About six months ago, I had a favorite in the primary. I’m now undecided. But if Team Hillary keeps this shit up, I’ll be solidly in the "Anyone But Hillary" camp.
A top adviser to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that Senator’s admission of illegal drug use as a young man could threaten his electability and be seized on by Republicans if he won the Democratic presidential nomination.
A co-chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s national and New Hampshire campaigns, William Shaheen, raised the question in an interview with The Washington Post. He said voters should study Mr. Obama’s background as they chose a candidate, warning that Republicans would scour for new details about a period of Mr. Obama’s life more than 20 years ago when he admitted using marijuana and cocaine.
According to The Post’s Web site, Mr. Shaheen said, “It’ll be: ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’ There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.”
It’s hard to put my finger on what I find most offensive about this. But leaving aside the sheer sleaziness of suggesting Obama was a dealer, I think what bugs me the most is the "OMG! Just think what those scary Republicans are going to say!" stuff. I’m really over the DLC/bedwetter wing of this party, who constantly fret about what mean things Rush or Sean or Rudy will say about us if we do X. It’s pathetic.
But this ugliness is officially a pattern with the HRC campaign — supposedly the most professional, experienced, and disciplined on either side. First it was Wolfson’s slimy innuendos (Obama is corrupt), then Hillary attacking Obama’s character (Obama can’t be trusted). Then there were those Muslim e-mails (Obama/Osama?). And the kindergarten spots (Obama is a liar). Now Obama’s a drug dealer.
Stay classy, HillaryCo!
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
no sleazier than the charges made by Obama Edwards etc about the charges that will be brought if Clinton is the nominee.
Wolfson “Hillary’s Rove”r was on SLEAZY Morning Joe wingnuts program this morning, pretending to be so gentle and kind. Lying his butt off about not knowing what Shaheen was up to, anyone who believes Wolfson didn’t order this attack, I got a bridge for sale for you here in Florida.
Just say, “Oh Noes!”
Exactly.
Earth to Democrats: “Stop sniveling!”
I must’ve missed the times where Edwards and Obama called Hillary a drug dealer. My bust.
I didn’t like this.
But I also don’t like Obama calling Clinton, “polarizing” which – in addition to being designed to bring up every GOP smear and sexist slur to people’s mind “Frigid Bitch Lesbian Killed Vince Foster” – also depends on this same narrative, the GOP will use it against her in the Fall.
Again, I didn’t like this from Sheehan, but it’s not just the Clinton campaign playing this card.
Whatever happened to the ability to ignore how other people paint our actions and to provide our own justification for them?
I think what Edwards and Obama were talking about, is all the nonsense from the 90’s that will be rehashed. I concur, I DON’T want to relive that again! And I agree with blue Texan..HELLO DEMS…please grow a spine, we can fight the thugs!
[Little kerfuffle on the new postings coming up — link for different posting led to dead end, but well worth backin’ up to homepage and coming into thread that way.]
Well, see, you picked the wrong channel, ‘er talkshow….
Actually, I’m a believer you gotta hold your nose and tune in to a variety of things that may be stomach-turning, but it keeps you clued in to what the Rethugs and the Rethugs-Lite are doing. Knowledge is power.
Having said that, I’ve tuned out Morning Scar permanently now that Imus is back and I appreciate your fortitude venturing there and reporting back to us.
Big difference. Objectively, it’s true. Look at the polls. Which candidate has the highest negatives? Fair or unfair, it’s true. And that’s in a different universe than suggesting Obama’s a freaking coke dealer.
Obama is overly quick to use Republican talking points. And, when Krugman pointed that out, he even attacked Krugman. That guy has a problem.
Yep, I agree.
Doesn’t anyone know how to play this game?
David Geffen
We used to have a saying. “It’s all bullshit”. Come to think of it, we still do.
Just got this in the mail:
http://whoarethepeopleinyourne…..hbors.html
Two of us now in SF. Of course, there should be 2,000 by now, but at least there’s two.
For what it’s worth guys, in the UK David Cameron, Leader of the Opposition, has as good as admitted to cannabis use, and isn’t quite clear on other substances. It simply isn’t an issue. He would be prime minister tomorrow if we had a General Election.
Didn’t Bill say he tried drugs “but didn’t inhale”?
So Hillary may have just given the voters another contrast between her and Bill and Obama-
Bullshit vs Forthrightness.
In a year when the voter is yearning for integrity in a candidate, I think Obama may score more points on this.
Glenn Greenwald is going after the dems on exactly that point:
‘xactly. When he’s not busily organizing kindergartners to take over the country.
