Hints And Allegations
Well, where is a poor part-time blogger to turn on a day like today? In the old days, each of these links would have been post-worthy, but I’m pressed for time, so a quick run-down will have to do…
First, in the will-she-or-won’t-she-drop-out-on-Tuesday category, the evidence is…inconclusive. Those arguing that she will can point to a statement by her husband (“I want to say also, that this may be the last day I’m ever involved in a campaign of this kind,” the former president said at a town hall at the Milbank Visitor Center), a request for Clinton staffers to get their receipts in order and turn them in, and a call for donors and supporters to attend her Tuesday night speech that at least one big dog at Huff’n'Puff thinks will be a concession and a declaration of support for Obama.
Those who say “Hell, no, she won’t go!” can point to calls by Clinton aides to take the fight to the convention. Well, perhaps there are other things they can point to…I’ll offer one theory on why Clinton might not quit so this side of the seesaw won’t be so light. Here goes: Clinton has a pile of campaign debt. After Tuesday, there are no more primaries, thus no big ad buys necessary. Might Clinton, a cynic might say, be staying in the race because her major expenditures are gone and she needs the flow of donor money to keep coming? I’m just saying…
Too cynical? Well, call me a cynic when in comes to the Clintons, more so than ever after reading this ripping takedown of Bill Clinton in Vanity Fair that has tongues wagging coast-to-coast:
Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton’s post–White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton’s medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say “no.”
…[A]mong the not-so-small cadre of Clinton friends and former aides, concern about the company the boss keeps is persistent, palpable, and pained. No former president of the United States has ever traveled with such a fast crowd, and most 61-year-old American men of Clinton’s generation don’t, either. “I just think those guys are radioactive,” one former aide to Clinton who is still in occasional affectionate touch with him told me recently, referring to [Ron] Burkle and (to a lesser extent) [Steve] Bing. “I stay far away from them.”
Another former aide, trusted by Clinton for his good judgment, said, “On the sort of money, women, all that stuff … I’m the bad guy. All this stuff is kept away from me. Whatever they’re doing, they definitely view me as somebody you cannot confide in.”
A longtime Clinton-watcher, who has had ties to the former president since his first campaign for governor of Arkansas, said of Clinton’s sometimes questionable associations, “I don’t know what to make of any of that, if it’s a voyeuristic experience, or if he’s participating in it.”
Yet another long-serving Clinton aide said simply, “If you figure it out, would you let me know?”
If you are the company you keep, then Bill Clinton is the first president to star in Girls Gone Wild…
If you be my bodyguard, I can be your long lost pal.
Hey, somebody caught the reference! A gold star for you…
Scatterlings and orphanages.
She may. I think it’s significant that her speech tonight is in New York, and not in either SD or MT.
However, given the size of the egos of both Bill and Hillary, I will never believe that she’s going to drop out until she has dropped out.
I do believe the campaign debt issue is not that big of one, due to the reason that you gave above, and that the Clintons have a pile of money they can loan the campaign should they so wish.
Personally, despite all indications otherwise, I wish she would drop out. I think Obama is by far the weaker candidate, and the sooner he’s anointed the nominee, the better, as far as Republican prospects go.
I posted as much right before the Indiana primary, if you recall.
Check out this great video post by the ACU. We need to fight back against this liberal agenda.
I am officially sad at the state of politics in this country.
Sad enough that I may vote for Barack Obama, even though I think he’s a disaster waiting to happen as a Presidential choice.
Apparently the “whitey” video does exist and will be released tomorrow at 9 am.
This is dirty and sleazy politics at its worst.
The blog with the info is overwhelmed right now so I can’t provide a working link, however it’s at http://noquarterusa.net. Reading just a few of the older posts demonstrate that this is a person that clearly will do anything to take down Obama.
Not that I mind seeing Obama taken down. He deserves it. The press has treated him as the Messiah for far too long.
But there’s plenty of room to take down Obama on his naiveté and his socialist/Marxist ideas. And for his foolishly trying to present himself as a “different kind of politician” when he clearly is not. (As if anyone could really believe a “different kind of politician” could come out of Chicago politics anyway–how stupid does he think we are?) We don’t have to resort to this. It’s despicable.
