Clinton Camp Stressed Out

-

Just heard from a friend in New Hampshire listening to Bill Clinton that he was very negative and very defensive — blaming the press for the outcome in Iowa and for ganging up on his wife.
What happened to the Bill Clinton who was allegedly encouraging an optimistic campaign?
I’m hearing from too many sources to mention that tensions are high and emotions brittle in the Clinton camp.
I find it strange because in contrast to the scrambling and grimacing among some of the insiders, some other of the seasoned advisers and proprietors of Hillaryland I have talked to or seen are level-headed, ready to fight on, and say in a nonplussed way that they always expected this to be a long-ish marathon.
But with some of the others, they are acting as if “the wheels are coming off.”
— Steve Clemons

Comments

42 comments on “Clinton Camp Stressed Out

  1. daCascadian says:

    I think most of you folks need to move your view of the world out of junior high school and into the real world.
    No one can get to the pinnacle of political power w/o being a sell out. PERIOD
    GROW UP !
    The reason is that the vast majority of the people living here are scared of their own shadows and are afraid of raising their voice not to mention they wouldn`t recognize the truth if it ran over them.
    No one is allowed to speak the truth because it might offend someone somewhere, somehow.
    Think I`m wrong ?
    HA !
    Look up thread & note how no one wants to even think about porn much less allow the term to be used.
    Get Off Your High Horses before it is too late.
    Pride goeth before the fall & you folks are setting yourself up for a real big one.
    “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” – Mark Twain

    Reply

  2. Robert M says:

    Kathleen And Arthur
    It isn’t lazy thinking or repugnant thinking. Nor do I make of the Clintons anything less than contempt for them personally.
    I do think that most people have had enough of both the Bush’s and the Clinton’s. It is a domestic war that can only be resolved with both families out of the White House. The Bush’s deliberate destruction of the Constitution; their desire to enforce orthodoxy off the party over debate and consensus(shared by the Clinton’s); the “Gott mitt uns” theology of political thought(also shared by the Clinton’s; the Narcissism of Bill Clinton(can you really imagine he can stay on message or not give anyone the impression I can control the “little woman” if he were allowed to speak in private for Hillary?).
    As for hyperbole Arthur go have a discussion about pornography and see where it leads you.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Linda,,,, nonsense…there is no greater duty of Congress than to defend our Constitution from domestic enemies who circumvent our Consitutional processes and subvert our form of government. That is what their oath of office specifies is their duty. Investigstion are how you get the votes or force the resignations. Clinton’s impeachment failed because it was not justified.. it was ludicrous.
    Robert M,,, again why are Repugs so obsessed with other people’s crotches? Everybody does not love pornography and have some secret favorites,, speak for yourself. Repugs always project their own kinkiness on to others, as Larry Flynt so ironically showed us.

    Reply

  4. Kathleen says:

    Articles of Impeachment must start in the House, but Senators can call for investigations of potential impeachable offenses and for an Independent Counsel, like formner Senator Lowell Weicker, R.CT. did when Nixon was President. This is what forced Nixon’s resignation.
    This is what we need now.. an Independent Counsel on the CIA Tapes for starters.

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But by your standards, then let’s say 400 members of the House have violated their oath of office.”
    Yes they have. Your point?
    “I haven’t heard Clinto, Dodd, Biden, Kennedy or any other Democrats in the Senate propose impeaching Bush–nor did Edwards when he was in the Senate. So I think they all are equally to blame, especially those who voted in 2002 to give Bush the power to do what he did. So why pick on Obama?”
    You must not have read 99.9 percent of my posting, where I hold ALL these personages responsible for failing to do their sworn duty of holding this Administration accountable. Surely you aren’t insinuating that I have ignored Hillary when choosing individual targets for my derision? I am not “picking on” Obama. He happens to be the issue at the moment, so that is the focus of my commentary.
    …”and I think you will hear Obama (or whomever the Demoractic nominee is) run very much against he entire Bush record when it is that person against the Republican nominee who is going to have to defend it to some degree as they all appear to be doing.”
    Sorry, but I refuse to base my opinion of a candidate on some sort of prescient wishful thinking. My problem with Obama has already been sown by his very real past inaction and his actual statements, that you seem quite willing to ignore in your quest for a White Knight that seems to be a complete and utter figment of your imagination.
    “It’s not a perfect world or a perfect country by any means, but I’d like in my old age to at least feel that it still is better than all the others.”
    Well, such a fantasy is not exactly condusive to the actual hard work and dissension that is required to make it so. (Such as employing the very checks and balances the founding fathers invisioned would enable us to fulfill your fantasy.)
    Now, back to the basic crux of the issue, which you seem to be dancing around……
    Do you agree with Obama that George Bush has not committed impeachable grave and intentional breeches of his presidential authority?
    Or do you only disagree with Obama’s statement when some criminal piece of crap like Gonzales is mouthing such nonsense?