Policy and procedure = fair game
Ad hominem personal attacks = Hall of Shame
All of the “top” three have problems..look at Edwards, attacked Hillary early and helped Obama..I guess I hope that they beat the crap out of each other in the primaries and work out the “problems”. Even though the concern troll bit was pretty lame, Shaheen is right about what the general election is going to be like.
Romney has already stated he does not think adults should reveal childhood or teeneage mistakes and thinks this is bad judgement.
honestly, I’m glad to see the two
empty suitsfront runners attacking each other. It does my heart good.I don’t want Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. She wouldn’t represent the Democratic Party: rather she would be a member of the Democrat Party, as represented by the likes of Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tom Carper, Bob Casey, and the rest of the cowardly, do-nothing, cave-in corporate whores. Anything that scuttle her chances is something I like.
The same is true for Obama: I don’t want him to be the Democratic nominee either. He’s another member of the Democrat Party, an empty suit whose words don’t match his actions, who claims Slummy Joe as his mentor, who took a fag-bashing holy roller onto his campaign, who attacks Social Security with right-wing talking points, and who attacks progressives.
Let these two destroy each other for all I care. I despise them both.
What I don’t get is that one would be hard pressed to even know there is another democratic candidate who has none of the problems that Hillary or Obama have and that is EDWARDS, who in my opinion is a great candidate through and through.
Between this and “don’t touch my religion,” I’m getting the impression that the Mittster just doesn’t know how not to tempt fate. Statements like this are an invitation to dirty tricksters…such as, say, every single one of the Mittster’s Republican opponents.
This is surreal–Red State Update’s new video:
Christmas with Mike Gravel
Hillary’s whipping her horse around the course with two goals in mind –
1 – Don’t Impeach Bush (Gore will enter race and Win, and Pelosi will be the first Lady President)
2 – Stay to the Right of the rest of the Dem field (to hold the ‘conservative’ money – and Policy Power – in her corner, and to maximize disgruntled GOP cross-overs)
Everything says “Hillary is Bush Lite” – meet the new boss…
We need to rally our Moral Courage and Impeach the Bush Cancer out of Office before the next election, or risk a Hillary Malignancy being the final slam of Our cell doors, and the end of America, as We know it…
The suggestion that the Republicans are going to be vicious and underhanded in the general election is not the part that’s obnoxious. It’s the idea, once again, that we can avoid that by picking someone they’re “less able to attack.”
Didn’t these people learn anything from 2004?
The funny thing about that quote is that I think he was telling the truth. He has a a lot of allergies and he really doesn’t like smoke.
He’s only referring to Republic candidates. For the Democrats, all mistakes since birth will be fair game.
Didn’t Bill say he tried drugs “but didn’t inhale”?
The funny thing about that quote is that I think he was telling the truth. He has a a lot of allergies and he really doesn’t like smoke.
reply
What a crock of shit. Anyone my age that didn’t get high would have been such a total geeek . . .give me a break.
No. They don’t learn. Why is that, exactly?
Shows desperation. There’d always be something. As the drug thing turns up empty or plays itself out, there’d be a background search for unpaid parking tickets, a penchant for unfiltered Camels, knocking out someone’s tooth when he was twelve; anything. And then put up in a commercial, with the theme from Mulholland Drive.
Are we all running in a national hampster wheel? Please, it’s time to move forward. No more Clintons and certainly no more Bushes.
Exactly! There is nothing, repeat nothing, that democrats can do to avoid being slimed by Republicans. It’s there stock in trade. There is nothing to do except have the counterstrike ready.
Anyone able to get a non-football scholarship after graduating from Hot Springs AR public schools in the 60’s was a total geek. And after having smoked Marlboro Reds around Bill many years ago and seeing his reaction to cigarette smoke; I don’t find that theory that hard to believe.
Look at the coalitions of the most successful Democratic politicians
Warner in Va and Rendell in Pa if you want to see winners and how they do it.
When did Mark Penn join the Hillary campaign? Things seem to have gone south for her lately.
What’s slimey is her saying “The Repubs are gonna say…” but in reality, she is the one out there first saying it.
I like Warner, except he’s another DLCer.
Or Bill Clinton; defeated a sitting President and is the only Dem president in 27 years.
That’s a good point. It is a way of bringing it up that’s underhanded and slimy but I really do think they also think that way.
When she said “If I knew now what I knew then” about the Iraq War, I knew she was not ever to be trusted. I am just a working guy who eads a lot and loves politics and my country. I knew then what she “didn’t know” then. If you were at all interested in the issue there were tons of sources with all the evidence you needed to tell you that there were no WMD and we did not need to attack Iraq. That was in the public eye. SHe had access to information I did not have, and she could not figure it out – or did and for political reasons risked the lives of troops.
