Clinton's Let's All Come Together Statement

Just after Hillary sent this email, Charlie Rangel's interview was sent out. It's a brutal evisceration of Obama, and is just filthy, horrendous politics. Yeah, I'm sure Hillary is genuine in seeking a truce...http://thepage.time.com/ny1-release-on-rangel-interview/

Posted by Bill | January 14, 2008 7:34 PM

Marc,

I am watching PBS. The MLK colleague and HRC friend is criticizing Obama.

I switch to Hardball. The HRC campaign advisor Jackson-Leigh is criticizing Obama, and referring to PBS.

End of both segments: We should get along. This is the statement from both HRC friends.

Obama is a toast. They are out to get him. The Clintons will burn all bridges, re-build them, and then offer Obama a VP spot (I hope he rejects), a cabinet spot (I hope he rejects), or a future Supreme Court appointment (which I think he should accept).

Posted by eorse | January 14, 2008 7:37 PM

Hillary is a phony, ruthless politician who is so bent on gaining power that in the process she is ruining her chances in the general election, should she become the nominee.

Of all the democrats I know, every one, to a person, is disgusted with her (and Bill's) recent behavior. Many refuse to vote in the general for her now.

Disgusting.

Posted by Linda Harrison | January 14, 2008 7:38 PM

copycat. she had no choice at that point. it doesn't mean she'll stick to it, but it will look even worse when she does it next time, so at least there's that. pfft.

Posted by Phoebe | January 14, 2008 7:55 PM

Finally, someone has challenged the HRC vapor/imagined 35 years. I feel so happy.

http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/

Why is the main stream press not so smart? Why is challenging HRC records is considered bad manners?

Posted by eorse | January 14, 2008 7:58 PM

Yes, this may actually put her in a tough position. He new campaign tactic has been to destroy positive opinions of Obama. Now that she has made a public statement to stay positive, she will need to stick to it. We all know that positivity is harder for her to pull than Obama.

Posted by Uzoma | January 14, 2008 8:00 PM

No, we can't all get along. And, I'm never voting for her. Period. She's burned a whole lot of bridges. And no threat of a GOP President will make me pull the lever for her.

Posted by rikyrah | January 14, 2008 8:06 PM

this is what hill and bill bring. nasty stuff that turns people off. from the play book of karl rove & more of the same. no change. fracture the public and win the primary. congrats. then welcome a gop president in 2008.

Posted by RI Red | January 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Senator Clinton had her chance to say "kumbaya" on Meet the Press this past Sunday. Instead, she continued going on the defensive when she and her supporters are the ones who started this shit. Whatever, lady.

I'm all for unity in the party, but if anyone expects the Clintons to provide it, they need to smell what they're shoveling.

Posted by Scientific | January 14, 2008 8:12 PM

Rangel running an attack for her as she's calling for unity strikes me as exactly the kind of politicking we've come to expect from her. She's delusional if she thinks there's going to be unity come the fall.

Posted by Helter | January 14, 2008 8:13 PM

Add me to the list: after this week, I'm done with Hillary. If she wins the nomination I'm staying home in November. And I NEVER thought I'd say that.

Posted by power forward | January 14, 2008 8:20 PM

There is alot of anger over Hillary's behavior - and Bills. And frankly, they have shown themselves to be the same as they were in the 90s.
They prove themselves to go beyond the pale in their neverending thirst for power and the limelight. Just like those guests who never leave, the Clintons have long overstayed their welcome.
For many like myself, I won't ever vote for Hillary so, the division has already been there. It just either was not noticed or ignored by the press. But, judging from comments by fellow democrats over the past year, there has always been many who cannot stand HRC and refuse to vote for her before this incident ever broke out.
The past 2 months have only served to highlight why so many democrats will not support Hillary and long for the time when the Clintons are no longer a factor in our politics.
But, Marc, if this latest never happened and Clinton got the nomination, the party would have split apart over that anyhow.
Only now, this is just apparent to the msm.

Posted by vwcat | January 14, 2008 8:21 PM

Add me to the "never-will-vote-for-Hillary" crowd. I won't stay home - I'll either vote third party or write in Obama - but Clinton has lost my vote forever with all of this nonsense. And by marching that race-traitor Robert Johnson up on stage, a man who created a "black entertainment" network that has been nothing by derogatory and destructive to his own people.

Posted by Scientific | January 14, 2008 8:25 PM

I never imagined that HRC and company would go this low. The simple truth is that they will say and do anything that they think will get her elected. What I don't understand is why people don't see through it.

Hillary's campaign reminds me of the tactics of the most pathological kind of student-plagiarist, the kind who spews so many distortions and irrelevancies that the real issue gets lost, obscured by clouds of venom and falsehood.