    Reply

  6. Linda says:

    POA,
    I do like you better when you are more calm and reasoned and less bombastic. First of all, there are 435 members of the House of Represenatives, and that’s where impeachment articles have to start. So Kuchinich and Conyers are in at least the right place to start it, and whatever few other very liberal Democrats agree with them. But by your standards, then let’s say 400 members of the House have violated their oath of office.
    So Obama really doesn’t get to do anything about it until articles of impeachment have been passed, and Bush would be tried in the Senate. I haven’t heard Clinto, Dodd, Biden, Kennedy or any other Democrats in the Senate propose impeaching Bush–nor did Edwards when he was in the Senate. So I think they all are equally to blame, especially those who voted in 2002 to give Bush the power to do what he did. So why pick on Obama?
    They all are politicians–make no mistake about that–and I think you will hear Obama (or whomever the Demoractic nominee is) run very much against he entire Bush record when it is that person against the Republican nominee who is going to have to defend it to some degree as they all appear to be doing. Every one of them has endorsed invading Iraq and is only willing to blame Rumsfeld.
    I’m probably as cynical as you are because I believe that if I support Obama and he gets the nomination and wins as President, within two years and surely within four years, I will be as disappointed with him as I’ve been with every single Democrat I voted for since JFK.
    It’s not a perfect world or a perfect country by any means, but I’d like in my old age to at least feel that it still is better than all the others.
    It’s a shame and sad that the pendulum had to swing so far that this country violated its own treaties and the Geneva Conventions. But the Rovian Republican majority for eternity is now broken. The glass at least is half full.

    Reply

  7. arthurdecco says:

    Do you have anything substantive to add to the conversation Robert M, or just more of the same old same old pathetic anti-Hilary frothing at the mouth?
    Ms. Clinton has indeed some disturbing baggage that she brings with her in her pursuit of the Presidency, but “Hilary Clinton is like pornography”, is a statement that could only be made by a foolish and lazy thinker.
    Could it hurt you to develop some perspective and restraint and perhaps the ability to present facts in lieu of hyperbole?

    Reply

  8. Robert M says:

    Hillary Clinton is like pornography. Everyone loves it. There is a piece or two kept in the privacy of their home they enjoy in private.Its kept in private because of how divisive it is; How uncomfortable we are in having one know about our pleasures.
    Hillary is the public view of pornography. You know it when you see it. She has been caught trying to carry it publicly into the White House and very few of us want to see it there.

    Reply

  9. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Linda….
    Has George Bush committed “grave and intentional breeches of his presidential authority” or not? If your answer is yes, than you would seem to have more respect for the Constitution than Barack Obama does.
    Thats all you need to know when considering Obama’s candidacy. If Obama felt that imnpeachment would be too divisive and destructive at this time, there are certainly better ways to get that across than to publically deny the gravity of Bush’s crimes.
    Of course, I believe that Obama knows full well that Bush has committed crimes that rise to the level of impeachable breeches of authority. Which means his statement was a deception, designed to mask his own failure to abide by his oath of office. To admit that Bush has committed impeachable offenses would MANDATE that Obama act in accordance with our Constitution and his oath of office. Obama simply sidestepped his sworn duty, and justified it with transparent doublespeak that a babbling idiot could see through.
    Screw him. He’s an embarrassment to our democracy, and just another posturing piece of shit that will say anything to get in office.