No Hillary is not the one to be president. If it took drug smear to get your attention good. There was the vote on Iran. She is not to be trusted.
Liars are always Liars.
I have moments when I think she might not be such a bad president. But I find this stunt a more than a little disgusting.
I agree. No dynasties.
I was just thinking that if Mitt gets the nod, I bet it is going to be Mitt ‘n Jebb. Kinda has a cute carttony sound to it, doesn’t it?
blegh. i hate most of my congress and most of my candidates (certainly the top three).
i think i’m learning a new appreciation for saying “ignorance is bliss”
never have i paid so much attention to national government – and never i have i despised politicians so much.
Is Chris Dodd still in Iowa? i hope he does well. i support dodd
I’m pretty old and I have yet to see a candidate with whom I agreed 100 percent, or that I was proud of everything they or their supporters said or did. Nevertheless, I don’t think I ever saw an election in which it seemed more important that the party which has been in power be thrown out.
Yup. That just about sums up my feelings too. If this is supposed to be a representive government, why do I feel like nobody’s representing me?
i support dodd
So do I. We need someone who understands the term “war crimes” and what to do about them.
Spinmeister Slimery 101
brownies
i’m leaning towards dodd too. especially if he follows through on the fisa battle. i’m more than a little worried, though… as it seems that matt stoller has given up the fisa campaign he helped get off the ground.
Hillary didn’t even read the October, 2002 NIE. Of course, based on the executive summary it was probably a crock of shit; but she didn’t even make the attempt, before her vote to authorize war.
maybe ‘cuz nobody is.
but it’s up to us to demand it, it won’t happen without us making it happen.
You can’t be that old, Tricky Dick pretty much needed to go.
Me three. I suppose we can take at least a little heart that the polls have been changing quite a bit at the top in recent weeks. If Dodd does filibuster FISA retroactive immunity successfully (I know, that’s BIG if), maybe he can get real boost, too.
In response to Steve-AR @ 35
brownies
That’s been my theory for years.
I’ve read Obama’s account of his aimless time, and I respect his truthfulness and determination on that issue.
Did Obama and Hillary and Dodd and Biden show up for the cloture vote on the energy bill today?
He definitely did need to go, but I’m starting to think that John Dean is right. The Nixon enemy’s list, the use of IRS against political enemies, and the dirty tricks were childs play in comparison to the damage this crowd has done and is getting away with it.
While I think it’s true that Hillary is polarizing as billed, and also that she’s the best Rethug candidate, I sympathize with her because she would be polarizing if she was utterly faultless just because her name is Clinton. It’s a matter of fairness. Won’t make me vote for her unless they put the equivalent of a gun to my head, won’t make me vote for her without holding my nose, but I do sympathize because it’s not fair.
Well that is good reasoning. They both do it, so what.
So you should rule them both out. There are other choices. Too long we have chosen the lesser of evils, I think this time we need to look for a person of reasonable integrity. Kucinich or Richardson seem to be people who are competant and so far have not used smears. There may be others who just won’t play this game. Spead you vote and take it to the convention. There are other choices, we run the party and the country. We can do what we want.
Who says we need to have a candidate by March? THe media? The Candidates? Heck, I can go to a car dealership to be told I need something I don’t really need.
If you have a message you believe in you do not have to make personal attacks. Leave that to the Republicans.
I think it’s also pretty unlikely she would be running for president if her name weren’t Clinton.
Let em rip the holy hell out of one another for all I care- they’re politicians- it’s what they do. I have no illusions about one of em turnin out ta be Mother Theresa.
BULLSHIT!!!!!!
1. Clinton didn’t call Obama a drug dealer. Let’s not do the GOP’s work for them.
2. Why call Hillary Clinton “Hillary” and Barack Obama “Obama?” That seems rather demeaning to her. Why not call them Clinton and Obama? Or Barack and Hillary?
I don’t really care if Bill inhaled or not.
Shaheen has officially apologized for his comments and the Clinton campaign has publicly rebuked the comments. Let’s move on. Barack Obama refused to distance his campaign from offensive homophobic comments from someone inside his own campaign. I agree: “Stay Classy” Clinton.
Not that I think the Cult of Obama will want to read it, but eriposte has compiled some more of his amazing research to share with ‘reality-based’ progressives comparing Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Since eriposte has a record progressives have hailed as one of the best researchers around, there is no need now to smear him simply because he presents facts. You may not like what he says; but please refrain from attacking the messenger.
Go to the link below and read the entire piece, including the links. This researcher/writer is simply one of the best, and he has compiled the research for years that progressives have respected. He has come to a decision after compiling research on the Democratic candidates.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011500.php
Why not call them…Senator Obama and Senator Clinton??