If HRC gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain in the general (assuming he's the nominee). Mind you, I have never voted for a Republican, for any office. I know I'm not the only person making these plans for November.

Posted by Michael | January 14, 2008 8:29 PM

Hillary would never offer Obama a VP slot. Remember the first in presidential politics: Never pick a Vice President who would overshadow you.

Posted by Tommy Ates, Austin, TX | January 14, 2008 8:30 PM

I agree with all the above comments. Why won't the Clintons just go away.
And let's start calling her Clinton -- not Hillary, just like all the male candidtaes are referred to by their last names.
I am a life long Democrat and I will vote for ABC
anyone but Hillary -- I will be glad to cast a vote for McCain over Clinton in 2008

Posted by Phyllis | January 14, 2008 8:31 PM

Barack should hit them with this!!
SILENCE THE CLINTON'S WITH THIS ANSWER TO THE PAST DRUG USE Clinton's are out of touch. Explain the reality.

1)kids are "inhaling", snorting, and injecting at a younger age and an alarming rate. Not just experimenting but escaping their reality.This is a problem!

2)The problem is across all socio economic groups, from ecstasy, pot, coke, abuse of prescription drugs and meth labs that are cranking out poison that is killing our children

3)Role models are few, schools are crowded and underfunded, after school programs have been cut, parents are working 2 jobs to keep the wolf from the door. Kid's peers are the primary source of
guidance

4)"Reality break" I understand the influences these kids are facing and the anguish of parents who are faced with sending kids to schools that are filled with drugs and must walk through neighbourhoods that have drug dealers on each corner. I worked with these families and on the South Side of Chicago.

5)From an Ivory tower point of view, exploiting someone's past to make political points may make sense to my opponent but for the people whose life it is touching they appreciate some truth "I didn't inhale" is not helpful and shows the disconnect and generation gap.

6) I won't be shamed into running from my past,shame on those who try to make me. I wrote the truth because it shows that there is a "way out" for all of those who are struggling. I am someone whose has been there and is now here and that is "change you can believe in".

Posted by MJ | January 14, 2008 8:43 PM

If she wins the nomination, I will vote Rep for prez and work hard to elect a heavily Dem congress majority.

The least damage to the country that way and the easiest way to a Dem prez victory 2012 without the Clinton's involved.

Good god what is she doing to my country?

Posted by G Davis | January 14, 2008 8:45 PM

Add me to the never voting for Hillary people.

Earlier this year, I would have said that the Democratic candidate would have my vote, no matter what.

Now, if Obama or Edwards don't get the nomination, I will vote either for a moderate third-party candidate, or I will not vote for anyone. Nothing will change my mind on this. Nothing.

Posted by John D. | January 14, 2008 8:49 PM

After both Obama and Clinton plead with their supporters for an end to rancor and greater harmony, and after Obama's core message of healing our national divides, it is stunning that at least 9 or 10 of the above comments are from Obama supporters ranting and raving about how much they hate, mistrust, and will never forgive Hillary Clinton. Please take a breath. If you support Obama, do him the graciousness of listening to his words instead of tearing other people down.

Posted by Joe P. | January 14, 2008 8:55 PM

How long……………….not long

It is obvious that prejudice do blind the vision of men.
The people who support seem intent on distorting the record just like Bill for their candidates benefit.

The news of her clumsy misstep has even reached the frozen tundra that is Sweden and we are collectively shocked by the irreverence showed to the martyr, the Nobel Lauriat and Humanitarian Dr Martin Luther King. This kind of blind stabbing in the dark that the Clintons are engaged in can destroy the Party and in the Long run The Country. We have watched in Sweden Obama’s so called victory speech which we call here “Unity speech” Obama is America personified he may not look like your average square headed Iowan but Make no Mistake Obama is America manifested in flesh that is way he remind you of another manifestation one by God in the flesh of a simple carpenter from Nazareth.
Obama is not Jesus but his not HILL-Billy either. Take this chance and see what your mothers and fathers saw in the men with the three letter names JFK MLK RFK. Reaffirmation of America not as a physical entity but rather as a state of being, that is the America we all belong to even though we may reside else where it is the America we desire to come to, that we long for. The America we miss.

Posted by akhinaten | January 14, 2008 8:58 PM

Read Christopher Hitchens excellent case against the Clinton campaign in the latest issue of Slate. You can read it here: http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/

Posted by Buster Bunns | January 14, 2008 8:59 PM

Add me to the list. She's not getting my vote.

I want to vomit all over the Clintons.

No wonder she is afraid of fairy tales. What she believes in is a pathological psychodrama which she wants us to inhale. What a pathetically uninspiring candidate.