I’m truly depressed.
Looks like she’s going to drop out after tonight, which makes all Chris’s speculations moot.
It was fun.
You know, I understand it is really tacky to say this, but I must. Hillary was the last to acknowledge that Bill had had “sexual relations with that woman”, and she is the last to acknowledge that she lost to Obama, some time ago. It is pathetic and sad in a certain way, but it also indicative of the fact she would be a very poor leader.
Goodbye Hill, it’s been nice to know ya’.
I thought that Bill was the last?
I don’t know. I’m an admirer of the “never say die” attitude. And while she clearly lost all chances of winning the nomination outright several weeks ago, everything her campaign has been saying has been true. She is a better general election candidate than Obama, and she will end up with the lead in the popular vote (depending on what you do with caucus states, I know, yada, yada, yada). A significant point, given that one of Mark’s reasons for giving up on her so early was that there was no way the DNC could overturn a black man who was the popular vote winner.
Also, if the process was winner take all like the Republicans, she’d be the nominee.
Not that I’m in favor of changing the rules mid-stream (adamantly opposed to it as a matter of fact), but it does bear mentioning.
However, having said all that, I’m pretty sure I would’ve dropped out after NC and IN, if I were her. That was an awful day for the Hill.
You know, I’ve played soccer, competitively, all my life and have to say my lifetime win-loss record would be much better if some of those games were just a little longer.
She lost by the only measure that counts, and refused to admit it. There is something admirable in a no-quit attitude, but sooner or later refusing to acknowledge reality indicates delusion.
Chris, you’re being just as delusional as ever.
You can’t assert that if the contests were winner-take-all, or if the popular vote were the metric, that Obama would have run the exact same campaign. That makes those scenarios explicitly not worth mentioning.
Chris thinks Obama is a Marxist. I think delusional is probably putting it lightly.
Ryan,
I think if you can’t see that he’s a Marxist/socialist, then you probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote in November.
Fargus,
I’m not asserting anything. I am merely pointing out as always, that the statements that the Clinton campaign has been making are true. I pointed out that they’d start making them long before they ever did, and I’ve been right on every count. I’ve called every state correctly, with the exception of thinking that Indiana would have a much larger margin of victory for her than it did. Now, how exactly have I been delusional?
“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion” – Barack Obama, April 2008
“Religion is the opiate of the masses”, Karl Marx, 1843
The Trinity United Church espouses Black Liberation Theology – well known to be Marxist in nature, see Black Liberation Theology and Marxism
Obama says that the well-known Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis was a “decisive influence” on him. This is in his book and and has been documented by the Communist Party USA.
– Barack Obama, May 2008
Those are pretty words, and somehow uplifting in the “it takes a village” meme of uplifting, but the translation is simple. “Put away your childish thoughts of the American Dream. Serve the larger community. Share with the larger community.” Community is a big word in Marxism.
When running for state senate in 1996, Barack Obama sought and obtained the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America. In case you don’t know who they are, I’ll quote from their website: “The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA’s members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.”
So, he sought and received the endorsement of a group that wants to establish an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.
And, if you can stomach it, I highly suggest you read his entire “Blueprint for Change”, which is better described as a “Blueprint for Socialism”. I don’t need to quote from it. It speaks for itself.
Ryan, you’ve posted some crazy things here, and some things that are quite intelligent. But, if you can’t see that Barack Obama has a purely socialist agenda, then you’re living in Fantasyland. Now, if that’s ok with you, and you want a socialist agenda, that’s fine. You have that right. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that this man supports capitalism, free enterprise, small government or the individual.
Chris, your definitions of socialism and Marxism so strain credibility and the English language as to be useless. This is like my old assertions that Giuliani is a fascist (which I now recant, by the way). If Giuliani is a fascist, that takes a lot of sting out of Mussolini and Hitler, doesn’t it? Similarly, if Obama’s a Marxist, then the Soviet Union really wasn’t so bad, I guess.