    Reply

  10. Linda says:

    I personally agree with Kuchinich more than any other candidate. He was right as Mayor in Cleveland not to allow the public electric company to be privatized,and it took many years before he was vindicated for that position. But he never had a chance to be the nominee. I like Conyers too. But in the past couple of years, it would be terribly disruptive to try to impeach Bush, and the Democrats would not have succeeded anyhow–even though there surely were grounds for impeachment–a lot more than for Clinton–and there were moderate Republicans that voted against impeachment of Clinton. I just don’t think it would have been a wise or practical thing to do, especially when we had military being killed overseas. It might make us laugh and feel good, but it would not have helped.
    Furthermore, if Bush were impeached, then Cheney would be President. And if both of them were impeached, then Nancy Pelosi would be President. That wasn’t going to happen.
    I do assume that Obama knows more about the Constitution than any of us commenting here and than any other of the candidates of either party as he is the only one who has taught it in a major law school. I can only guess that he agrees with Ron Paul about all the unconstitutional wars we’ve fought since WWII. It makes a lot of political sense not to yell loudly about that now.
    I blame every Democrat who was there in Congress and voted in fall 2002 to give Bush the power to go to war. That even included my Congressman at the time, Henry Waxman. I now live in a red state, but I have a Congressman who almost always votes the way I want him to, John Lewis (though I don’t agree with his supporting Hillary). And I also blame everybody who voted for the Patriotic Act–and Democrats who voted for the Bush tax cuts. Obama was on record as being against the war–so I can only assume that had he been in Congress he would have voted against going to war as the most liberal Democrats did.
    I listened to both debates tonight, and the format was the best of any of them. I even liked Hillary a little more. The strongest impression I had is that I’d vote for any of the Democrats whether I liked them or not. The Republicans (except for Ron Paul who is right on the war and wrong on everything else) are going to run on fear and for the war. There will be a real choice. And there is a better chance to bet a veto-proof Democratic Congress.

    Reply

  11. Sandy says:

    Look, I’m old. I’ve been married 45 years now to my beloved husband. But I can’t help it (confession alert), I have a crush on POA….or his writing any way. No one else makes me laugh out loud as consistently as he does. Delightful. Thanks, POA!
    “We are a nation of idiots.” Yes.

    Reply

  12. Kathleen says:

    Hillary voted Yes on Kyl-Lieberman, showing she learned nothing from her faulty vote on Iraq,,,Obama skipped the vote… neither works for me.
    I’m grateful to Kucinich for being what I consider to be right on the issues important to me, but I don’t see how he can get past the media’s blind eye, so I’m looking at Richardson a little more closely now.

    Reply

  13. MarkL says:

    I like Hillary a lot, but the “inevitability” talk was a mistake, for which she is paying now.
    She will have to fight harder to win votes now, and that is a good development. She needs to make a better case to pick her over Obama. I want to see what she comes up with.

    Reply

  14. S Brennan says:

    POA,
    I agree with your take on Obama carrying out his sworn duties as a US senator, in fact, he’s missed so many votes I’m surprised he has the “audacity” to mention his senate experience on his resume.