1. Oh yes she did. Guess you didn’t hear the dog whistle.
2. She calls herself Hillary in her campaign material. Perhaps that’s self-denigration?
Don’t call em late for lunch.
Um, maybe it’s because Hillary is calling herself “Hillary” on her own campaign website?
Re Kathryn in MA @ 46 & ff:
I’m another one for Dodd. He’s the only one taking seriously the Constitutional assaults, an issue that outweighs the Iraq fiasco in importance INHO. I’d like to see Jim Webb as the VP candidate.
Why not call them…Senator Obama and Senator Clinton??
Hopefully, we can soon call them both “Losers” and then get used to calling either Edwards or Dodd “The Democratic Candidate”
I’ve seen a lot of Hillary Buttons and bumper stickers and pamphlets paid for by the Hillary ‘08 campaign….
Yeah, it’s always easier to ask forgiveness. F*ck Senator Clinton
Yes, it’s true Clinton has higher negatives, but that’s not all Obama has said. He repeatedly talks about no refighting the 90s, he used Jeff Gerth’s talking points about a 20-year pact (which got the lame kindergarten response from Clinton), he used Bob Novak’s BS column. And the Gerth stuff does play into sexist stereotypes – a woman plotting for power. Obama was preparing, Clinton plotting. Totally different things.
And when people talk of Clinton being polarizing, I don’t think they’re just talking about her high negatives. What they mean is that a lot of far right conservatives really, really hate her. They say crazy things about her. And a large part of that hatred is driven by sexism and manifests itself is sexist stereotypes. Obama just doesn’t have to say it himself, he gets to use the shorthand and then gets others to say, “why, yes, she does have high negatives.” As if that’s all there is to it.
Again, I don’t like this line of attack from Shaheen. I think the Clinton people were right to distance themselves from it. But Obama is no virgin here. He’s just smoother and gets more MSM help.
OT – So, would anyone like to rip an new one for a Republican?
Why not call them…Senator Obama and Senator Clinton??]
Like they deserve some kind of respect for being Senators.
IT is still the same poison. When you have a corpse with 20 bullets in it you don’t worry if the 19th or 20th bullet killed the person, you arrest the shooter. Hillary is the worst, but we need a candidate that does not use personal attacks. Period. We have sold oursleves a sill of goods. Our power is our ideas. Just getting to office by any means gets us no where. We suffered Bush for just that reason. The Republicans are suffering a hell of their own making. We have men of character running and men of greater character not running for just this reason.
We are the ones responsible for that. We have the power. Great Leaders came out of Conventions. Why do we have to have a nominee by March? Vote for the also rans and keep the process open. Show those who run that we are not intersted in politics as usual. Why be “Progressive” or Liberal if we become just like the people who aren’t. Have we no confidence in our ideas?
Don’t complain that the candidates have no backbone if we don’t have one either.
Some women act very well to hide the obvious self-esteem problems that haunt them.
hey, even i usually refer to them as senator.
You could have been Senator Raven if you wanted.
We. . .? Who the fuck is we?
If elected I refuse to serve!
firesign theater
Inhaling is a learned response. No one inhales the first time they try to smoke. Clinton always impressed me as one of the geek types who had a plan from childhood and would refuse to smoke anything because that was not something a “good boy” did.
I’m not part of ‘we’ either. Speak for yourself!
Yeh, results like stealing an election. Once again, GOP cannot get it correct. Dem party had more new voters registered before the last presidential election in Ohio than Reps.
Ha!
and
If nominated I refuse to run, and if elected I refuse to serve,’”General William Tecumseh Sherman.
Yeah I got it the first time *g*
Personal attacks CAN be productive, depending on how they’re crafted and the context.
If done right, they could give us scads of pertinent information, otherwise not readily accessible.
But there is no tension between the ideas that
1.) Sen. Clinton runs the most professional organization, and
2.) the tactics adopted by that organization are unscrupulous.
In these debased times, “professional” has become a euphemism for simple bloody-mindedness and amorality in the service of some organization’s goals.
Well, that depends. If you are a democrat, then it is Democrats. If you are a Liberal then it is Liberals. If you are an American – in the arrogant sence that people in the US are the only Americans – then it is Americans. If you are a US Citizen then it is US Citizens or We the People.
What is your point. I have been toiling in this vineyard for years, if you are impling that somehow I am not a Liberal, “Progressive”, or Democrat, then you are wrong.
What was your point? That maybe you want someone who does not talk issues but deals in personal attacks?
The official signs here in NH read: Hillary!
I don’t think it is a pejorative to call her that.