Excuse me while I puke.

Posted by Martin | January 14, 2008 9:01 PM

I considered Richardson and then rejected him after hearing him a few times, decided that I liked Dodd's positions the most (especially on FISA), but I've pretty much been for Hillary all along and still am. But given her refusal to admit error on Iraq, the mismatch between "tested & ready" based on 35 years of experience vs. "Now I've found my voice," and this type of crap, I find myself remembering all the things I didn't and still don't like about the Clinton Administration and why I couldn't bring myself to vote for Al Gore in 2000 (Nader instead).

Hillary Clinton's ability to antagonize people on her own side does not exactly build my confidence in nor my enthusiasm for her and what she might be able to accomplish as President. I really don't want 8 years of the Democrat version of Bush.

Posted by Gene | January 14, 2008 9:11 PM

The more I people hear the psychotics rant against the Clintons the higher Hillary's approval ratings will be.

Please keep it up.

Posted by ken | January 14, 2008 9:14 PM

Barack leads -

Hillary follows

Barack's campaign is a cohesive unit who respects his positions

As to the Clinton campaign (even with will card Bill not included) the only choices are
(a) they do not respect Hillary enough to follow her wishes
(b) they are following her wishes
(c) the surrogates know to use silence as permission to go for it

After the "near death" experience in NH - James Carville (CNN non affiliated James Carville) writes a memo that the Clintons have to go and attack --

puhleese--

We are talking MUD here:
Bill Shaheen
Andrew Young
Charles Rangel
Bob Johnson
Bob Kerrey
Joe Wilson
---
---
--

Posted by winnie | January 14, 2008 9:17 PM

Marc, nice "fair and balanced" placement of the two statements. Your post is headlined with Hillary's message, hers gets 3 times the space of Obama's, and you are using "ballot placement" to de-emphasize the fact that Obama extended the Olive branch first.

If you look at Halperin's Page evening news roundup , the network newscasts spiked Obama's olive branch as well.

So here you see the media strategy: make it look like Hillary was the one who ended this after making it look like obama started this.

The media are the accomplices in what has been done to Obama.

Posted by RKA | January 14, 2008 9:19 PM

Add me to the list as well. Honestly, today was the day that finally put me over the edge. I have been nothing but supportive and admiring of the Clintons over the years, but their campaign tactics have made me feel betrayed on a personal level. I truly never thought they'd resort to this kind of gutter politics against our own candidates. I was wrong and I will never forget it.

Posted by cms | January 14, 2008 9:21 PM

Also, if the media are like football refs, they are turning a blind eye to the late hit by Rangel after the whistle had been blown.

This is all about money, folks. Ratings and blog hits skyrocket when race wars breakout.

What blacks, whites, latinos, etc need to realize is that the true enemy is not each other, it's the media and those like the clintons who exploit it in order to divide us.

Shame on all you in the media.

Have you no sense of decency?

Posted by RKA | January 14, 2008 9:23 PM

I hate to interrupt the feeding frenzy going on here, but I think it is time to point out that a lot of black leaders don't take Obama seriously because he took so long to decide he was a "black". It seems to have fully occured only with the publishing of his first book "Dreams of My Father" when his mother was dying. Prior to that I think he was unwilling to distance himself from the maternal side of his family who raised and educated him, and supported him until well into his 20s. Obama's "black" experience came mainly as an adult and a college student in a fairly safe environment.

That doesn't sit well with some of the black leaders who came up through the mean streets, and had to deal with all of the disadvantages of being black, without the safety net of a well to do upper middle class white family sheltering them. I think there perception is that Obama decided to come out strongly as a "black" person for politcal expediency in the Chicago neighbourhoods where he first ran for office.

So, it's a bit disingenous to assume that all of these proud and intelligent black leaders are simply acting as mindless shills for the Clintons. It is a bit demeaning towards them as well. You have to accept that it is their honest opinion of Obama, like it or not.

Posted by robert ethan | January 14, 2008 9:26 PM

Apparently everyone on this blog is prone to hyperbole (I find it hard to believe that you are all really puking). Once you stop wretching, I recommend that you give thinking a try again. Putting a black man or woman in office represents a change of monumental proportions. The media will stand by with billows to fan the flames--let's resist the temptation to draw battle lines within our party. Passions will run high in '08, let's not let them overwhelm reason.

Posted by NJH | January 14, 2008 9:35 PM

funny that the HRC attack machine is still on the drug issue. more karl rove ... think drugs and Bill. is it too late for "I didnt inhale."