Still, I’ll give you one more chance. Show me an example of how Obama’s agenda is “purely socialist”. Find me one instance where he openly advocates collective or government control of the means of production. Does he think Congress should be in charge of manufacturing cars and computers? Or, if you prefer Marxism, find me an example of Obama openly advocating the revolution of the proletariat. I am going to insist that words have meaning, so I want some evidence that Obama is somehow to the left of European social democracy, because socialism surely is. Failing that, which I’m sure you will, how about evidence that Obama is even as far left as European social democrats? Since he isn’t, that will also be difficult for you. But then again, you aren’t interested in actually debating anything. You’re just here to label everything to the left of the American center “socialist”, as if calling something socialism is a rational substitute for argument.
One more note: if, as I insist is true and am asking you to prove otherwise, Obama doesn’t think the state should be in charge of manufacturing cars, how does it follow that he doesn’t support capitalism or free enterprise?
As for small government, give it a rest. Conservatives had their chance and they manifestly blew it. You have zero credibility on that measure.
Ryan,
I salute you. You move the goalposts with the skills and abilities of a career politician. Have you considered running for office?
First, you take a ridiculously narrow definition of socialism that deals with one of Marx’s ten planks, and want me to use that as the only metric of whether someone promotes a socialist agenda. Then, that not being enough for you, you bring into the discussion European politics and ask me to justify a statement that I never made, that Obama is to the left of them, or even as far left as them. No thanks. I won’t defend your ridiculous statements. If you want someone to defend them, you’ll have to do that yourself.
It’s highly irrelevant where Obama’s policies fit in regards to European politics. I have not stated that Obama wants to turn the U.S. into a communist state in his first 100 days in office or anything ridiculous like that. I have merely stated factually that Obama’s views and policies are socialistic in nature. Or, simply put, an Obama Presidency would bring the country closer to being a socialistic state than it is now.
For the record, I don’t care if you support a socialist or someone who espouses socialistic policies. I don’t care if you support a fascist, or a racist, or a free marketeer or a communist. I don’t care if you support little green men from Mars. For now, it’s still a mostly free country, and you have the right to back whatever candidate you choose for whatever reasons you like. And, I will support those rights until my dying breath.
But, ignoring the truth, or misrepresenting it is foolish and dangerous.
So, support his socialistic ideas if you wish, but know and acknowledge what it is that you’re supporting.
Anyway, as I said, I won’t defend your ridiculous and irrelevant statements. I will defend mine, however, and have already.
If it walks like duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, etc…
And conservatives didn’t blow it on small government. Republicans did. Quite a difference.
Unfortunately.
So, I’ll keep my credibility on that, thank you very much.
Chris, if you think that a Marxist is ‘anyone who would “bring the country closer to being a socialistic state than it is now”‘, then you have drained the term of all analytical meaning.
And, if you’re going to use the epithet, “socialist” to denote anyone to the left of you on the political spectrum, you have rendered that term analytically useless, too.
Obama isn’t even particularly “left-wing”. His Senate voting record is well to the right of Hillary Clinton’s. (But I’ll be the first to admit that’s probably not a very good metric for judging someone’s policies as a Presidential candidate. Compare Obama with, say, Lyndon Johnson, and I think you’ll see the latter as someone considerably more willing to move the country leftward.)
Conservativism never fails. It can only be failed (by those who fail to live up to its ideals).
Sounds just like that other Co****ism.
Jacques, did you even bother to read my linked post on Obama’s views before you started insulting me?
I never said or even implied:
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have never done that with you, and it really lessens the impact of your point.
Conservatism often fails. But the failure to achieve one of its goals is not necessarily the fault of conservatives. It may be, as you imply, the failure of people to live up to its ideals, or, it may be that it’s not a reasonable goal, or it may be simply that Americans really don’t want small government.
Or it may be even simpler. Republicans aren’t Conservatives and don’t claim to be. They claim to hold some/many of their beliefs, but not all. That’s why there is a Conservative party in the United States (although you rarely hear about it). So, I’m often forced to vote for the next best thing, but I know that I may not be voting for someone who is truly a conservative. The same is true if you are a Marxist. Yes, there is the CPUSA, and they occasionally field candidates, and occasionally these candidates or the ones they endorse actually win. But, often, if you are a Communist and want to vote for someone who will promote that agenda, then you will have to choose another option.
Please don’t ever put words in my mouth again. Sorry to harp on it, but I really can’t express how insulting I found your post to be.