The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

As we all know, this election is going to be a historic election. Now that Sen. John Edwards has graciously dropped out of the race, the democratic nominee would either be a woman or an African American man. This fact is undeniable. However, is the emphasis put on the candidates' race or gender overshadowing their stances on the issues?

As I watched the South Carolina Democratic debate broadcasted by CNN and sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, I could not help but be side tracked by meaningless questions, relentless attacks, and innumerable references to race and gender.

The opening question of the debate was on the state of the economy, which is truly a concern of most Americans. The CNN correspondents started off strong and I thought this debate was going to really address the issues, assured to me by the moderator, Wolf Blitzer. Instead, questions were asked about the candidates' opinions on whether or not Bill Clinton is in fact "the first Black President." Although Barack's response to this ridiculous question was entertaining, he attempted to divert the question with humor, asserting that "I would have to, you know, investigate more of Bill's dancing abilities."

Questions like these do not get to the core of what the average American wants or even needs to hear. The very purpose of these debates is to get a better understanding of the candidates and what they stand for. However, debates have turned into childish squabbles. Leaving the American people once again, turned off by politics. It is not until the candidates begin to reveal their stances in a clear cut manner, focusing their attention on the American people, and less off of each other, that we will have a democratic system that truly reflects just that, democracy.

I don't think there are many Democrats, Independents that know we need to change parties in the White House. Hell, a bunch of Republicans feel the same way but do we really want to go "back to the future". For the last couple of weeks we have been reminded of the Clinton tactics that made them hated by nearly half the country. When Hillary ran for Senate in New York it was a positive campaign all the way. The current state of the Democratic campaign has gotten way too ugly. You can blame both Hillary and Obama a little for that but they seemed to set the racist stuff aside in the Nevada.

Enter Bill Clinton. A beloved ex-President has become nothing but a sleeze merchant in a couple of weeks. I have totally lost any respect I had for him and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The question you have to ask yourself is do you want the same partisanship that has poisoned this country since 1994 because it's already showing in this campaign that's what the Clinton's will bring.

I say "roll the dice" with a new candidate from a different era that doesn't carry the same baggage our country is sick of.

Obama is the one Democratic Candidate that has the ability to work with the dark side.

Folks bottom line is this- a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the Republican Nominee. Hillary and Bill represent the most polarizing kind of politics in America- the Clinton administration, let us not forget, gave a fresh agenda to the Neocons......and believe me when I tell you that no one can energize the republican base the way they can. Clinton absolutely cannot and will not win a general election. So I beg all of you female boomers - please try and leave the world better than you found it for we who have our lives to live yet...don't let our dreams slip away because you'd like to see Hill and Bill back in the white house. We dont need to throw this one to the republicans again. We need you to vote for a president that can inspire and lead the people, who can effect change from the bottom up- who can mobilize each of us to make a difference in our world and one who doesnt want to control the nation like its a bureacracy to be managed like so much paper....
This nation has no chance if you throw the level for Hillary. None.

LOL!, LOL!,LOL!, LOL!,LMFAO!!!!!

Mrrrrrowww, Hisss, Mrrrrowwww, Hisssss

MMRRROOWWWWW! :)

PS. Is it just me, or does the content of Associated Press Releases seem to bias against Obama towards Clinton?

Shame they don't provide a forum for people to feedback on their releases.

sa5766: Sorry but the one you support has been on the attack and has been twisting things and being untruthful and the one you support has a snowballs chance in hell of getting enough support to become President if she is put up as the nominee. People are not going to go for the Clinton's again - not enough to secure it for her.

Um hotnuke - you're kinda lowering the tone here a bit - could you amp it down?

Well, I just got through reading the whole transcript of the debate. The media are taking out the juicy excerpts cos that's what gets pieces read - but actually leaving out some rebuttals and I would encourage people to take the time to read the transcript or watch the entire broadcast - and not just rely on print for this debate.

I would particularly like to tell you what rebuttal Obama gave to the slum lord accusation. Obama was working as a lawyer for a Church Group, who in the course of things happened to be doing something with this 'slum lord' - he put in 5 hours work on behalf of the Church Group. So this is something minor blown into something more than that. Right.

I think they all did reasonably well. There were issues, feelings and accusations that needed to be cleared up as well - and they got an airing today. I personally think that was a good thing for all of them to have it out at this stage - and what better location than South Carolina? I hear they like a good dust up down there.

I hope that both Bill and Hillary will listen to some of the backlash that has come their way and remember that it is not about what is best for the Clintons but what is best for their party and for America. They deserved to be taken to task on some of their behavior - I hope they clean it up. A lot of people did have fond memories of the Clinton years and it would be a shame to tarnish that legacy with this kind of behavior.

I found the end of the debate very interesting. Clinton went first and chose to make this statement: 'I want to take all those voices of these extraordinary Americans who come up to me and tell me their stories and give me hope and inspiration that I can do something for them. Because that's what it's about for me'.

Now about this - I will say the experience part has always been her position, but earlier on she used a lot of 'I will do this' language as opposed to Obama's 'together as a people we will'. That's where the relevance of Obama's comment about MLK not endorsing anyone comes in. He said he thought that MLK would tell the people to make each candidate accountable and that change occurs not from the top down but from the bottom up. I don't think that is something that Hillary realized about MLK based on the answer she gave. She seems clearly to be more orientated to a 'top down' approach - Clinton knows best.