Posted by RI Red | January 14, 2008 9:38 PM

I agree with all the above comments. Why won't the Clintons just go away.
And let's start calling her Clinton -- not Hillary, just like all the male candidtaes are referred to by their last names.
I am a life long Democrat and I will vote for ABC
anyone but Hillary -- I will be glad to cast a vote for McCain over Clinton in 2008

Posted by Phyllis | January 14, 2008 9:47 PM

This is a good exposition of HIllary's strategy:

http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/oreos-and-house-negroes-clinton.html

Posted by RKA | January 14, 2008 10:05 PM

I hope that there's a future Obama speech that goes something like this: "To the teacher's union. I understand politics as well as anyone--your union supports Hillary, and that's part of the way politics and unions work. But don't let us forget why we're all supporting any candidate at all. Let's not forget . . . hope . . . uniting . . . messiah."

Posted by michael | January 14, 2008 10:07 PM

Forgive me for talking about some non-presidential stuff, but some MAJOR news in Senate races: A judge has ruled that the Mississippi Senate special election has to be held by March 19th -- which is obviously great news for Democrats.

Posted by Daniel | January 14, 2008 10:09 PM

And her campaign will go right back to having multiple conference calls with reporters detailing how irresponsible Obama is on the morrow...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 14, 2008 10:11 PM

Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton who said, Mahatma Ghandi ran a gas station in Saint Louis? Yes indeed, and isn't it true that she & bubba painted Monica Lewinsky as a stalker, before the blue dress surfaced. Without DNA evidence, what would have become of that "troubled" young woman? Oh, but Hillary was the real victim. The Clintons live to discredit others; then play the victims themselves. The Clintons continue to play a shameful role in American politics and, you reaffirm my faith in human nature by expressing your heartfelt distain. Perhaps he Clintons have served to bring us together in our condemnation: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | January 14, 2008 10:35 PM

Obama could defuse the whole racial controversy in a minute by coming out and emphasizing that he is of mixed race, and that the Caucasian side of his family were primarily responsible for his upbringing. But that would let the air out of the balloon so fast there would be massive casualties in the plunge to earth, so he won't do it.

Posted by robert ethan | January 14, 2008 10:37 PM

Doesn't anyone remember the shame? Doesn't anyone hold these people accountable for so many lost years and opportunities, due to distractions that weren't all really due to a right wing conspiracy? What about the victims of the Clinton machine, with Hillary at the helm? How many were afraid to come forward, knowing what would become of them? How many Obama supporters today are afraid of retribution, if she is able to will her way to even more power than she/they currently hold? But, I suppose this is the FUN PART. And we'd all just better keep our mouths shut and go along, because it's her turn, RIGHT?

Posted by Stacey | January 14, 2008 10:40 PM

I'm glad to see Robert has offered his services in determining who is authentically Black.

Posted by c | January 14, 2008 11:00 PM

Add me to the list of progressives who would never vote for HRC.

But it is because I think she'd make a lousy president. Her support for a flag burning amendment should be enough to send shivers through most liberals.

I live in rural Georgia and have lots of friends and family who are staunch Republicans. I like to play a game with them - I have them do political internet quizes that match you up with the candidate that best fits your views. The vast majority of them end up with Hillary as their first or second choice.

Now, some of the issues are worthwhile - most southerners still believe in government programs and want government healthcare. But when it comes to Iraq, aggressive foreign policy, and the government's right to micro-manage our lives, Hillary is lock and step with the evangelical base on just about everything but abortion.

Posted by Jorge | January 14, 2008 11:11 PM

Who is the sad bastard who keeps using my name anyway? What a total moron, with his racist crackwhore head up his ass!

Posted by robert ethan | January 14, 2008 11:12 PM

What a bunch of wimps. OOOh Mrs Clinton she's tooo tough and mean. Since she's not nice and wimpy like me then I will let the GOP win Againand Af=gain and Again and Again. She's out to win bunch of loosers. She's the Oonly one able to hold her ground in front of McCain or anyone else. Obama will fold. Is like Bambi. Never been tested, won elections against divided opposition or token Republican candidate. You deserve another Bush.

Posted by Hail to the Wimps | January 14, 2008 11:52 PM

Let me say in the least hyperbolic language I can: if Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for McCain. I'd rather have someone who runs honorably than someone who does not, even if I reject his positions.

I am not a "Hillary Hater". I respect the difficulty of her position, having a record that is a negative and a message that is based entirely on that negative record. She's got to win somehow I suppose. I just can't abide the indecency of her approach any longer. I choose unity over party.

Posted by Steven Hall | January 14, 2008 11:55 PM

Well, stop and think of the effect of Obama coming out and saying "I am a person of mixed race. I am as proud of my Caucasian heritage as I am of my African heritage. I choose not to represent one particular group of people, and be indentified with that group. Therefore these remarks that some categorize as racist do not wound me. I am of the world.".