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Despite the FACT that Ron Paul placed above Rudy Guillianni in the Iowa Caucus, has set fundraising records, and leads many of the mainstream candidates in respected polls, Fox News is still refusing to allow Ron Paul to participate in it’s January sixth debate. Considering that Obama is a 100% media created sensation that has done absolutely NOTHING, and the media’s purposeful exclusion of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul from equal media exposure throughout this so-called “democratic process”, how can anyone of even minimal intelligence fail to recognize that it is the corporate media that is choosing our next president for us? No matter what candidate you support, if you have not notified Fox News and made them aware that their efforts to manipulate and influence the electoral process and its outcome are anti-american and CANNOT be tolerated or condoned, then you are failing in your responsibility as a citizen. Period. Do we really want the media controlling our electoral process, and censoring the views and positions of viable candidates?
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010408_beyond_joke.htm
    Ron Paul: Fox News Is “Beyond A Joke”
    Presidential candidate slams decision to exclude him from forum
    Speaking to The Alex Jones Show today, presidential candidate Ron Paul commented on the controversy surrounding his exclusion from a Fox News January 6th presidential forum by encouraging supporters to keep up the pressure on the network to reverse their decision and slamming the network’s claim of being fair and balanced as “beyond a joke”.
    “People are outraged and a lot of them are coming to our defense including the Republican Party up there so we haven’t heard the last word about that yet,” said Paul.
    The Congressman identified the main reason for his exclusion as Fox News’ fear that he would express strong anti-war opinions, which they see as a “threat” when coming from the most conservative member of the house.
    (Article continues below)
    “They have to realize that what the numbers are and if it’s hurting them, if it’s not in their interests I think they’re in a bind, I don’t think they have any easy way out and they dug themselves into this situation so hopefully they wake up and realize that they have to come around to be much more fair and balanced, it’s gone beyond a joke for them to advertise they’re fair and balanced when they’re just the opposite,” said the Congressman.
    Discussing the broader success of the campaign, Paul said, “Everybody’s upbeat and they wanna win but they are also very realistic to know what is the future regardless of what’s gonna happen….how can we keep working this, how can we keep our group together….I think we’ve really opened the eyes of a lot of people so there’s reason to be optimistic,” said Paul.
    The Congressman added that the New World Order must be defeated not with weapons but with ideas and that the movement which he is now the figurehead for is much larger than he ever dreamed it would be.
    “Most people thought that you’d have to be part of the establishment to get money and support but the supporters have proven that not only will they work hard and go out and do the legwork that is necessary but they’ll also send in the money and they’ll also be very creative,” added Paul.

    Reply

  16. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I just think he’d do a less bad or better job, and I think he’d choose a really good Attorney General and respect the Constitution.”
    Why in God’s name do you expect him to “respect the Constitution” when he refuses to recognize Bush’s actions as constituting “grave and intentional breeches of the Presidents authority”?
    It seems like some of you are so disillusioned that you are willing to fantacize about positions you WISH your candidate held, then you convince yourselves that the candidate does in fact hold those positions, then you proceed to tell us that that is in fact the candidate’s position.
    The TRUTH is that Obama has publically made a statement that is exactly POLAR to the position you ascribe to him. The FACT is that Obama has been COMPLETELY ABSENT from the efforts of Kucinich and Conyers to hold this administration accountable for using our Constitution as toilet paper. I challenge you to provide me with one single FACTUAL account of efforts that Obama has made to hold this administratuion accountable for its crimes against the Constitution, the American people, and international law.

    Reply

  17. JohnH says:

    BTW, Krugman addresses what should be on America’s foreign policy agenda. It all seems pretty much off the radar of the candidates and the foreign policy mafia:
    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/04/6179/
    He calls for hiring good negotiators, not people like Condi who have the chutzpah to go to Putin and tell him, “this is what you have to do…”

    Reply

  18. JohnH says:

    Unfortunately Obama and the other candidates have to choose from an in-bred, fetid pool of group thinking foreign policy advisors. This mafia has annointed themselves the experts and marginalized anyone who dares hold a different view of America’s role in the world.
    Let’s hope the Democrats nominate someone with the judgement and imagination to think outside the box that this mob has locked us into.

    Reply

  19. Linda says:

    POA,
    I haven’t really looked at the entire list of Obama advisors–and don’t disagree with you, but there is Laurence Tribe, probably the best constitutional law expert in the country.
    The real problem is that regardless of what “mistakes” are made in foreign policy over decades by both parties, the same pattern prevails. When their party is out of office, these people end up either in think tanks, academia, forming consulting firms, lobbying, or at the Carlyle Group that was formed by former Carter Administration people. And they wait until their party is back in power. It’s the academic-Congressional-military-industrial complex.
    I don’t know how one changes that. I do think Obama would make his own decisions and would choose a really interesting Cabinet, but probably not all of them would be good enough to suit you or me. I just think he’d do a less bad or better job, and I think he’d choose a really good Attorney General and respect the Constitution.

