Olbermann on Clinton scandal

Powerful video!



Full transcript from MSNBC.

By way of necessary preface, President and Sen. Clinton, and the senator’s mother, and the senator’s brother, were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.

Also, I am not here endorsing Sen. Obama’s nomination, nor suggesting it is inevitable.

Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything.

Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become president.

Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president.

In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Sen. Obama.

You may think the matter has closed with Rep. Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation.

But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican.

As Shakespeare wrote, Senator, that way madness lies.

You have missed a critical opportunity to do what was right.

No matter what Ms. Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context.

She had made them on at least three separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning.

Just hours ago, on NBC Nightly News, she denied she had made the remarks in an interview; only at a paid political speech.

In fact, the first time she spoke them, was 10 days before the California newspaper published them, not in a speech, but in a radio interview.

On Feb. 26, “If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this, as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”

The context was inescapable.

Two minutes earlier, a member of Sen. Clinton’s Finance Committee, one of her “Hill-Raisers,” had bemoaned the change in allegiance by superdelegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama, and the endorsement of Obama by Sen. Dodd.

“I look at these guys doing it,” she had said, “and I have to tell you, it’s the guys sticking together.”

A minute after the “color” remarks, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket purely as a woman politician, purely to make history.

She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism and dismissing Sen. Obama’s candidacy as nothing more than an Equal Opportunity stunt.

The next day she repeated her comments to a reporter from the newspaper in Torrance, Calif.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

And when this despicable statement, ugly in its overtones, laughable in its weak grip of facts and moronic in the historical context, when it floats outward from the Clinton campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisers have their candidate do?

Do they have Sen. Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline on Jackie Robinson day about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executivesMost-Networked-Executives , while she points out that Barack Obama has not gotten his 1,600 delegates as part of some kind of affirmative action plan?

Do they have Sen. Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Sen. Obama’s while she points out that FDR had served only six years as a governor and state senator before he became president?

Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four-and-a-half years before the White House?

Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?

Or Richard Nixon, 14, and Calvin Coolidge, 25?

Do these advisers have Sen. Clinton invoke Samantha Power, gone by sunrise after she used the word “monster” and have Sen. Clinton say, “This is how I police my campaign, and this is what I stand for,” while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role in the campaign?

No.

Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.

And that she should then call them “regrettable,” a word that should make any Democrat retch.

And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to "stick to the issues," and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Sen. Obama’s fault.

And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Sen. Clinton’s campaign back into the vocabulary ... of David Duke.

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.

“Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.

“How’s that?”

How’s that?

Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNabb?

Apart from sounding exactly like what Ms. Ferraro said about another campaign, nearly 20 years ago?

“President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his ‘radical’ views, ‘if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.’”

So, apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old?

Apart from rendering ridiculous Sen. Clinton’s shell-game about choosing Obama as vice president?

Apart from this evening’s resignation letter?

“I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

“The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.”

Apart from all that?

Well. It sounds as if those advisers want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap, ignorant, vile racism that underlies every syllable.

And Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.

Sen. Clinton:This is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact.

This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Sen. Obama has not yet crossed the “commander-in-chief threshold.”

But he might be your choice to be vice president, even though a quarter of the previous sixteen vice presidents have become commander-in-chief during the greatest kind of crisis this nation can face: a mid-term succession.

But you’d only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.

But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become vice president, not president.

Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisers were not bad enough ...

Now, thanks to Geraldine Ferraro, and your campaign’s initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her, now more disturbing still is her claim that she can now “speak for herself” about her vision of Sen. Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota.

If you were to seek Obama as a vice president, it would be, to Ms. Ferraro, some kind of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make-good.

Do you not see, Senator?

To Sen. Clinton’s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and to her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness.

And worst yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns; a disturbing, but only borderline remark.

After what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the “3 A.M.” ad, a disturbing but only borderline interpretation ...

And after that moment’s hesitation in her own answer on 60 Minutes about Obama’s religion; a disturbing, but only borderline vagueness ...

