Is it just me or was Hillary’s exit completely ungracious? What does she mean by “suspend” her campaign?
Eh…she’s out. I will try not to talk bad about her anymore and just move foward.
Yes We CAN!
Is it just me or was Hillary’s exit completely ungracious? What does she mean by “suspend” her campaign?
Eh…she’s out. I will try not to talk bad about her anymore and just move foward.
Yes We CAN!
It’s finally over, I think… Barack Obama has clinched the democratic nomination for President of The United States of America. It’s a historic moment, almost unbelievable for some who were holding their breath for the seemingly inevitable to be “stolen” away. As I watched the speeches from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I couldn’t help but notice an underlying theme in both speeches. In Hillary’s speech, the emphasis was on her, with her supporters chanting “Yes She Can” (among other things). Others reported that this was her night and she needed to wind down her campaign in her own way. I didn’t think she would concede, but at least use the opportunity to make her pitch to unequivocally unite the democratic party. Instead, she seemed to again build her case about why she should be President. I thought her speech was great on a lot of levels and I respect her perseverance in the whole thing. I do not, however, respect the missed opportunity to achieve a greater goal. She allowed a huge opportunity to focus on the future of the party to get away and encourage her supporters to tell her what to do next, via her website. Come on now, like she really expects them to tell her to concede.
In contrast, Barack’s speech was full of expressed respect for Hillary and all the other democratic candidates. He spoke in great length about Hillary and Bill and their collective contributions to America. His fans were cheering, “Yes We Can”. He barely said anything about himself. He didn’t even acknowledge being the first African-American candidate to lead any major party in a presidential election. He stressed how we are Americans first and how that supersedes race, gender, Republicans and Democrats. (Damn, he’s inspiring…) His speech was so unifying that it magnified just how divisive Hillary’s was.
If Hillary’s speech was an effort to force Barack’s hand into making her Vice-President, she has no idea of how to ask nicely. If she really wanted to be Vice-President, (assuming she’s not going to campaign until Denver for the presidency) she should have been beyond gracious in her speech toward Barack and spoke in ways that respect his victory and the importance of pulling the party together. I think it’s called humility. Unfortunately, humility takes all the attention away from her. Sad…
ABC News is reporting that racism and potential security issues are emerging as factors in the race to the White House for the Obama campaign. When I heard Hillary Clinton’s comments on Bobby Kennedy’s murder and the 1968 election the first thing I thought about was the same thing happening to Barack. Oh Lord, for her sake I hope it doesn’t happen (and of course for his too. LOL). People will be saying she called for the hit…she had something to do with it…just because of that comment. She actually said it more than once. Hillary was quoted in Time Magazine saying the same thing (saw it on CNN when they interviewed her campaign manager).
In recent weeks, the role of race in the Democratic primaries has been increasingly discussed. And while racist caricatures and jokes about threats against Obama’s life have been widely condemned, they seem to reflect an undeniable element of racism that still exists in the country and could play an unknown role in a general election.
“There is no question that the possibility of violence directed at presidential candidates, especially Obama, is the elephant in the middle of the room,” says Peter Fenn, adjunct professor of political management at George Washington University, to describe the media’s careful coverage of the issue. “There is a hypersensitivity about this issue. And in one sense, there should be because you don’t want to put the idea out there. But you also get overanalysis, like with Hillary’s comments about RFK [Robert F. Kennedy].”
Fifty-nine percent of Americans (and 83 percent of African-Americans) said they were concerned “that someone might attempt to physically harm Barack Obama if he’s the Democratic nominee for president,” according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll from March 2. Twenty-four percent of those polled said they were “very concerned” about that possibility.
You know, I didn’t really know what to make of Hillary Clinton’s latest ill-advised comments. It’s been a long race and it’s easy to slip up and say something innocent, but damaging if taken the wrong way, so I didn’t want to jump to conclusions. The below article is a very interesting take on the whole thing. Either she didn’t know the time lines of the democratic elections she was referencing or she took a serious shot at Obama (no pun intended)…
Clinton’s Grim Scenario
(The Washington Post) – If this campaign goes on much longer, what will be left of Hillary Clinton?
A woman uniformly described by her close friends as genuine, principled and sane has been reduced to citing the timing of Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination as a reason to stay in the race — an argument that is un-genuine, unprincipled and insane. She vows to keep pushing, perhaps all the way to the convention in August. What manner of disintegration is yet to come?
For anyone who missed it, Clinton was pleading her cause before the editorial board of the Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader on Friday. Rejecting calls to drop out because her chances of winning have become so slight, she said the following: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it.”
The point isn’t whether you take Clinton at her word that she didn’t actually mean to suggest that someone — guess who? — might be assassinated. The point is: Whoa, where did that come from?
Setting aside for the moment the ugliness of Clinton’s remark, just try to make it hold together. Clinton’s basic argument is that attempts to push her out of the race are hasty and premature, since the nomination sometimes isn’t decided until June. She cites two election years, 1968 and 1992, as evidence — but neither is relevant to 2008 because the campaign calendar has been changed.