    Reply

  20. jon says:

    I’ve always thought that Hillary could get a lot of traction by retreading Humphrey’s ‘Happy Warrior’ for this race. She could identify significant policy differences between herself and Republicans, as well as substantial differences in how she would govern. She could point out that the Republican attack machine will go after whoever the Democratic nominee and president will be, and that she is best suited to fight those battles and prevail.
    I’m sure she and her campaign are upset (to use a mild word) from going from the 25-30 point inevitable coronation to a 10 point deficit. That’s gotta hurt. But it was stupid to push the inevitability line so much. Races always tighten, and the media loves and underdog coming from behind story. So it was clear that she would never finish as well as she started – which can always be spun as her suffering a loss.
    Bill Clinton was on Charlie Rose about 2 weeks ago – spinning – that he had told her that she would suffer through the first few primaries, but then would find her strength in the later races. I doubt South Carolina will be all that kind to her, regardless of how she does in NH. And I know that liberal Democrats from Massachusetts have been hard at work helping Obama in NH – I just talked with a female Boston City Councilor who bragged about all they were doing for Obama – when I would have thought they would have been natural allies of Hillary.
    Bill is also right that Americans want to support an optimist who can convince them that their lives will improve tomorrow if you vote for me today. Kinda why folks rejected jimmy Carter. And a lot of the reason why they’ll reject 9ui11iani and Tancredo, and probably Edwards.
    I’m disappointed that the candidates are all simplifying themselves and their messages to one dimensional caricatures, to differentiate and market themselves. They should be highlighting and contrasting themselves by staking out specific policy and governance differences that they will champion. Especially within each party: Reagan was right, and you damage your party by going negative on your challengers.
    But mostly, it’s nice to see democracy in action. There’s no need for any of the lower performing candidates to bow out yet, unless they want to. I was looking forward to being able to cast a vote for Dodd, if only to thank him for standing up for the Constitution and running a clean race.
    There’s no requirement that the primaries be resolved before most of the country can weigh in, nor for the nomination to be sewed up before the conventions. Now’s when it starts to get interesting. Part of the problem with the conventions has been that there’s no drama left, no news to be made, which has allowed the networks to start calling the shots in their coverage.

    Reply

  21. capitalistpig says:

    I do believe that ‘S Brennan’ meant to write gall!

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Heres an excerpt from a Democracy now interview that exposes the background of the “advisors” of the key candidates. Obama’s crew is quite interesting, eh?
    An excerpt…..
    http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us
    AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama?
    ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.” Another top Obama person—
    AMY GOODMAN: I think his comment actually was, “What’s a few riled-up Muslims?” And this, that whole idea of blowback, the idea of arming, financing, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including Osama bin Laden, and then when they’re done with the Soviets, they set their sights, well, on the United States.
    ALLAN NAIRN: Right. And later, during Bill Clinton’s administration, during the Bosnia killing, the US actually flew some of the Afghan Mujahideen, the early al-Qaeda people—the US actually arranged for them to be flown from there to Bosnia to fight on the Muslim/NATO side.
    Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
    Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that you and I survived, he was—I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that—there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.
    Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key—he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government—in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik—I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.
    Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That’s the Obama team.

    Reply

  23. larry says:

    I still am amazed that the Clinton’s have the ego and arrogance to run again, and why they still have so many supporters.
    Compared to Little George, Clinton’s Presidency was stellar. But compared to a non- deviant, Clinton was uninspired and mediocre at best. At worse, he set the tone for dishonesty and cynicism that in some respects enabled this current crowd to say and do whatever they want…. “because they can”. As Slick Willie said regarding why he had his intern give him oral sex, “because he could” .
    The impeachment was bull, but the Clintons raced to the bottom… “I did not have sex with that women”… “depends to the definition of what the word “is” is, the right wing conspiracy… lying to a grand jury, having sex with a young intern under his employ… a stained dress as evidence, DNA tests.
    Whitewater showed that she destroy documents and used her and his influence for corrupt purposes. Remember the small investment that magically turned into a fortune?
    And did I mention MARC RICH and cash for Pardons?
    I can’t understand why so many are still so enamored. Don’t we deserve a chance at something better?