Seems simple enough to me. That would be the logical way to rise above issues of race, and stop people coming on boards like these screaming insults and epithets at someone who doesn't wholeheartedly support their candidate.

Posted by robert ethan | January 15, 2008 12:02 AM

Interesting parallels between the recent Australian race and ours on the change vs. experience debate:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/kevin-rudd-barack-obama-australian.html

Posted by Jake | January 15, 2008 12:07 AM

Comment at 11:12 PM,

It really is scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as discussion boards go to co-opt someone else's name, then be insulting and profane using that name. Childish, spineless, and I think the proprietor of this site needs to send you a little message about standards of behaviour.

Posted by robert ethan | January 15, 2008 12:07 AM

The Clintons and I are DONE. Fo-eva!
I won't send her a dime, walk a block or dial one digit for her if she is the nominee.

Fortunately, she won't be.

Posted by dave | January 15, 2008 12:19 AM

Robert Ethan, your criticisms are bizarre. I'm a half-African American, half Caucasian young adult. I grew up in the poor parts of Westchester, NY, and my adolescence was spent in a comfy white Minnesotan suburb. I am fair skinned but my brother is dark skinned. We're both well aware of what it's like to be mixed kids raised by Caucasians in both a black neighborhood and a white neighborhood. There's no such thing as "choosing to be black". Your identity is your identity, be it mixed or not. You're going to get flack for being too white or too black. You're going to be aware of it and yet unaware at the same time. You're going to find a way to fit in anywhere and yet there will always be people who can never accept you.

Barack Obama is not only a man beyond what Martin Luther King Jr. could have ever even dreamed of, but he is uniquely representative of modern America--he is post the racial barrier, just as my brother and I are. An America that is paradoxically beyond the question of race and yet constantly aware of it. If the question is who would do more for race perception in this country, Barack Obama would heal like nobody else could.

Posted by Joe G | January 15, 2008 12:31 AM

Everyone, go to this link, as mentioned above:
http://thepage.time.com/ny1-release-on-rangel-interview/

It's DISGUSTING what Rangel says about Obama. I am furios right now. I just wrote a fax that i will send to his office first thing.
I suggest more of the same from you like-minded folks...

Posted by dave | January 15, 2008 12:56 AM

Joe G - I thought my comments were more suggestive than critical. I honestly feel that Obama could take out the race issue by emphasizing his mixed race heritage. Has anyone ever tried to do that? Most people where I live show some signs of multi racial heritage. There are all sorts of blends of African, Asian, Caucasian, Native American blood flowing in the people I see, and many interracial couples to further blend the differences.

If you lined up all the world's people on a color chart ranging from the palest Scandanavian to the darkest African, Barack Obama would fall somewhere in the middle. Why not take advantage of that fact? The President of America is the most powerful position in the world, and considered the leader of the free world. What better way to represent all the racial spectrum of the country, and all the races of the world by refusing to be slottedd by race? Obama does all he can to secure "street cred" as a black man. It is central to his campaign.

Posted by robert ethan | January 15, 2008 1:04 AM

There is a Clinton Attacks Obama Wiki up. At the Incidents Page, there are now TWENTY-ONE listed.

http://clintonattacksobama.pbwiki.com/Incident-Tracker

But, of course, this is in the ' imagination'. You've been ignoring those of us who have been pointing out this PATTERN for some time.

Will you even bring up that just as Hillary supposedly called a ' truce', she had Charlie Rangel ATTACKING OBAMA.

Why does this sound like deja vu?

Oh yes, could it be that it is totally like the Sheehan flap, where Clinton SUPPOSEDLY apologized to Obama....and then not less than two hours LATER, on HARDBALL, there is Mark Penn ATTACKING Obama.

This is a race-baiting strategy to BLACKEN UP Obama, for the February 5th states, but none of you MSM yokels will call her on that, will you?

Posted by rikyrah | January 15, 2008 1:29 AM

rikyrah - What makes you think that anyone who criticizes Barack Obama must have been put up to the act by the Clintons? Do you think that people like Charlie Rangel are so insipid and weak that they would say anything that someone instructed them to say?

How would you feel if every time you put up a post critical of Hillary Clinton someone said "Oh my God, the Obama campaign sent rikyrah a memo with talking points set out to attack Hillary. What a stooge!". Would that statement be true? Or would you say, "I've thought long and hard about these candidates and CAME TO MY OWN CONCLUSION.". Now it may very well be that you are more successful and prominent in your own community than Charlie Rangel or others who have questioned Obama are in theirs, but just as likely not. Therefore there is at least as good a chance that Rangel and others offered a perspective that is at least as informed and intelligent as yours. Given of their own free will.