In 1968, the Democratic race kicked off with the New Hampshire primary on March 12; when Robert Kennedy was killed, the campaign was not quite three months old. In 1992, the first contest was the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 10; by the beginning of June, candidates had been battling for about 3 1/2 months — and it was clear that Bill Clinton would be the nominee, though he hadn’t technically wrapped it up.
This year, the Iowa caucuses were held on Jan. 3, the earliest date ever. Other states scrambled to move their contests up in the calendar as well. When June arrives, the candidates will have been slogging through primaries and caucuses for five full months — a good deal longer than in those earlier campaign cycles.
So Clinton’s disturbing remark wasn’t wishful thinking — as far as I know (to quote Clinton herself, when asked earlier this year about false rumors that her opponent Barack Obama is a Muslim). Clearly, it wasn’t logical thinking. It can only have been magical thinking, albeit not the happy-magic kind.
Clinton has always claimed to be the cold-eyed realist in the race, and at one point maybe she was. Increasingly, though, her words and actions reflect the kind of thinking that animates myths and fairy tales: Maybe a sudden and powerful storm will scatter my enemy’s ships. Maybe a strapping woodsman will come along and save the day. Continue reading
Presidential Hopeful Apologizes For Comments By Her Husband And Geraldine Ferraro
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., makes a campaign stop at a National Newspaper Publishers Association event at the Washington Hilton in Washington, Wednesday, March 12, 2008. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(CBS/AP) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did something Wednesday night that she almost never does.
And once she started, she didn’t seem able to stop.
The New York senator, who is tight race with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, struck several sorry notes at an evening forum sponsored by the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a group of more than 200 black community newspapers across the country.
Her biggest apology came in response to a question about comments by her husband, Bill Clinton, after the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily. Bill Clinton said Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina when he ran for president in 1984 and 1988, a comment many viewed as belittling Obama’s success.
“I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive,” Hillary Clinton said. “We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama.”
“Anyone who has followed my husband’s public life or my public life know very well where we have stood and what we have stood for and who we have stood with,” she said, acknowledging that whoever wins the nomination will have to heal the wounds of a bruising, historic contest.
“Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee,” she said. Continue reading
“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.”
This is the insinuating quote from Geraldine Ferraro, former member of The US House of Representatives and the first and only woman to represent a major US political party as a candidate for Vice-President, that is the current talk around water coolers in America. She was also apart of the finance committee for the Hillary Clinton campaign. One of the greatest offenses I feel regarding this statement is the notion that Hillary Clinton is somehow clearly deserving of the presidency of The United States of America, and Barack Obama is just some “problem” on her way to her predestined appointment. From allowing one of your team members to say such things (reminiscent of what Geraldine said when Jesse Jackson ran for President) as well as demoting the current front-runner in the democratic election by suggesting he be your Vice-President, Hillary has clearly brought to the surface her sense of entitlement. Maybe if Hillary weren’t a woman AND married to Bill Clinton, we wouldn’t be talking about her so much and she may not be in the race for The White House. Truth is, there are a myriad of reasons why people are drawn to different candidates, some political and some otherwise. However, to assume that Obama’s only draw is that he’s black and a man and to think that being a woman and married to former President Bill Clinton has nothing to do with Hillary’s appeal is a bit presumptuous. And what exactly did Geraldine mean when she questioned whether a woman of any color would be in the same position in the race as Barack???
The FULL interview is below. She had a lot to say…
Note: Ferraro: My comment wasn’t racist, it was a fact – Hot off the presses from CNN Political Ticker
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said what is just evident. There can be no dream ticket (Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama) and it’s Hillay Clinton’s fault. I’m not blaming Hillary for being in it to win it, however her foresight is rather blury. You can’t in one breath totally discredit your opponent by suggesting the republican nominee would be a better President and then suggest he could be your Vice-President (though Barack’s the one leading in the delegate count!). McCain doesn’t have to campaign against either of them at this point. Hillary’s already done it.
Yeah, this is just going to be an ugly, ugly, race to the finish. Samantha Power, one of Barack Obama’s top foreign policy advisers called Hillary Clinton a “monster” and was quoted in a Scottish newspaper. You can’t get ‘real’ in front of the press and hope it doesn’t come out. They are not your friends…
Posted: 10:45 AM ETAn advisor to Obama was quoted calling Clinton a monster.
(CNN)— One of Barack Obama’s top foreign policy advisers apologized late Thursday after a Scottish newspaper quoted her as calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.”
“It is wrong for anyone to pursue this campaign in such negative and personal terms,” Samantha Power, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of government and an adviser to Obama said in a statement. “I apologize to Senator Clinton and to Senator Obama, who has made very clear that these kinds of expressions should have no place in American politics.”