    Reply

  24. Steve Clemons says:

    KateinMichigan — thanks again for your note. This quote appeared today as well in the New York Times:
    “Mr. Clinton, in particular, believes reporters will be complicit if Mr. Obama becomes the nominee and loses to a Republican.”
    as well as this one:
    “Mr. Clinton seemed tired, almost downbeat as he worked his way through two 45-minute speeches in New Hampshire on Friday.”
    best, steve

    Reply

  25. Steven Clemons says:

    Kate in Michigan — fair point. The person I spoke to first about this was a member of the media, and what I don’t know is the scale or length of Bill Clinton’s harsh, negative comments. I know he went after the press — and then this morning one of Hillary’s field people confirmed this was correct. But this is the first bit out of Iowa — and there is disappointment over there — so it would be perhaps a mistake to make too much of this.
    We’ll see. best, steve clemons

    Reply

  26. jhm says:

    Even if things were going better with the Clinton campaign, I would be surprised if Bill wouldn’t be a back seat driver, or maybe a Monday morning quarterback (pick your favorite metaphor) and adding to the ambient tension. As things stand….

    Reply

  27. Carroll says:

    Bill’s behavior is easy to explain I think…it’s natural to be more defensive and emotional about the troubles of, or attacks on, your mate than you would be about being attacked yourself.
    Glen Greenwald has an interesting story of how the press treats Hillary and what is says about our press.
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/03/hillary_bus/index.html
    I really try to avoid the MSM commentary these days because they really are shallow brats with high school potty mouths. They start rumors and stir trouble instead of just reporting and it does affect the candidates and the campaigns.

    Reply

  28. bob h says:

    It is sad that the only woman in American history to be a plausible candidate for President seems to be floundering. If she had ignored her packagers and just been herself, her authenticity would not be in question, and she might have the edge she needs now.

    Reply

  29. pauline says:

    What’s the big deal here?
    The Clintons are just behaving like Clintons!
    Wow, check out this source from the middle of 2000.
    “Would Hillary sling a lie about a slur?”
    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/pruden071900.asp

    Reply

  30. rawdawgbuffalo says:

    i have a different take on the results.
    poor mr or mrs president

    Reply

  31. TonyForesta says:

    This is what democracy looks like. The democrats have an outstanding team of leaders, anyone of whom would be a welcomed relief and exceeding improvement on the current panjandrum of fascists in the Bush government. Democrats have not yet decided who will lead us, and we should all welcome the coming battles, and hopefully disclosures, and want to learn everything we can about our potential leaders, and their proclaimed policies, – but democrats must choose a leader that can pilot ALL Americans, left and right, DNC or GOP through the turbulent sea’s we all will surely hazard and endure.
    The choice is ours. The socalled MSM pundits are partisan parrots on the payroll of the facsists in the Bush government who loathe all things Clinton pathologically. The fascist cabals in the GOP or socalled conservative party fear and loathe Hilary with a vehemence, venom, intolerance, biggotry, pathological obsession, and insanity, not unlike the freaks in jihadist islam.
    The fascist in the Bush government have FAILED America in every way. Iraq, is a catastrophic nightmare. Americans, now and for well into the fure are, and will be paying are a terrible price in blood and treasure for a misadventure that was not necessary, and most disturbing – distracted and detoured our unchallengeable military from the more critical and necessary work in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and yet,… Saudi Arabia.
    Our economy teeters nn the brink of nonrecovery. The socalled jihadist, or evildoers, (excuse me while I laugh me ass off), are well entrenched, luxuriuosly funded with our petro dollar, plotting, planning, and executing the jihadist sequel to 9/11.
    Our socalled enemies are stronger, NOT weaker under the wayward and facsist machinations and wanton profiteering of fascists in the Bush governmnent.
    The peoples essential rights freedoms, protections, and former privilages are ruthlessly constricted, restricted, eroded, or erased completely.
    The earth is suffering and Gaia’s essential systems are injured and strained.
    The highest ranking officials in the government particualary the president and the vp, lie repeatedly and insistently to the face of the America people, (as evidenced by dear leaders ridiculous and insulting drivel today proclaiming the economy strong, and ignoring the very disturbing employment and compounding subprime, and subsequent data the markets noted with due diligence today, – but why let truth or facts get in the way of maniacal thirst for power and the insatiable luust of wanton profiteering. The King wills it, and so it shall be. When, how, and why did America morph into a monarchy. Or more accurately, a despotic tryanny countenancing no dissent or debate, wedded and bedded with key industrial oligarchs, patholically nationalist and partisan in nature, proclaiming divine or religious authority, and ruthlessly spying on, suppressing, oppressing, and controlling the people overtly, and coverttly.
    These are the ways and mantra’s of fascism. Look the word up. Compare the Bush governemt policies, ideologies, and activities, – and get back to me.
    Hillary/Obama. Obama/Hillary. What really matters is that democrats regain the WH and the congress including the mandatory 60votesenate, and set about earnestly correcting America’s wayward course, and addressing our nations many crisis, – crisis – and providing real leadership capable of pilotiing the goodshipAmerica through the turbulent sea’s we must and will confront.
    “Deliver us from evil”