-G
and only the most optimistic thought either va or ohio could be a pick up
they don’t call them safe seats for nothing. but the goopers had to spend money which they don’t have much of…and that’s a good thing
we should be attacking the congressional republicans for their failure to show leadership
Dems are acting stupid. Allowing deconstruction of the Dems just makes the potential of the party to win the next election go out the window. Independents will get sick of the internal swiftboating and vote for the lesser evil or select to not vote at all. The latter will make it difficult for a Dem to win.
I am speaking for myself, and I think we need to do some things. That is not speaking for others. Statements Like we believe, or we all want is speaking for others. I speak for myself when I say we need to do things drastically different and quit settleing for the lesser evil.
Thanks for sharing this link. Excellent reading…and advice.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011500.php
While eriposte’s number two candidate is my number one candidate, I do agree wholeheartedly with this: At the end of the day, I would like to see us all unite behind the ultimate Democratic nominee, whom I am absolutely committed to supporting. Until then, I will support one of these imperfect candidates over the others, for very good reasons.
Exactly. We must not repeat the fracture of ‘68.
Prairie Sunshine shares food for thought at Prairie Sun Rising
senahj @ 92: Another John Ralston Saul fan!!!!
I fully agree. Limbaugh et. al don’t need any more help.
Running a political campaign without negative campaigning is like playin basketball in handcuffs- you’re probably going to lose.
“Running on the Issues” doesn’t work- take three positions that are even a little controversial- and you are likely to inflame enough opposition to lose. each position you take loses you votes- attacking your opponent costs you nothing.
Winning campaigns take positions that sound like apple pie, the flag, and mush, stirred gently- but their opponents are always liars and theives.
Honor and dignity. That is why Gore is still a favorite despite being a non-candidate.
So can a lot of things that are not right or wise to do. So vote for people who use that instead of ideas. Pretty simple, eh?
I want a President who has the moral courage of their Convictions and Ideas taht match mine pretty closely. I will continue to argue for that.
I hope that the Republicans don’t find out that Sen. Obama used to be the exclusive drug dealer at Hillary’s Communist-Lesbian sorority that was planning for the overthrow of the patriarchy.
-GSD
Neither do I, but I’m old school. A certain amount of respect is due to those whom, albeit amorally sometimes, achieve this position in our government. Senator Clinton shouldn’t belittle her office (and the office of future servants) by wanting to be called by her first name. I know that some of you will never see it the way I do, but I really don’t care.
I agree..I started inhaling at age 13…The point is that the “I didn’t inhale” sounds so stupid that it must be a lie..I think just the opposite..it it so stupid and from Bill’s background, that it is probably true.
A little Venezuelan-Argentine political scandal brewing.
The US is well on it’s way to being totally shut-out of South America.
-G
I always refer to HRC as “Sen. Clinton” because I don’t like her.
707!!
Who wrote the book containingg obama’s doping history? Was it Rove or was it Hillary? Niether, it was obama who published his own personal preferrence for drugs. Let the cookies fall where the cookies crumble-at obama’s feet.
The problem arises when you couple ‘i didn’t inhale’ with ‘i didn’t have sex with that woman’ See the pattern????
We’re not connecting. I’m saying a personal attack CAN be a wise idea. And a good thing. Depends on the details.
Example: Say Bush was campaiging and it was discovered through a secret document that he’d spent five years in a hospital for the criminally insane that he was trying to cover up. And his opponent attacks him on this.
Such an attack would be both wise and good, right?
An evangelical interpretation of the first Christmas.
Meet the Huckabees.
-G
That’s an ambitious prediction.
I remember this presidential candidate in the 90’s. He admitted to smoking pot! Then he made it worse by claiming he didn’t inhale. Wow how the right wing leapt at that! I heard it all he frickin time. If they weren’t talking about the drug use they were mocking his feeble “didn’t inhale” defense. I can’t seem to remember how his campaign came out… …he probably did pretty bad.
And don’t even get me started on the candidate that was coked out and AWOL that one time…
Oops.
Meet the Huckabees
Holy Jeebus.
-G
LOL!!!!!
OMG, I’m still laughing!
Thanks snarky one!
Jesus H. Christ on a cracker! I could have gone my whole life without being subjected to that photo! You’ll pay for that one *g*
Folks Jane’s upstairs with a call to action that has a tight deadline of Noon EST today.
They blew it. It should have been red & white striped shirts and blue sweaters with stars. Dump the publicist Huck.
SJC finds Rove and Bolten in contempt.