Posted by robert ethan | January 15, 2008 1:54 AM

Regarding Marc's "Whomsoever is the nominee will have to unify the party, and the more festering these wounds are, the harder it will be."

It is worth observing that a compelling strategy for unifying the party after this bruising nomination fight is for the winner to select the loser as the running mate. Far fetched? Not really. I think it could happen.

Democratic Unity Ticket '08

Posted by JPkron | January 15, 2008 2:46 AM

If you vote Republican or stay at home on election day you are turning your back on the Iraq War, civil liberties, choice, torture, the poor and working class, climate change, universal health care and many other issues. Clinton was my fourth choice when this began but if she wins the Democratic nomination I will vote for her.

Posted by FTP | January 15, 2008 4:31 AM

yeah, i mean who are all these self described progressives who can't stand hillary so much they will stay home or vote for mccain. sounds to me like they are stealth republicans, if not in spirit then certainly IN FACT.

hey, if you aren't going to vote for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE in november regardless, then don't vote in the primary. it's just that simple.

Posted by english teacher | January 15, 2008 5:32 AM

Well, ad me to the I'll-never-vote-for-Obama-list.

Not that I've got so much really against Obama. It's not the man - it's the company he keeps.

The Obama fans online are the nastiest lot I've ever encountered outside the Republican part of the blogosphere.

And come to think of it, there are plenty of places whithin the Republican blogosphere where people are more civil towards each others than this loud, condescensding and nasty lot that comprises the Obama fans online.

These Obama shills will never stop slinging mud and dirt at Democrats.

Posted by Grant | January 15, 2008 5:41 AM

I'm a Clinton supporter.
I've already voted for Hillary in New Hampshire.
I doubt I will back Obama in the general, because as far as I can see, his first comment out of the box implied that Hillary Clinton was a racist.

Here's one example of the type of comment we see from Obama supporters:
"Add me to the list: after this week, I'm done with Hillary. If she wins the nomination I'm staying home in November. And I NEVER thought I'd say that."

So, Obama has been a MISERABLE FAILURE at bringing Democrats together. And he got into this race because he promised he could bring Republicans and Independents into the fold with his fellow Democrats??!!??

Thanks for NOTHING, Senator Obama.

Posted by Jan | January 15, 2008 6:22 AM

"Add me to the list: after this week, I'm done with Hillary. If she wins the nomination I'm staying home in November. And I NEVER thought I'd say that."

So, Obama has been a MISERABLE FAILURE at bringing Democrats together. And he got into this race because he promised he could bring Republicans and Independents into the fold with his fellow Democrats??!!??"

Jan,

This a crap argument, and you must know it. The ends do not justify the means - EVER! People are human beings first, americans next and democrat third (leaving aside all other personal identities). So, as human beings we cannot reward disgusting behavior. Isn't that what we teach our children?

Second, as Americans, it is better to have a decent person with integrity govern, rather than someone who will divide the country and rule just for her personal power...no?

And as Democrats, vote in the primaries, get your friends together and make sure HRC is not on the ticket!

Bela

Posted by Bela | January 15, 2008 7:29 AM

Some of the same people who were hating on Hillary and Bill two and three weeks ago on this site now say they are done with Hillary and they will vote against her.
They've been blogging against her already for weeks. These obama supporters are like the anti-obamas in that they are so reactionary, so quick to denigrate, so ready to condemn. Obama said yesterday that the clintons aren't what this blog-full of haters are saying the clintons are BUT his supporters here keep up the venom. AND yet the haters here can't get behind thier candidate and hold thier tongue or give voice to the better angels of their natures: how ironic! Ironic because when Hillary and Bill say they can't control some of the stupid or unfortunate ways thier followers say stuff, (shaheen and johnson and who-ever) the very thinned skinned folks blogging here won't buy it: look in the mirror folks. The hate you are posting is working against your candidate.
And check it out: the hillary folks on this blog are not peddling the same reactionary hatred. None of them say they are going to vote mccain or romney or stay home if Obama wins.
Say its everybody else injecting race into this campaign and then call any black leaders sticking with clinton a sell-out. Charlie Rangel can vote for who he wants without having to defend against such hateful nonsense.
You don't ever have to love or vote Hillary and you can stay home if that's what you want to do but the daily announcements and denouncements are a bit much.
I will love voting for Hillary and if Obama comes out ahead and is our candidate I will love voting for him. I love Hillary and I love the chance to go vote with my 10 year daughter for a female president: no doubt. But if the process yeilds Obama instead I will love going with my ten year old daughter to vote for our first black president. But he is no more of a unity- promised land kind of guy than she is. And until she loses, she is my girl. And she would pick him for VP. Who wouldn't?