Power’s apology came shortly after the The Scotsman newspaper published an article in which she makes the characterization (a comment she immediately tried to retract), and suggested the New York senator is trying to deceive voters.
“She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Power was quoted as saying.
“You just look at her and think, ‘Ergh,’ ” Power also said. “But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.”
Power also said the Obama campaign “f***** (fucked…CNN couldn’t write that) up in Ohio.” Clinton beat Obama by 10 percentage points in Ohio on Tuesday.
“In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win,” Powers said.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton distanced the campaign from the remarks, saying in a statement that the Illinois senator “decries such characterizations which have no place in this campaign.”
The interview came the same day a top Clinton adviser compared Obama’s recent actions to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, who prosecuted the Clintons while Bill Clinton was in the White House in the 1990s.
“After a campaign in which many of the questions that voters had in the closing days centered on concerns that they had over his state of preparedness to be commander in chief and steward of the economy, he has chosen instead of addressing those issues to attack Senator Clinton,” Clinton’s communications director Howard Wolfson said on a conference call with reporters Thursday morning. “I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president.”
Obama’s campaign quickly denounced that comment.
UPDATE: On a Friday morning conference call with reporters, the Clinton campaign called on Obama to end Power’s role with the campaign. “Personal attacks are not the way to convince voters that you’re capable of being president of the United States,” said New York Rep. Nita Lowey, a Clinton supporter. “We’re calling on Senator Obama to make it very clear that Samantha Power should not be part of this campaign.”
According to the below article (thanks to Big Man for posting this), it appears that it was Clinton’s campaign, and not Obama’s that made the comments regarding the renegotiation of the NAFTA agreement that some say cost Obama votes in Ohio and Texas.
PM’s top aide set off storm with Obama NAFTA leak
Source of initial tip revealed after Harper vows to investigate ‘unacceptable’ act
March 6, 2008
OTTAWA — The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed yesterday to use whatever investigative means necessary to find the source of leaks that, he said, were “unfair” to U.S. Democratic candidate Barack Obama and may have been illegal – although opposition leaders insisted the Conservatives cannot be trusted to investigate political players on their own team.
But the story that reverberated through the U.S. presidential campaign began as a terse, almost throwaway remark that Mr. Brodie made to journalists from CTV, according to people familiar with the events.
Mr. Brodie, during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.
Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.
The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign called and was “telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.”
The story was followed by CTV’s Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton’s, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report.
There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. CTV president Robert Hurst declined to comment. Continue reading
The term ‘superdelegates’ reminds me of superman and the legion of superheroes… Anyway, is it me, or does is seem like the rifts in the black community are always on display for everyone to see? I wonder if the pro-Clinton Black superheroes, I mean superdelegates, will do as the rest of Black America and slowly move their support to Obama. Maybe that will be the subject of the next skit on Saturday Night Live…
CLEVELAND — Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones doesn’t care to be lectured about her choice in the Democratic presidential race. The 58-year-old congresswoman from Ohio has emerged as one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s most outspoken black supporters, the rare African American politician willing to publicly question Sen. Barack Obama‘s readiness for the White House.
Tubbs Jones has picked apart his record in campaign conference calls and lambasted the “Harvard arrogance” of Obama backers who have demanded that African American leaders fall in behind the senator from Illinoisin his quest to become the nation’s first black president.While Obama’s candidacy has often united blacks and whites at the ballot box, it has driven a wedge through the black political establishment, exposing a rift between a new generation, whose members see their political horizons as limitless, and their predecessors, who have struggled to establish a following outside of heavily African American areas.Tubbs Jones is pushing back hard against the kind of pressure that has come down on Rep. John Lewis(Ga.) and other black Democratic superdelegates who are being pressed to back Obama’s candidacy.”I say shame on anyone who’s engaged in that conduct, to put that kind of pressure on John Lewis,” Tubbs Jones said. “I’m not trying to be a martyr. I think Senator Clinton is the best candidate. And the beauty of the United States of America is you have the right to have your opinion, and I have the right to my opinion.”
“I’m not going to succumb to that kind of pressure,” she added. “If I change my mind, it will be because Senator Clinton said, ‘Stephanie, let’s make a move.’”
Superdelegates, a collection of 796 officeholders and party leaders, will make up about a fifth of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention in August. Unlike “pledged” delegates, they are free to support any candidate they like, and this year they are under increasing pressure to reject the role of kingmaker.
Some have already gotten the message. Until last week, Lewis was one of Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, an icon from the civil rights movement whose endorsement last fall was a major coup, underscoring the strong bonds between the Clintons and many African American leaders.
Lewis described his defection as more anguishing than his decision to lead the “Bloody Sunday” march in 1965 from Selma to Montgomery, Ala., when he was nearly beaten to death. In a statement issued last week, he explained that he viewed Obama’s campaign as “the beginning of a new movement in American political history” and that he wanted “to be on the side of the people.” Continue reading