    Reply

  32. daCascadian says:

    Steve Clemons >”…I’m hearing from too many sources to mention that tensions are high and emotions brittle in the Clinton camp…But with some of the others, they are acting as if “the wheels are coming off.””
    I am hoping this is exactly what is happening. I don`t trust Hillary one bit & I think the best thing that can happen is for her to be forced to reveal her true self & deal with reality instead of the calculated pomposity shown so far (maybe she`ll FINALLY get off her high horse).
    If she can`t handle defeat well & move beyond it then she doesn`t deserve to be the Democratic candidate.
    No more junior high school !
    “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

    Reply

  33. Bill R. says:

    Thanks for the post, Steve. I’m sorry that the invitation to participate at the parlor conversation has to turn into incivility on the part of some. I appreciate your even-handedness and perspective, and the respect you have for other points of view. I suspect that the history of betrayal, hurt, and ambition in the Clinton family brings with it some powerful undercurrents in a presidential campaign. I have a great deal of compassion and respect for anyone who is willing to expose themselves to the vicissitudes of the political public. The seeking of power to achieve even noble ends is a hard path. At this juncture it looks to me that the flow of history is with Barack Obama and his many gifts and energized ambition. I wish him well as our nation and world has great need of a vision of healing.

    Reply

  34. Robert Morrow says:

    The Clintons remind of those kids who I used to play tennis against when I was a kid back in the 1970’s – the ones who could cuss and throw their tennis racquets, smacked them on the ground until they broke. Or they would toss those racquets over the fence when they really went into a loop.The ones who tried to copy Ilie Nastase’s bad behavior – without the impish charm and good looks of Nastase.
    These types, tennis brats and Clintons, are not what is known as “graceful losers;” they are the kind who would constantly cheat you on the line calls, while also screaming at and blaming their own partners while playing doubles.
    You would get a line judge on these kids, then they would complain about the line judge until they were penalized, if they had not already smashed their racquets into smithereens by then.
    People like this – those tennis brats with overbearing parents – as well as Hillary and Bill are psychogical cripples who feel like they are a ZERO if they lose. That is why these mental types like the Clinton sociopaths are so dangerous, they will literally DO or SAY anything to win. Being a gracious loser who gave it their best is not part of the gameplan.
    Even when they are winning these tennis brats and Clintons are not very happy people and the unethical, trashy behavior they demostrate on the court often spills over into the rest of their life.
    I would much rather be Bjorn Borg or an Ivan Lendl than an Ilie Nastase. By the way, Nastase was born in the same year (1946) as wild Bill. Bill is known for cheating at golf, too, and taking lots of mulligans.