-G
Or suppose Bush had been an alcoholic frat rat with parents to pick up after him until he was 40 and his wife talked him into deciding what he wanted to be when he grew up. And what if gung-ho warrior that he is, his dad got him into a champaign unit in the Texas ANG as an officer, without ever going through boot camp, he went through USAF flight training at taxpayers expense, in case the Mexican Air Force attacked Galveston. Would it help if all this were divulged? Oh, nevermind.
I agree. Does it occur to anyone that our comments (sometimes very biting) on this great liberal blog might be detrimental to any Democratic candidate’s campaign? Whoever that may finally be? While I appreciate the new information (such as HRC campaign ad hoc spokesman’s) and the clarifying and pulling together of all the known facts in this posting, the articles do seem to give rise to invective in the comments. And some of the comments show little depth of understanding…i.e. in earlier articles a clear picture of the stances (pardon a Larry Craig snark) of Clinton and Obama on the latest vote (non binding resolution) on Iran: she voted for it, Obama skipped the vote but had agreed to an earlier position on the same thing. Yet we get comments attacking Clinton but ignoring Obama.
Personally, I will vote for the Democratic nominee. In earlier elections, with less input from blogs (which didn’t exist before), I had a candidate and stayed with him (no hers before this). Now with this excellent blog and also with the back and forth of the comments, I am undecided.
Further, I have a rising resentment to the primary system which allows one or two or three states to write the outcome of the choice for a nominee. I certainly don’t want to return to the days of the smoke filled room with party bosses making the decision, but for those of us in the other 46 states or so, we are left out of early decisions that clearly influence outcome.
Please don’t take my comments personally. I write not as a result of these entries today but of a pattern that I see in comments to all articles here. I am dedicated to removing the Republicans from power in order to save our country. I am dedicated to supporting a reversal of all the detrimental laws and policies of the Bush administration. I appreciate the information and knowledge and opinions I glean from you all.
Was that before or after Hillary had Vince Foster murdered before he could blow the whistle on Bill’s cocaine smuggling?
it wasn’t a prediction, the book is already written all you have to do is take the time to find out for yourself unless of course you really do not want to know
I couldn’t have said it better. It looks like you might be in Texas, as am I. We really won’t have any say. However, like you, I’ll support the Democratic nominee and hope we don’t have another 1968.
In 68 we fractured because the old guard would not give to the new ga=uard that wanted out of Vietnam. During the 68 convention I was ini the Army on convlesent leave from injusries in Vietnam. The Democrat Party Died in 68 it did not fracture. We have been doing a frankenstien rebuild since then. The Presidents we have elected since then have been more accident than party strength; One Good Man, Jimmy Carter and One Damn Good President, Bill CLinton.
We constantly try to refashion ourselves. Today fourty years later we are looking at a unpopular war, but there is not old guard in the Democrat Party. The old guard today is the Republican party – and we are a function of them. We try to use their tactics and say we are different. We need to have a party of Ideas. Progressive means to move forward. Liberal mean power located below the elite.
Our form of government sets people agaisnt people with the assumption that we are all in accorance with certain givens. That is not true today. THe person we send from the Democrat Party must be of the highest moral, secular morals, standing. The process of governing will try that moral base greatly.
But then I am not going to be around much longer, I am a voice form the past. Go ahead and screw up your government any way you want. Just don’t blame anyone but yourselves when you get what you sow.
Assignment, count the “we’s” and list who they are. For you that are so interested in things like that.
I’ve read both books Senator Obama has authored. They are so honest and hopeful! :)
I was stationed in Okinawa in the election of 1968. I voted for Hubert Humbphrey who had a rating with Americans for Democratic Action of about 98 percent. So, I didn’t contribute to the election of Nixon.
Otherwise, I had no dispute with your pronoun. I know you speak for yourself.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…..ack-memos/
obama attack memos from last june
at least you acknowledge by your accusation that the Clintons are sleaze. I would add they have always been worthless. Stop the Clintons now and ban them from public life.
And you write with thought. I do not agree with all that is said. I voted for Kerry and nearly had to throw up. Good thoughtful comment.
LOL! The NYT? Are you fucking serious? LOL!
1968 had lasting implications. It was the last year that the political parties were able to pick the candidates at the convention. Because of 68 we have a system where the primaries determine the candidate. It’s more democratic- but perhaps no better in quality.
We certainly don’t NEED a candidate by March- but we’re gonna have one- tha’s the way this thing works. Wonder who is pushing for all the early primaries? My guess- the media. If the candidate has not been decided by the time we get to California, for example, we’re talking millions in teevee spending. If it’s all over- nada.