Posted by Michael c. | January 15, 2008 8:04 AM

Michael,

As you mentioned - many HRC supports are willing to vote for Obama and not the other way around. Why? It is because Obama has not played dirty and so you feel comfortable with him as a second choice.

For Obama supporters, and people generally on the fence, seeing HRC's dishonest campaign tactics is what makes most say "anyone but her"

You have to have your head in the sand not to disgusted by the HRC campaign tactics - using surrogates to prevent Nevada workers to participate AFTER the union decided to support Obama, misleading flyers on the abortion issue, dissing Obama's stand on the Iraq war and unbelievably spinning her support of it

Can't people be disgusted by such behavior, or do we have to act like sheep saying "I will support the winner, who ever it is" Not - what about "I will support decency and integrity, and vote for whoever earns my respect"

Posted by Bela | January 15, 2008 8:37 AM

i do not have my head in the sand and i am not disgusted by "hrc campaign tactics". i am disgusted by the media that drove this bullshit and the obama people who can't fucking let it go. but i'll be voting for him in spite of pricks like you.

and by the way, how can you talk about "decency" and "integrity" in light of the half truths you just peddled in your next to last paragraph, where you still insist that the teachers union is under the direct control of sen. clinton? goddam, if clinton has that much control, she'd already be the effing president.

Posted by english teacher | January 15, 2008 8:51 AM

and again, to say that hillary clinton uses grown african american men as "surrogates" in the media to attack obama IS ITSELF RACIST. but bear in mind, i am not calling sen. obama a racist. just those of his supporters who seem to honestly believe that people like rangel or bob johnson or jon lewis look to sen. clinton to tell them what to say. how patronizing can you be?

Posted by english teacher | January 15, 2008 9:04 AM

HC's "unity" comments are transparently phony, given the continuing, well-organized (and sometimes racially tinged) attacks from surrogates. Her need for power is evidently so strong that she will do anything.

Posted by Matt | January 15, 2008 9:18 AM

Forget the tace issue - I did not mention it. I think it was quite unnecessary for HRC to make an MLK/LBJ comparisions, but I agree the media behaved very irresponsibly. No big surprise - the media seems to pander to the worst in us.

However, I absolutely disagree on your reading of the Nevada State Education Association . If they had all these issues, why weren't these raised BEFORE the culinary union endorsed Obama - the idea of caucusing on the precincts was agreed by DNC and unions before endorsements were made.

To the question of Clinton's links with the teachers union. You are right that the Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat. But many of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association's deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton's Nevada Women's Leadership Council. So how hard is it to connect the dots?

Posted by Bela | January 15, 2008 9:21 AM

so you are "connecting the dots" but you don't have proof. is that what you are saying?

listen, i am not against obama. if he is the nominee i will vote for him. but this shit is ridiculous. people who support hillary and are willing to do what it takes within the law to keep her in the race are not "surrogates". they are grown ups acting of their own free will in support of their candidate, just as anyone else is.

the problem is that for obama, his supporters have fallen into the HIGHLY problematic situation of repeating all the old right wing smears of sen. clinton. clinton does not "control" people or use "surrogates" any more or less than obama. indeed, even using the term "surrogates" to refer to clinton supporters is dubious. the term itself is a smear aimed at her supporters. and so it begs the question whether obama's supporters' idea of reaching out and offering hope only includes republicans, independents, and democrats who support obama. people who support obama's primary opponents need not apply? we are merely "surrogates for clinton". is that right? 'cuz that's sure how you are making it sound.

Posted by english teacher | January 15, 2008 9:37 AM

Oops I meant 'race' not 'tace'. Also, to the poster who said the Nevada teachers union lawsuit has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, some more info from another site:

(a) The attorneys who filed the suit in LV are all Hillary backers - and it was championed by Rory Reid (Harry's son) who is the Clinton Nevada Chair
(b) Many letters have been written by union members (you can go to the LV Sun) listing their names - to their union management objecting to the Teachers Union instituting this lawsuit (and that the Union principals have all endorsed Senator Clinton so this suit is strictly political)
(c) Last MARCH 2007 - all the members of the Nevada Democratic party voted on the caucus sites and signed off on them -- so this is not new info (the only NEW info was that the Culinary Union did not endorse Sen Clinton)
AND LASTLY:
(4) The schools are closed on Saturday --so why is the teachers union of Nevada suing for on site caucus locations on Saturday? Is it so their janitors can participate in the caucuses? The caucus is for two hours 11 - 1 Sat morning/afternoon and as there is no school till the following Tuesday - a more reasonable way to allow the janitors to vote, would be to give them those two hours off. The schools would still be clean and ready to go by the following Tuesday

There is no logic to the lawsuit at this point ...