    Reply

  35. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hillary and Bill might hafta start offin’ some opponents.
    Huckabible is in better shape, all he has to do is ask God to give him a hand. However, I sure do hope he beseeches the assistance of a different God than the one that helped Bush murder a mllion or so Iraqis.
    Its comforting knowing Obama doesn’t think Monkey Boy has committed grave and intentional breeches of his presidential authority, isn’t it? At least we know what excesses he believes he can get away with should he manage to pedal his trike into the Oval Office.
    We are a nation of idiots.

    Reply

  36. Steve Clemons says:

    JoeCHI — All I can recommend is that you read a couple of months of the posts here at TWN. You will find zero, systematic bias. In fact, I have been accused of many of regular blogging commenters here of having had a pro-Hillary tilt for the last few weeks, particularly after some work I did reporting on Hillary’s and Obama’s committee experience and travel.
    I am not writing this blog for any candidate — or for you. And I did not watch anything in the MSM today — the notes I posted are based entirely on conversations I’ve had or communications received.
    So, I am glad you are here…glad you are posting…but I wish you’d dig into the blog a bit because you are posting accusations that aren’t true and frankly show a bias that you may have, more than the other way around.
    So let’s drop the acidity — and discuss issues on their merits? Ok?
    Hope you agree.
    best regards,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  37. Kate in Michigan says:

    Not to denigrate you or your friend, Steve, but I think I would want to actually listen to Bill Clinton’s comments myself before deciding that he was very negative and very defensive and then putting these comments in the blog. I am frequently amazed at the spin and attitude others give to a recounting of an exchange with a third party. Sometimes people attribute all kinds underlying emotion, agenda, etc. to a conversation/discussion that I believe never existed in the first place.
    For the record, I would have been happy with any of the top six Democratic contenders winning Iowa and then going on to become President.

    Reply

  38. JoeCHI says:

    For the second time today, MSM anti-Clinton narrative has found a home here at The Washington Note.
    First, I was told hat Hillary’s concession speech was “forced, stale and inauthentic”, now Bill is “very negative and very defensive”.
    I swear, if Clinton was found saving a baby with CPR, the media would report that she was trying to suck out its soul.
    Maybe we can get Sullivan, Dowd, and Matthews to do some posts here, too!

    Reply

  39. DonS says:

    . . . and exactly why should Edwards fold? Seems like Ms. Clinton needs to have more than one dose of reality to prove her mettle.
    The Clinton’s,too,are famous,for their insider metality.
    That said,Obama’s “audacity” has a good quotient of schmere to it.
    That is, along with the sizzle, we are now adult enough to want some slight specifics along with the presence and the vision. I.e., let’s hear some concrete policy. Not that I hope for some break with the AIPAC line. But its about more than Kennedyesque rhetoric these days, though, I think I was taken to task downthread for not “feeling the love” enough.

    Reply

  40. S Brennan says:

    “I’m not terribly surpised that few of the second round votes broke for Hillary”
    Neither am I.
    Kucinich, Biden and Richardson told their people to vote for obama before hand.
    What is amazing is after doing that Richardson and Kucinich have gaul to stay in the race…what a couple of jerks.

    Reply

  41. JohnH says:

    It will be interesting to see if a negative Hillary won’t just play into Obama’s hand. Isn’t all this negativism and divisiveness exactly what the Obama camp is running against with its audacity of hope? People are sick and tired of all the personal attacks, us vs. them, and gotcha politics. If Hillary can’t give us a good reason to vote FOR her vision of the future, I see no point in her even running.
    I’m not terribly surpised that few of the second round votes broke for Hillary. Hillary signalled that she was not a team player when she kept the stash from her Senate race instead of sharing it with other hard pressed Dems in 06.

    Reply

  42. S Brennan says:

    I think Camp Hillary has done a pretty good job of turning her defeat last night’s into reason Edwards to drop out.
    Dkos folks are saying Richardson and Hillary can stay, but Edwards has to go. That is something that would help Hillary at this point.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *