Obama '08?

Bill said:

"The mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse like any other spouse who could defend his candidate...I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her, because I was president."
He also steadfastly denied having attacked Obama directly:

"A lot of things that were said were factually inaccurate. I did not ever criticize Senator Obama personally in South Carolina, I never criticized him personally...I think whenever I defend her, I (a) risk being misquoted and (b) risk being the story. I don't want to be the story."
It's a bit surprising that he -- or her advisers -- didn't think through this dynamic in advance, but there you have it.

blueflame1 wrote:

Bill: I Made A "Mistake" By Defending Hillary; "I Don't Want To Be The Story"
By Greg Sargent - February 8, 2008, 10:12AM
In an interview with a local news station in Maine, Bill Clinton admitted that he'd erred by over-zealously defending Hillary in the run-up to the South Carolina primary. Asked by a reporter if he regretted his perceived attacks on Obama, he replied...



Bill said:

"The mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse like any other spouse who could defend his candidate...I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her, because I was president."
He also steadfastly denied having attacked Obama directly:

"A lot of things that were said were factually inaccurate. I did not ever criticize Senator Obama personally in South Carolina, I never criticized him personally...I think whenever I defend her, I (a) risk being misquoted and (b) risk being the story. I don't want to be the story."
It's a bit surprising that he -- or her advisers -- didn't think through this dynamic in advance, but there you have it.

He shouldn't even have said this. He's injecting himself in every time he opens his mouth, and it hurts her every time.

He still doesn't think he did anything wrong. Same as her on Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

woiyo wrote:

Lola wrote:

Woyio....why do you say the Clinton's are criminals? This has the ring of a major over statement to me. Can you find a trust worthy source for documentation of this claim? I should look into it if there's a change it could be true.

"Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS."

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

"Whitewater began back in 1978 when Bill and Hillary Clinton along with two Arkansas acquaintances, James B. and Susan McDougal, borrowed $203,000 to purchase 220 acres of riverfront land in Arkansas' Ozark Mountains, then formed the Whitewater Development Corporation with the intention of building vacation homes.

In 1982, James McDougal purchased a small savings and loan in Little Rock and named it the Madison Guaranty. By the mid-1980s, Madison Guaranty had aroused the attention of federal regulators who questioned its lending practices and financial stability. For example, in 1985, a fund-raising event was held at Madison Guaranty to help eliminate $50,000 of Governor Bill Clinton's campaign debt. Federal investigators later alleged that some of the funds had been improperly withdrawn from depositors' funds.

A major link between the Clintons and Madison Guaranty had been forged after McDougal hired the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton was a partner, to help the ailing institution. But by 1989, following a number of failed loans, Madison Guaranty collapsed and was shut down by the federal government which then spent $60 million bailing it out. In 1992, the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation, during its investigation into the causes of its failure, named both Bill and Hillary Clinton as "potential beneficiaries" of alleged illegal activities at Madison Guaranty. A referral was then sent to the U.S. Justice Department. "

If this is all you have to offer, then I'm not convinced.

Lola wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I missed a great discussion between people last night apparently - but it's clear to me through both discussion here and in other places on the net that Lola is displaying the exact same attitude that most Hillary supporters have: that Obama should have waited his turn and that it's a personal affront to them that he didn't.

Most Hillary supporters? Scary thought to think such a vast number of Americans could be so emotionally charged as to completely disregard reason and the spirit of fair play. Perhaps I've been too dismissive of the idea of people really going that far over the edge. Out of curiosity:

Does anyone else here really think Obama has done wrong to not stand aside?

Does anyone here really think Hillary has done wrong to not stand aside?

The one over-riding thing that I've noticed is the complete and total personalization of Clinton voters. They see attacks on Clinton as attacks upon themselves, many explicitly state that. Therefore what we are seeing right now isn't all that surprising; older, mostly white ladies who are threatened by a younger man taking what they feel is rightfully theirs.

Cycloptichorn

Really Cyclo.........is it only the "older, mostly white ladies" who are taking this personally? Or is it that we're all taking it personally and we don't stop to consider our assumptions?

We may be older, and we may be white, but we're not stupid or any more deluded than anyone else. You can see, by your statement above why we're taking it personally. Your statement is a clear example of age bias and therefore an attempt to, if not discriminate, to marginalize. Really, I think you should look at your own tendency to discriminate against "older white women."

How would you like me to choose your category, younger white men (I don't know your age) and say that you are in a category that is deluded? Please. It's comments like these that inflame rather than elucidate.

If you think you don't operate out of an identification with Obama for some not always so rational reason, you are deluded.

Please refer to Free Duck's response to me above and then get back to me on this. Thanks.

See, the difference is it doesn't matter to me if you attack Obama. It's not an attack upon me, because I'm not him and when people are saying bad things about him it has nothing to do with me. I might be angry that my candidate is being attacked but I don't personalize it the way that you and other Clinton supporters seem to.

Nobody - NOBODY - has said that an older white lady can't do the job, or that her supporters are delusional. What they have done is attack Clinton's words and practices. Yet you take that personal, as if they were YOUR words and practices. There's no reason to do so.

You and others HAVE said that my category - Obama supporters - are deluded. Accused us of irrationality and messiahism. Said that we are naive and don't understand politics. That we are cultists, for god's sake. I don't take personal offense to this because it says more about the person who makes the statement then it does about me.