Posted by Bela | January 15, 2008 9:42 AM

English Teacher,

I did not mean to offend you. I don't think people who are supporting HRC are unthinking 'surrogates'. I just was trying to make the point that the HRC campaign is playing dirty, and that is what is putting a lot of people off.

You may feel that the Nevada teachers union lawsuit to prevent CU workers for caucusing is not linked at all to the Clinton campaign. That is fine and frankly, from my perspective, more heartening than people who do see HRC campaign role in the lawsuit and still support her.

Posted by Bela | January 15, 2008 9:54 AM

could it be that teacher have to work the caucus events located at their schools even if that is not where they themselves are actually supposed to caucus? in other words, teachers show up on saturday to administer a caucus vote for others but they themselves can't participate because they live and are therefore supposed to caucus somewhere else? that's what i read the issue was about. maybe if you don't mention it, nobody will notice you are full of crap.

Posted by english teacher | January 15, 2008 9:54 AM

I was fired up for Hillary--I even drove around a red state (Georgia) with a Hillary08 sticker I got on the internet before she declared. Now both of them have disappointed me to the point I cannot vote for them (I meant her). Their negative campaign is the old-style politics our country needs to leave behind. Please do add me to the "Democrat who will support anyone but Hillary in the general" list, and yes, that includes McCain.

Posted by Hallerberg | January 15, 2008 10:02 AM

look bela, the problem you present to people like myself who want the DEMOCRATIC candidate to win in november is that you sound like fucking rush limbaugh. don't you get that? quit calling grown adults "surrogates". quit saying that there is a "history" of dirty campaigning that is somehow exclusive to the clintons but no one else. quit saying that clinton "craves power" and will "do whatever it takes to win" as though she's the only one.

seriously it sounds like many people who are supporting obama are doing so out of dislike for clinton. how can obama be seen as a vehicle for a "politics of hope" or "transcendence" when people who support him sound just like rush limbaugh? they (you?) are not for obama, just against hillary. even though obama is not my first choice, i think he deserves better than that from people who claim to support him.

Posted by english teacher | January 15, 2008 10:04 AM

English teacher,

"could it be that teacher have to work the caucus events located at their schools even if that is not where they themselves are actually supposed to caucus?"

And...the teachers union did not realize this till after the CU endorsed Obama? I mean the locations were decided last year - why didn't the union bring up the point then?

And to your response to "wanting the DEMOCRATIC candidate to win in november" - I frankly just want a person with integrity to win. I am less worried about most policy positions - nobody will be able to deliver what they promise in an election. I guess that makes me an independent (who is very pro-choice, but refuses to be guided only by her ovaries)

Posted by Bela | January 15, 2008 10:18 AM

If you want to find the call for new leadership and change, a rejection of the DC Establishment, and a willingness to move beyond the tired old politics of sound bite and divsion that made the 1992 Clinton campaign so great, you need to look to Obama this year. Obama is the 1992 Clinton, minus the ego and bimbo eruptions, which is for the good. Clinton 2008 is about holding on to power at any price, trying to arouse fear and division -- between Obama and the black establishment, between blacks and Hispanics, between blacks and whites, between the generations, and between men and women. At some point, the goals of the Clintons moved beyond having power to help people to just having power.

Posted by RP | January 15, 2008 1:57 PM

I keep hearing what "good friends" the Clintons have been to "the black community". [Is that the same as "good white people"?]

Name one (1!) tangible thing that the Clintons have brought into fruition or supported that primarily benefited black citizens? Tangible, not feeling the pain.

To paraphrase a commentator on Slate.com, the Clintons have let their dysfunctional marriage and need for power override any concerns for the nation.

Posted by Pamela | January 15, 2008 1:58 PM

Thanks for your comments and anger.
Don't forget to vote in the primary--show your support for Obama.
And get out the vote too.

Posted by Beth | January 15, 2008 5:32 PM

I'm a Nevada teacher, and want this country's citizens to know that this state's classroom teachers had nothing to do with this bull$&!* lawsuit that the NSEA brought against the Dem party regarding caucusing in casinos, where thousands work Saturdays. There was no consultation and/or vote; it was simply the workings of the corrupt head honchos with their heads up HC's butt. Many teachers I talked to shortly after it happened knew nothing about it.
Corruption and ineptitude are trademarks of teacher organizations here, which is one of the major reasons the fifth largest district in the country is a sorry mess, with a chronic teacher shortage, an enormous dropout rate, and very poor national rankings.
Please don't think teachers here had anything to do with this.

Posted by nvteacher | January 18, 2008 12:42 AM

To robert ethan,