After those precedents, there are those who see a pattern, false or true.

After those precedents, there are those who see an intent, false or true.

After those precedents, there are those who see the Clinton campaign’s anything-but-benign neglect of this Ferraro catastrophe, falsely or truly, as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice that still haunts this society voiced and to not distance the campaign from it.

To not distance you from it, Senator!

To not distance you from that which you as a woman, and Sen. Obama as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain!

Which you should both fight with all you have!

Which you should both ensure has no place in this contest!

This, Sen. Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.

Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.

Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.

Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable.

Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee and insist she will continue to speak.

Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the former congresswoman is speaking with your approval.

You must remedy this.

And you must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro.

Good Night and Good Luck

Hillary Clinton 3am Phone Ad

Check it out, we've all heard the ad. How many times does this phone ring at 3am?

6 times?



No answering machine?

No bumbling for the phone at 3am? We've all done it! Phone rings in the middle of the night and we stumble around for the phone, drop it off the side of the bed etc...

Seriously, the phone rings 6 times.

Answer it already!

Bluestem Prairie on Clinton event invites

Anyone else catch this?

Apparently, Ollie got an email for the Hillary event today from Andy O'Leary but nothing on the Obama or Edwards events.

Very peculiar...

Hillary Clinton trying to steal the election?

Interesting, posted at the CD 6 listserv as well, I am sure it will be met with strong resistance.

Hello All,

I want to call your attention to something rather ALARMING (but not surprising) that is happening presently. I'm writing this to all of you because I feel it needs further investigation and MAJOR exposure:

In much the same fashion that Bush & the RNC stole the Presidential elections in 2000 (Florida) & 2004 (Ohio), Clinton and the DNC are straight up stealing the Democratic Nomination in 2008. Now that Kucinich is out of the race there is no one to "keep them honest" (not that he had much luck getting the word out himself). If any of you have been following this sad excuse for a democracy, you may know that Obama has actually received the majority of the delegates from the 4 states that have voted (and had their delegates counted).

The current delegate breakdown is this: 63 - Obama / 48 - Clinton / 26 - Edwards (and yeah, I know that Clinton has more pledged superdelegates).So here's the deal (forgive me if I am going over material you already know here), the DNC punishes Michigan and Florida for pushing up their primary dates by stripping their delegates. As I understand it, the final decision to move the Michigan primary up falls to their governor who openly endorses Clinton repeatedly. The DNC tells candidates to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan. Obama & Edwards file to remove their names from the ballot, Clinton does not. The DNC then makes the Dem candidates pledge not to campaign in Michigan. The primary is panned by the press as "a beauty contest," it is written up as if there has been NO MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY at all, only a Republican primary. Clinton gets 55% of the "vote" in the most economically devastated industrial state in the country. Voters CANNOT EVEN WRITE IN Obama or Edwards as they did not file to be write in candidates (what kind of fucking law is that?). They are urged by those two campaigns to vote "uncommitted." Uncommitted gets 40% of the vote.

Just days before the Florida contest (with Clinton leading the polls 2:1), where again the candidates have pledged not to campaign, Clinton begins to give speeches calling for the delegates from Michigan and Florida to be restored. Various Democrats who have endorsed Clinton are doing the same, throwing words like voter "disenfranchisement" around, now the DNC (and Clinton) have insured that her delegate numbers in these two states will far outweigh Obama's results (indeed in Michigan she could have a clean sweep of ALL of the delegates...). Tonight, after winning Florida, she will make a speech (from Florida) calling for the restoration of the Michigan and Florida delegates. She will make a big show of it, as if she is advocating for the voting rights of these people, when in fact it is the DNC and her own campaign that has systematically disenfranchised these voters. Any move by the Obama campaign to stop this process will be written up to implicate them (shady as their tactics have been) in taking away these people's right to vote.