Hubert Humphrey, one the the Great Liberals and a Gentleman. A man of ideas and moral courage. There were a few back then. Senator Ralph Yarborough from my state of Texas was one such man. Veterans today owe him much. Went to Washington in an old Stuedebaker and returned in the same car about ten years later. He was defeated by the new politics – personal attack. He was against the War, and Lloyd Benson smeared him as a communist sympathiser – sound familiar. After hos defeat YArborough became the first ever lame duck Senator to sponsor and pass a bill in the Senate. Such was the respect that he engendered.
Many alive today do not know or understand that the great men of the past while not perfect had a moral bearing that set them apart. I see them today and watch as they are pushed to the side.
I am begining to wonder is Bill Richardson is not such a man? I have my lamp and am still looking.
It looks to me like a few states are driving the process earlier and earlier in the year, in an effort to soak up some of that campaign money. Or, possibly, to give their citizens a vote in deciding the presidential candidate, which some of them offer as justification. The latter is a problem, as MarilynSanAntone and CrossTimbers are saying. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party put down rules, and the states just ran over them. Theoretically this should not have happened, since the parties are supposed to be able to control their own primaries in most states, but after the Texas redistricting in violation of years of precedent, it looks like no one cares about unwritten rules anymore, in either party. So much for institutional memory and for memory in general.
Humphrey refused to speak out against LBJ and the war. End of Hubert.
I’m waiting for the ’she condones adultery, a serious breach of the marriage contract, therefore she is not fit to rule (sic)’ to come to the surface. Supposedly breaches of contract on the personal side indicate propensity for breaking larger contracts. That from my MIL. How she rationalizes 3 time breacher (at least) Guiliani is a fete of modern mis-logic.
I like Richardson- but he doesn’t appear to have a chance unless he wins Iowa or New Hampshire and that doesn’t appear to be in the cards. VP?
Right, and beginning of Nixon presidency and The War Went On.
Only if you accept that. We the people still rule. The media rule only as long as you let them. THe way the system works is thst a candidate has to have enough votes at the convention. If no candidate does before the convention then it goes to the convention. That is how it works. You call Nada too soon.
If those who are not happy with any of the candiates votes for the second teir candidates then it will go to the convention. Even in states were there are primaries the precinct conventions have a lot of sway. Delegates are assigned to county conventions who can vote as they see fit. So with the State conventions. This is all just a beauty contest. All Primary votes are soft. Even at the convention the delegates are just commited in the first vote.
THere is no NADA until the candidate is standing in front of the canvention duly nominated.
I lways wondered why Humphrey seemed to endorse Mondale.
That’s why the DNC has said they will not seat the delegates from FL and MI, because they breaking the party rules and were complicit in moving up the priamries in those states.
And it is why the RNC has stated that FL, MI, NH, and a couple of other states holding early primaries against their rules will lose half of the delegates selected.
But of course, it’s all the fault of the DNC for trying to enforce the rules that were agreed to by the states previously.
Not true. After Labor day Humphrey became his own man and almost beat Nixon, had he not been loyal to the man who made him Vice President, loyality is a virtue, he probably would have won.
Other note. In 68 Nixon made contact with contact in Vietnam and asked them tell the government in Saigon to not take the peace deal that Johnson was offering. Nixon said he would give them a better deal. The CIA intercepted the conversation and gave that to Humphrey. Humphrey declined to use that for numerous reasons. If he had he would have surely won the election. Different times. Today that info would have been used politically with no concern for any other consequence.
Do we really like waht we have become? Do we really need to stoop to a common disgrace? We = people of reason and thought, I include everyone, how about you.
Humphery was Mondales mentor. An aging man wanting to pass off the baton to some kindred spirit?
Humphrey only endorsed Mondale after Mondale beat him for the nomination.
Can’t we vote for who we believe in not who we think will win? If we vote our convictions then we will get a better candidate. Kerry was the one who was most likely to win. I never voted for him except in the General Election, with disgust. Of course by the time the Texas Primary was held all the Media had determined the winner even though they did not have the votes yet. My man then and maybe this year to was Edwards.
My issue is the war. When you have had other mens blood on your hands from combat, I guess it changes you. I can not abide that we are in another futile war that accomplishes nothing but death. I can not support anyone who does not have a first priority to end this was at all due speed. Which for me is no more than six months. WE declared victory in 90 days can’t we get out in 180? Leave the bases that were not supposed to be built. Just come home. Richardson is for that so unless Edwards matches that I am with who will get the troops hime.
I see no reason not to vote for the candidate you like best in the primary…I’ll vote for Edwards again- although Richardson has a better resume and doesn’t have a voting record hangin round his neck- I think he’ll be out of it by the time the California Primary comes around.