My bias is against actions and words, not age. I don't care what age or race you are. You have in the past said some pretty nasty things about Obama, levelled attacks against him with no substance, and I don't like that.

Cycloptichorn

blueflame1 wrote:

Bill said:

"The mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse like any other spouse who could defend his candidate...I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her, because I was president."
He also steadfastly denied having attacked Obama directly:

"A lot of things that were said were factually inaccurate. I did not ever criticize Senator Obama personally in South Carolina, I never criticized him personally...I think whenever I defend her, I (a) risk being misquoted and (b) risk being the story. I don't want to be the story."
It's a bit surprising that he -- or her advisers -- didn't think through this dynamic in advance, but there you have it.

Classical stuff from the master..... "...I didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski...." No one can slice it so close and in such self-serving ways as 'ole Bill'. Elmer Gantry with a Yale education.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lola wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[quote="OCCOM
I'll make a quick effort. I said that Hillary and her efforts are the efforts of our generation. If we're not being dimissed as irrelavent, then someone needs to clarify it. Hillary represents the work and the values of me and my generation. To misquote her or make outrageous accusations about her that are not backed up with facts, I mean real examples, is an insult. I think some of the statements about Hillary are outrageous and over drawn. They are exaggerated for a reason. What that reason is, I wouldn't presume to say. If you want to convince me that Bill and Hillary Clinton are scrondels, you'll have to prove it to me.

Boy oh boy, you are scaring me! Hillery represents the values of our generation (I think we would be the same generation)?

Sorry, my values do not include the numerous scandels, misdeeds, infidelity on and on. My values do not include using the People of the State of NY for my personal pleasure/advancement.

Obviously we come from different realities. My reality is here on Earth. You must be from some far away fantasy land to think the Clintons represent the values of my generation.

And that's another thing. Have you noticed how Hillary is characterized? Her laugh is a "cackle" as in witch

and she "scolds" rather than defends herself.

And she is "shrill" rather than angry.

It's a bit surprising that he -- or her advisers -- didn't think through this dynamic in advance, but there you have it.

georgeob1 wrote:

Classical stuff from the master..... "...I didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski...." No one can slice it so close and in such self-serving ways as 'ole Bill'. Elmer Gantry with a Yale education.

I think this is a straight forward answer. He's right, he miscalulated the effect of the fact that he's not just any spouse. I don't think he said anything that was factually not true. He was purposefully "misunderstood" and its wag the dog again. This is a political technique in the same way he was using a political technique. One instance is no differnt from the other.......other than the those applying them are on opposing sides.

You misunderstand my 'cause.'

See, I don't think that the true believers of Hillary such as yourself will ever be brought around by logic. You're not interested in hearing logical arguments about how corrupt Bill and her have been in the past. When people present evidence, you ignore it.

So I'm not trying to convince you to come over to Obama's side. You won't do that, b/c he isn't the person you identify with and never will be, no matter what I or anyone else says.

A few things

Quote:

And that's another thing. Have you noticed how Hillary is characterized? Her laugh is a "cackle" as in witch

She does cackle. That's how that fake laugh is categorized because it is a cackle. When Hillary is asked tough questions, she lets out this big fake laugh to try and minimize the impact of it on her while she searches for a neutral answer. Try actually listening to her sometime.

Quote:

and she "scolds" rather than defends herself.

Sometimes she defends herself and sometimes she scolds.

Quote:

And she is "shrill" rather than angry.

No, she is angry and shrill. Angry is an emotion, shrill is a tone of voice. She has poor voice control and often comes off badly. This isn't an opinion only held by Obama supporters; just not her greatest strength, just as debating isn't Obama's greatest strength.

You see these as irrational attacks, but they are not. They are judgments of her actions, not her character.

Cycloptichorn

blueflame1 wrote:

It's a bit surprising that he -- or her advisers -- didn't think through this dynamic in advance, but there you have it.

Sure they don't.

Lola: Accusing someone of being a liar is a personal attack. When Bill Clinton called Obama's factual representation of his record on the war "the biggest fairytale I've ever heard" he was lying through his teeth, while accusing Obama of being a liar. This is easily verified FACT at any FACT checking website. There is no such incident on the other side, and all things are not equal.

A fairy tale is not a lie.

So facts are irrelevant because you think so? Okay.

Sen. Barack Obama has secured the support of another governor, Christine Gregoire of Washington, in advance of that state's Democratic caucases Saturday.

Gregoire is the ninth governor to endorse Obama. Perhaps more significantly, given the gender gap between Obama's supporters and Sen. Hillary Clinton's, Gregoire is the third female governor, along with Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kanans to do so.

"We must restore hope in America," Gregoire said. "We must put an end to politics of division by gender, race, and faith. Barack Obama has a unique ability to reach across all the artificial divides and divisions to move our nation forward. At a time of great division in our country, we need a leader who will unite us. Barack Obama is that kind of leader."

Gregoire joined Obama at a rally in downtown Seattle today. Interestingly, both of Washington's senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, have endorsed Clinton.

You misunderstand my 'cause.'

See, I don't think that the true believers of Hillary such as yourself will ever be brought around by logic. You're not interested in hearing logical arguments about how corrupt Bill and her have been in the past. When people present evidence, you ignore it.