The bottom line: Michigan has 156 delegates, Florida has 210.TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DELEGATES FROM THE FIRST FOUR ELECTIONS/CAUCUSES.Clearly winning these two states with a handy majority will give Clinton an advantage that may be impossible to overcome.

I have no intention of voting for any of these bastards, BUT if the DNC and Clinton ARE stealing this election and no one is even going to point out the truth? Well, it's going to be A LOT HARDER TO MAKE ANYTHING STICK ONCE THEY ARE IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOLKS...

So WHAT are we going to do about it?

Peace - Thomas Gallagher
www.forthposition.com
www.koo-sin-ich.comps.

Here's a few links to articles about Clinton calling for the delegates to be restored:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080125/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_florida_delegates;_ylt=At7Kaxdn8ChISx9pZGz8HIWs0NUE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080128/pl_nm/usa_politics_florida_d_ylt=Agsu9Fmfjfr6Rx07B19Dh.ms0NUE

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/floridas-democratic-delegate-mess/

Kucinich rips Edwards and Clinton

"Politics is not about power. Politics is not about money. Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about the improvement of people's lives. It's about advancing the cause of peace and justice in our country and the world. Politics is about doing well for the people."

Paul Wellstone

Perhaps those in the lead for the Democratic nomination for President should reflect back upon these words. Clinton and Edwards both served with the great Senator from Minnesota and perhaps some humility is in order now.

Dennis Kucinich ripped Hillary Clinton and Jphn Edwards yesterday for their plot to exclude other Presidential candidates from future debates.

"This is a serious matter and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich, an Ohio
congressman, said in a telephone interview Friday. "Whispering, trying to rig an
election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a
consistent lack of integrity."

Kucinich's rant came after Clinton and Edwards were caught after a NAACP forum in Detroit, conspiring to exclude the likes of Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and others from future debates.

"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said, and Clinton agreed.

"Our guys should talk," Clinton said, complaining the format had "trivialized" the discussion.

Trivialized the discussion? I think answering questions in a debate by stating "I do not engage in hypothetical questions", trivializes debates, much like Hillary Clinton did in a recent debate.

When confronted, Clinton passed the buck.

"I think he has some ideas about what he'd like to do," she said, adding she liked participating in the forums.

Edwards back pedaled.

Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly. "The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us," he said.

Check out the video of the forum. Go about 55 seconds into the video and you be the judge of what Clinton and Edwards are talking about.



Sounds like Clinton and Edwards are attempting to create their own Roman Triumvirate.

What modern scholars call the First Triumvirate was an informal political alliance of two rival generals, Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great representing the popular viz. senatorial party, with the extremely wealthy businessman Marcus Licinius
Crassus. This fell apart after the death of Crassus, and the two other triumvirs fought a civil war, during which Pompey was killed and Caesar established his sole rule as perpetual dictator.

The discussion of Clinton and Edwards tactics reminds me of Joe Bodell's discussion of progressive vs. liberal, posted at Minnesota Campaign Report.

Walz is a moderate Democrat and Ellison a more classic liberal. What unites them is their progressive streaks -- each publicly puts the interests of the people he represents above those of omnipresent lobbyists and monied special interests.

Minnesota Progressives in the mold of Paul Wellstone. Clinton and Edwards are neither progressive nor liberal, by most standards.

Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd blasted Clinton and Edwards as well.

"Celebrity and money are not going to decide this race," he said. "People take some offense at it in these early primary and caucus states."

Candidates like Clinton and Edwards want true progressives like Kucinich and Richardson excluded from future debates because they pose questions and provide responses that seek to hold candidates accountable for their voting record and other actions.

When Congressman Kucinich, who was right about the war in Iraq long before it even started, questions Clinton and Edwards on their voting record, they become uneasy.

It's much easier for them to exclude true progressives than to answer tough questions. By doing so, they can continue the trend of "cookie cutter" debates, which do nothing for Americans who actually want to make a choice before the 2008 elections, and not have the outcome already decided.