be laid at the feet of her husband… from what I’ve read of how she expected to be treated during his presidency (having a real office, trying to actually do something about universal health care, etc.), I don’t think Bill is swaying anybody to a large extent.
I know if I was her husband, I’d be fucking pissed at how she’s been constantly marginalized by the same jerks who spent 8+ years going after him.
AndersH, here’s a (sexist, tone deaf, ham-handed) reason to vote for Senator Obama; in Scranton, he offered a Hillary supporter a kiss if she’d remove her Hillary button and put his on instead–who needs feminist-related Obama news, when he’s willing to smoooch us all into voting for him?
Yay! Me firsty in line for kissuhs!
Jesus.
lola, it’s frustrating, but we can’t really start applying the same gotcha-standard to Obama just because we think Clinton gets an unfair deal. It fosters an environment where the Democratic candidate is held to an irrationally high ideal while the Republicans gets a pass on everything from their supporters and their cheerleaders in the media. A campaign engages an amazing amount of people, and stupid shit WILL happen. We can look for such flaps, yell “j’accuse!” and sneer at the candidate. But really, do we care about that, or do we care about policy? If we go to vote on the one who’s the most saintly, who will we vote for when, as always happens to humans, they will turn out not to be saints?
I’m not saying character flaws are unimportant in elections, but what we get is, to 99.9%, filtered through a preferred media narrative. The other 0.01% are anecdotes. It’s an ontological and epistemological problem put into practice, and I think we’d do well to disregard most of it and as progressives and/or democrats, look more to positives, or policy. I think both the Democratic candidates are incredibly competent, and I think the “concerns for how they’d run the White House” are pretty much strawmen, based on often wild projections.
AndersH, I appreciate your position re: policy, but a male politician offering to kiss a woman in exchange for her vote (however jokingly/flirtatiously it’s done) isn’t just a meaningless gotcha moment: it’s a genuine insult to the weight and status of female voters, and worthy of examination.
Somebody tells me five times to my face they won’t do something, then go do it, I’m pissed.
He had to vent sometime. There are other, better reasons not to want Bill around than this.
as an rwa, i get to blissfully doublethink my hypocrisy away.
DTG wrote, about Bill Clinton:
The 1992 election that put Bill Clinton in the White House also elected a Congress with 259 Democrats in the House and 57 in the Senate; in just two years, the Democrats lost control of the Congress.
Under President Clinton, we got the Defense of Marriage Act, the Helms-Burton Act (which toughened the embargo against Cuba), and the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. We didn’t get what we would have liked on judicial appointments, but, overall, he was a decent Republican president.
Well, we are not just voting for Clinton or Obama, we are voting for an entire network of political appointments who will have a profound influence on policy. So when Wm. Clinton and Carville both express the same opinion that quid pro quo cronyism and loyalist groupthinko should be an important part of the primary process, I start to question how much this opinion will be shared among Ms. Clinton’s staff.
It’s a critical question because we’ve had 7 years of political appointees who valued cronyism and loyalty over the competent performance of their jobs as analysts and policy advisors. Examples of this include the FDA making an exceptional case of emergency contraception, CIA intelligence tailored to policy drives, and the torture memos.
AndersH: It’s an ontological and epistemological problem put into practice, and I think we’d do well to disregard most of it and as progressives and/or democrats, look more to positives, or policy. I think both the Democratic candidates are incredibly competent, and I think the “concerns for how they’d run the White House” are pretty much strawmen, based on often wild projections.
Well, I keep saying this, but IMO the honeymoon between progressives and Democrats should be over the day after inauguration. Heck, I don’t even think it should even start. I’d much rather we go into the next administration with eyes wide open that Democrats at the federal level are going to compromise on social justice issues unless we keep the heat on them.
A president has to work with the Congress that s/he has and not with the one that s/he wants. Heck, Bill Clinton had a Democratic Congress to start with and they diddled away all their chances. So he battened down the hatches and got what he could under fire and unprotected by his colleagues. ‘Cause he was a president who would bring a “new style of government” to Washington and he was the boy from Hope and all that other fluff used to sell a candidate during primary season.
So you dream of a ‘happy happy joy joy’ 4 years then you had better make sure that you voted progressive, feminist politicians down the ticket because you can bet that the independants and
turncoatnewly awoken Republicans aren’t prepared to do that for you.That’s a classy response from Richardson.
DTL
The fact is, Bill is a slimebag politician. But a damn good one.
That really sums it up. That’s his legacy.
In any situation where Bill Clinton and X say the other guy is lying, it’s likely Clinton who is lying.
Does anyone want 4 (or
more years of James Carville?
I can’t speak for Richardson, but that’s how I go on vacation; I don’t want to hear from work, family (that’s not with me), or any other reality until I get home; whatever “bad” things are happening, I’ll deal with it then; why ruin my vacation?
Madeline Albright, in an interview on the Daily Show, when asked about the difference between the current administration and Clinton, said that in the Clinton white house, they were at least willing to listen to different opinions in cabinet meetings.
Waco, Iraq bombing, etc. aside, and that’s a big aside, I think it’s important to remember ANYBODY who isn’t intimately associated with the current administration’s ideologues is a better option for all of us. At least they probably won’t be batshit insane.
I guess it is fair enough for him to be pissed off if Richardson really did promise him five times. Still, I don’t mind that Richardson changed his mind - I think it’s good when politicians correct their prior flawed judgements (something that BushCo are incapable of doing).
You know, I’m not sure if the tone in the post and the research behind it is exactlty accurate. it seems much more like a simple hit post on a prominent Democratic politician meant to discredit him and his associates. Yes, there was a volatile meeting between President Clinton and a group of California super-delegates; and yes Clinton was most likely upset and offended that a friend - yes a friend - went back on a piomise. However, most reports coming from that meeting don’t quite take the extreme tone that this decscription does.
I’m afraid Pandagon is going the same route as HuffPo and I won’t take part in it. I’s one thing to have a spirited primary season. it’s another to toss off hit pieces on prominent Democrats, I have the Wingnuts for that.
Call me crazy but given his track record I think Bill Clinton is the one who is lying.
Clinton has lied to the entire country before (yes it was about something petty and stupid, but he did lie) and Richardson hasn’t.
Somehow I have the feeling a former president of the United States can reach anyone, any time, anywhere. Turning off your cell phone and activating the out of office message on your email works for about 99% of the population… unless you’re Governor of New Mexico and are being sought by the former leader of the free world. Come on, Richardson likely DID promise them or commit to some variation of support for Hillary. She was the early favorite, had the biggest war chest, was talked up by the media and had a previous working relationship with Richardson. Politics is definitely a you-scratch-my-back kind of environment. That Richardson didn’t publicly endorse her, and instead went for her opponent indicates 1) he knows which way the wind is blowing; and 2) he, like others, probably has serious problems with the Clinton camp that he now has an “out” (i.e. Barack Obama).
I am also sick of the hit pieces on the Clintons. I’ve already given up DK, TPM and Huffpo. I’m just about done with politics forever, but I don’t ever want to be “done” with feminism, because I am a woman and will always be impacted by misogyny.
I get that people are passionate about Obama, and if he inspires you, awesome. But I’m also passionate about Hillary, and I’m tired of being called stupid, monstrous, low class, low info, poor, rascist, etc. for it.
As far as the clinton/Richardson story, if I were Bill I’d be pissed off at my friend too.
Wow tamens,
I get that that is happening on other boards, but I don’t see it in this piece. Particularly since this piece is about Bill, not Hillary, not Obama. Bill losing his temper (again) and continuing to sabotage his wife’s efforts.
And perhaps I haven’t read the comments closely enough, but I’m pretty sure no one has called Clinton supporters any of those thing.
For my two cents I have to wonder whether Bill is doing this intentionally/subconsciously. The guy was smooth as silk back in the day and these days he can’t seem to put his foot anywhere but in his mouth. After the super long, boring and frankly pompous speech he gave (I think it was after HRC’s loss in SC, but I’m not positive) my husband turned to me and said…”Okay, where is the real Bill Clinton and what have they done with him.” Seriously. Not the same guy.
Kristen, as I remember it, and it was awhile ago, Bill’s testy moments were traditionally blamed on Hillary, just as his cheating has to be her fault and his policies (that we don’t like) were her fault. Now it would appear that everything he does is still her fault. Color me not surprised.
“Now it would appear that everything he does is still her fault. Color me not surprised.”
I didn’t say it was her fault. I said he’s screwing up her chances and acting very strangely.
She’s responsible only to the extent that she allows him to speak in her name…just like Obama is responsible for the comments of his campaign personnel and responsible for the comments of Michelle Obama (like the proud american krfuffle).
I’ll say again what I’ve said elsewhere. Stop picking on the Judas comparison! Judas supported Jesus’ opponent in an election, and Richardson handed Hillary Clinton over to be brutally murdered under color of the law! It’s absolutely sick and disgusting for you people to be upset that he’s comparing one possibly-life-changing issue with an actual life-ending issue!
Now, if the situation was reversed, if Judas had betrayed Jesus to his *death*, then you’d have reason to be upset at the comparison. I mean, god, brutal murder, compared to a (possible) change in allegiance *within* a group of people who generally profess the same core beliefs?
But given the facts, y’all need to just chill out.
tamens, I agree with you. I’ve almost taken Pandagon off my favorites list (with Matt Y, TPM, AmericaBlog, Crooks & Liars, Balloon Juice, etc.) because of Pam’s anti-Clinton postings.
I get it that most of the people here are for Obama -that’s great for them.
However, I am not convinced yet and I’d like to hear pro-Obama information so I can feel okay voting for him in November. The more anti-Clinton posts and comments I read, the more I want Clinton to win.
I’ll be voting Democrat in November, regardless of who wins the primary. But I’d really like to feel like I’m a valued member of the party even if I decide not to vote for Obama in the primary.
The 1992 election that put Bill Clinton in the White House also elected a Congress with 259 Democrats in the House and 57 in the Senate; in just two years, the Democrats lost control of the Congress.
Under President Clinton, we got the Defense of Marriage Act, the Helms-Burton Act (which toughened the embargo against Cuba), and the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. We didn’t get what we would have liked on judicial appointments, but, overall, he was a decent Republican president.
Fair enough…
But can you imagine how much WORSE off this country would be today if we had to endure another 4 years of George HW instead of Clinton?
Gas would be around $20 a gallon today and we would effectively be functioning slightly better than a third world country…
The economy was quickly going into the toilet, and 4 more years of Bush the elder would have given SCOTUS handily to the conservatives (unless you believe Bush 41 was also a fan of Ruth Bader Ginsburg).
For all of Bill’s shortcomings in his ability to make America more progressive, he was light years better than anything his Republican counterparts would have done. And for that reason, he’s the best POTUS we’ve had in my lifetime (I was born in the mid 1970s)…
Kristen, my post wasn’t about this post per se, but about the general tone of the “left” blogosphere.
I’ve worked around retail/marketing for a long time, and one of the first things I learned is if you have a customer who has a poor experience and does NOT complain, the odds are they won’t come back. If they do complain, it means they care enough and want to come back. I have stopped reading some sites, I just don’t want to stop reading this one, hence the complaint. Bill does not equal Hillary.
I get people prefer Obama, and if he’s the nominee of course I’ll vote for him, but can’t there be just a bit of shelter from the storms?
Pam’s using the EXACT quote from the San Francisco Chronicle article, which was picked up by the AP and in newspapers all over the country… that is a verbatim citation of how the encounter was characterized in the press.
tamens,
I am very pro-Obama, but I think you’re points about Clinton bashing hold some validity… particularly the snarky attitudes directed at many of her supporters by Obama supporters on blogs and message boards. To be honest, I’ve probably been guilty of it myself at times, but I’m trying to restrain myself.
The jury is out on whether or not the media is clearly pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary. I definitely pick up on the negative tone towards her and her campaign by some of the pro-Obama faction (Keith Olbermann comes to mind - I’m a huge KO fan, but he’s getting a bit over the top lately).
At the same time, you cannot possibly convince me that if Hillary Clinton were ANY OTHER CANDIDATE that she would even be considered a viable contender at this point. If the roles were reversed between her and Obama, Barack would have been written off by the mainstream media long ago. If it were Bill Richardson or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd in Hillary’s position with Obama maintaining the same lead, he would already be considered the presumptive nominee.
As cantankerous as the MSM often is towards HRC, it is that very media which is allowing her campaign to even continue. They are the only ones discussing her nomination as being remotely feasible at this point… it just isn’t.
The math simply isn’t there at this point. I accept that Barack Obama will not be “officially” recognized as the Democratic Nominee for a little while longer, perhaps another few months. At the same time, barring some catastrophic misstep by the Obama Campaign, I see no possible scenario in which HRC will become the Democratic Nominee. She will not win the pledged delegate race, and it is extremely unlikely that she will win the popular vote. Her financial resources are starting to tap out, and party elites are quietly hinting their acknowledgement that Obama will be the nominee in the end.
The Superdelegates are not going to vote against the will of the electorate, even if they theoretically are empowered to do so. The power to overturn the primaries by the superdelegates is a power that was intended in its spirit to prevent the party from nominating a catastrophically BAD nominee, ie George Wallace.
There is no reasonable argument to suggest that Barack Obama rises to the level of a “catastrophically bad” nominee such that the SDs would be justified in reversing the decision of the electorate.
I get what it feels like when the candidate that you support doesn’t get the nod… I watched in digust in 2004 as state after state voted for the extremely milquetoast John Kerry when I would have MUCH preferred Howard Dean, a far more progressive and passionate candidate. And in November 2004, I still put aside my personal distaste for Skull and Bones Kerry and voted for him, because I knew he would be much better than the alternative.
My hope is that anyone who considers themselves a liberal or a progressive will cast their vote for Barack Obama this November. At a very minimum, do NOT cast a vote for John McCain and expect people to still view you as a progressive. It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Hey, Hillary said “Please don’t vote for John McCain.” She never said we had to vote. Many Hillary voters are saying that they’d rather stay home than vote for Obama, because his supporters have been so free with the “racist, low class, old, etc” insults dished out to them.
If you’re for Obama, let’s hear why, not a gazillioth post on “Why the Clintons are Monsters”. We’ve already got the whole right wing blogosphere for that.
While I would be disappointed by any en masse protest by HRC supporters to not show up on November 5th - possibly endangering the WH to a de facto third Bush term and jeopardizing women’s rights with the future of SCOTUS in the hands of McAncient - I would consider a mass defection of HRC supporters to vote for John McCain as downright treason to the party. There are polls indicating that a large number of HRC supporters are considering doing just that - VOTING for John McCain.
The insanity of such a notion absolutely confounds me.
I don’t know how to convince HRC supporters of the strength of Obama’s platform… the two candidates are nearly identical on policy vision, and the principle difference between HRC and Barack Obama is that he doesn’t carry the baggage that Hillary has been, fairly or unfairly, saddled with by being married to Bill Clinton.
Is it fair, is it just, is it right?
I don’t know. Probably not.
This much I do know… barring some totally unforeseen implosion in the Obama Campaign (and it needs to be bigger than the Rev. Wright “controversy”), he’s going to be the Democratic Nominee.
Not “he’s probably going to be the nominee”; not “it looks like he’s going to be the nominee”; not “odds are that he is going to be the nominee”. Barack Obama WILL BE the 2008 Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.
Now we can gripe about that fact, or we can accept that fact. We can be unhappy about it, wring our hands about it, express our frustrations about it. But if you choose to stay home or worse, vote for the crazy old grandpa that the enemy is going to be running, you have ABSOLUTELY NO FLIPPING RIGHT, NONE WHATSOEVER to complain if McSame becomes the next POTUS and you watch more of your rights go down the toilet. I don’t want to hear it.
As to why Obama and not Clinton?
Because Barack Obama represents a progressive policy that I agree with, because he has ALWAYS been a vocal critic of the Iraq War, and because he won’t carry all of the baggage into the White House that Clinton would… the type of baggage that enabled Newt Gingrich to lead to a “Republican Revolution” into control of Congress and the statehouses during the last Clinton Administration.
I’m a 50 state Democrat, not a 50% + 1 Democrat. That is why I support Barack Obama.
Now that the days of people voting at large will be over AT LARGE with only a few states left, the focus for superdelegates should be one of as the word says in itself, “SUPERDELEGATE”. Each should really study the basics of the premise of the word. One can support or not the popular vote if the word has to mean just that, or one can vote who has better chances in the November General Election, or better one can vote his or her conscious - which is what I recommend. Which candidate has more stuff, more experience, more ability to manuever in the large complex world of politics that goes from the mountainous terrains of Tibbet to the plains of South America. Who has more ability by the virtue of knowledge, or by the virtue of who the candidate himself or herself is, what are the general perception of the candidate.
Disregard the money, disregard all that popularity created due speech or unpopularity created due to some insignificant and trivial matters said this way or that way into the campaign, but give only the importance to the facts of economy, to what is ahead and the most serious tasks in our country’s challenges and pick the one who is better per your choice.
Hope the better one of them comes out in the end.
DTN wrote:
The economy recovered, and it would have recovered even if the elder President Bush had been re-elected; the federal government doesn’t control the economy.
Judicial appointments would have been better under a second term for President Bush, but, even there, his record includes David Souter, so you can’t say he’d have filled the courts with clones of Justice Scalia. There’s a good possibility that the Congress would have stayed under Democratic control. DoMA would probably have passed anyway, but the Welfare Reform Act would never have gotten done.
The economy recovered, and it would have recovered even if the elder President Bush had been re-elected; the federal government doesn’t control the economy.
Riiiiiiight. In the same sense a parent doesn’t control how a child turns out, perhaps. I believe Republicans are still worried about quality of parenting though.
How well did deregulation work out for the derivitive market, anyhow? How’s that trillion dollar war of yours getting financed?