This little brouhaha is all the more remarkable considering the drunken, coke-snorting wastrel currently occupying the White House. Aren’t there rumors that Bush was dealing cocaine while he was in college? If Obama were to actually be confronted with this shit by any of the media scum during an interview, he could very well bring up this little fact and throw it in their faces…but we all know he won’t. Gutless “centrist” that he is.
Ugh. Hillary and Obama are both awful…I don’t envy you Americans your choice come next year on Election Day….
So. That was in 1984. Humphreys last chance. I admired Humphrey, but did support him at that time. In the Texas Primary I voted for Jackson. By that time the party had devolved into the no good candidate status. I was never for Mondale but voted for him in the general election. The party died in 1968. No it is not more democratic, it just diffused. THe leadership determines who we ever get to vote for just like the old days but there is no grassroots support like the old bosses had.
No I do not want to go back, I want Democrats to understand that they are the power in the party and not the leadership who get it wrong all the time. Bill did not come form the leadership nor did Carter. His renegade Ledership group is now one of the leadership groups int he party, but they confuse concession with compromise.
God, I wish Bill could run again.
If Bush can be an alcoholic until 40 and make president then Obama should also be given the benefit of the doubt and his past indiscretions absolved. Or if you look at what a mess Bush has made then maybe no one with past problems should be elected president. My bet is there will be a double standard with Bush getting his standard pass and Obama getting drilled on past activities. IOKIYAR
But I grew to actively dislike Mondale. He actively supported the Vietnam War long past any mistaken basis for doing so. He ran a terrible presidential campaign filled with petty ambitious people. And then Mondale became a Clintonite.
I always liked Humphrey even when I disagreed with him. And I disagreed with him at the 68 convention.
We might be missing an opportunity here. Think of all the daily stoners who could become politically active if they thought there was someone running who understood them. There might be a big market segment out there that Huckleberry Hound can’t touch. The crazy evangelical segment is probably already maxed out. What is two or three million stoners decided to register to vote. Now if we could find a way to remind them what day the election is we would have a potent constituency and I’m not talking about what they have in their coat pocket.
We’ve pointed out numerous times the many mistakes or outright stupidity of Obama, but it doesn’t quite seem to sink through to his supporters. They love his voice I suppose.
Maybe the prospect of nominating a Black man who will lose to a White Republican, even after this disastrous 8 years of Dubya, will make them think a little harder about the candidate
I don’t particularly like the idea of ‘what will THEY do’ arguments, but something has got to make people think about all of a candidate’s positions and statements. We can’t afford to simply pick somebody based on charisma. We couldn’t afford it with Hillary and we can’t afford it with any other candidate either.
We have to know a lot about them…simple as that.
And the other Democratic candidates aren’t?
Pray tell, what are 4 or 5 positions Obama takes without calling for a Republican overhaul of Soc. Security or nuking Pakistan or having an immediate summit meeting with Castro and Ahmadinejad?
He says “Change we can believe in”, but frankly the American people need more than something to ‘Believe in’. They need some very important real changes.
BTW, the question which begs to be asked of all the candidates was, “Have you ever used drugs which are now illegal?”, but now is, “Do you currently use any drugs which are illegal?”
If Obama is out there with his former use then it’s imperative that issue be looked into a little further. Is that really the debate Democrats want in the general election?
Wake up, look at these candidates hard — a lot is riding on it.
Looking back at 68, a lot of people just took a while to absorb what was going on. It was total chaos. The Bad guy was of course Richard Daley (just one of the two Dicks of 68) and it badly hurt his rule in the Democrat Party.
68 was one of those years in which more happened that 366 days. Martin was killed, then Bobby. The Race Riots all across the US shook up people. The war was taking its toll on everyone. I went through Hue just about 10 days before it was leveled during the Tet Offensive. I was at LZ Sharon or Quang Tri. The perimenter was overrun for very short period of time. It was pretty scary, only because it was unexpected. Our supply lines were cut and we ate c-rations for about a week. Not much of a hardship compared to losing your life or limbs.
I was injured on April Fools day, friendly fire, got to go home. I was in the Phillipines when they killed Martin. At home with a cast on my leg when they shot Bobby. And when Chicago came along no one much cared about anything but bringing down the house. That is how I feel now.
I want this war to stop. How do we pass on to new generations that all war and killing does is destroy. It destroys them and it destroys us. There are four or five young men who I care very much about either in or about to be deployed to Iraq.
Fouty years and it seems in so amny ways like yesterday, but we do not have men with great Liberal ideas like we used to. It about who one needs to be not at about who one is.
I am just an old man who is sad that things are not better today than when I arrived on the scene. No one listens to old men and their tales. Sad. I did, but that is another story.
Well, HRC used to be a Republican, so what’s her point? Oh wait, she still is.
2nd comment posted….. where’s the other one?