But also here - she talks about the people giving her hope and inspiration to do things, and this contrasts with Obama in that he wants to give hope and inspiration to the people so that he and them can achieve things together. One statement is individualistic, the other is collective.

The Clintons' were also trashing hope not too long ago and now she is talking hope and inspiration. So she has co-opted some of Obama's message and that is not a strong thing to do, especially when you were not singing that tune all along and your major opponent was. She knows Obama's message is powerful - but it is clear to everyone that it is his message, not hers or it would have been hers from day 1. Co-opting another's message - it does not impart a sense of sincerity or integrity but rather a tack of 'say whatever you think will work'. That is not confidence inspiring and it's too transparent - I don't recommend it.

Then it was Obama's turn - he didn't talk about hope and inspiration - he didn't need to - everyone knows that is essential ingredients of what Obama's campaign is about. He chose to promote unity, redrawing the political map, talking about democrats, independents and republicans coming together to create a working majority on the tough issues ahead - and he is precisely right that this is what is needed at this time.

Edwards, I thought, made good points and I genuinely like the man and I see Obama and Edwards sharing some very important 'core values' - they differ in the details on some policies - but they have similar enough core values to work effectively together as a team. Hillary is not aligned with some of the core values that are actually critical to take to task at this time.

Where Edwards and Hillary are aligned is in being - I would say - classically pro- Democrat, anti-Republican. However, this is problematic because it does not encourage a working majority and unity across party lines - Obama is the only one trying to do that - with some success I might add. And I believe his is the wiser position and indeed the position that one would have to take to ensure getting enough votes to win the Presidency over a Republican candidate. This makes him the preferable figurehead - president - the uniter.

However, I also think that Edwards would be a good VP to Obama - so far as they can work together on core values of importance to all Americans, with Obama ensuring Republicans and Independents are moving forward together with Democrats and meaningfully tackling the issues ahead as a team - as a nation - no closed door stuff - open discussion - creating solutions that prioritize the American people together.

Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964

A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement.

In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her 'civil rights experience' during every speech given to blacks audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." But Novak's article states that there's a big problem with her statement.

The fact is, in 1963, the same period of time she speeks of at all black church appearances, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes "...how then could she be a 'Goldwater Girl' in the next year's presidential election?" He continues, "...she described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.' (Hillary worked on Goldwater's presidential campaign)
Novak adds, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary later headed Young Republicans in college.

Greg 'Peace Song' Jones
(Google: 'Hillary,King,Goldwater' to read Novaks original article)

Is there a thread on this debate that is not dominated by Clinton cheerleaders like hotnuke, svreader and iowatreasures?

How about a non-repetitive discussion on what the three candidates had to say?

And here's hoping that Bill and Hillary actually take the gloves off and hammer this scumbag. Here's hoping Bill comes out and starts mentioning the Chicago Sun Times articles so that the media would be FORCED to start paying attention to those stories simply because they can't ignore what Bill says, they HAVE to make it news. So far, the media has ignored them completely, and once the American public start delving into it, they'll see what a fukking corrupt lowlife Obama is.

tonebobb, you have to understand, like much of the media, Anne Kornblut is a Hillary-Hating lowlife. It's no surprise she would reverse the order to paint Hillary as having started the brawl. It's also not surprising she didn't factcheck the two statements and report that Obama's charge was COMPLETELY false, that she WASN'T a CORPORATE LAWYER, but FIRST LADY OF ARKANSAS at the time, and that the board membership was honorary. Further, that Hillary's charge against Obama, while harsh, was COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY TRUE.

As the Chicago Sun Times has reported and PRODUCED NUMEROUS PIECES OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT, Obama not only worked with this INDICTED SLUM LORD REZKO, but ACTUALLY DID A FAVOR FOR A BRIBE HE'D BEEN PAID.

Obama is a dirty, corrupt, lying, lowlife racist not worthy of being elected dog-catcher of Podunk, Illinois, let alone President of the United States of America.

Moderator:
Please don't censor Hotnuke2007 - he's the best thing going for Obama around these parts. While 'Nuke is clearly insane and frightens me quite a bit -- see his post a few days ago in which he challenged a fellow poster to a fight and listed his name, address and phone number -- the man sure knows how to be entertaining. So keep it up, Nukey! Continue using capital letters when you get REALLY EXCITED! Keep on referring to the GOP as "Republikkkunts." And proceed to lie about Sen. Obama's record! Because, frankly, your inarticulate, ill-considered rantings only hurt your candidate.

ANNE KORNBLUT, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

you said:

"Clinton accused Obama of consorting with a "slum landlord," and repeated her charges that Obama had spoken favorably the week earlier about Republicans in the 1980s. Obama retorted that he had referred to Reagan as having ideas in the 1980s -- not that they were good ones. And he flung back a reminder of her past, saying that while he had worked on grassroots development, she had been "a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart."

that is not only misleading, it's incorrect.

obama's charge of clinton "sitting on the board at walmart" came BEFORE her "slum landlord" charge and anyone looking at the transcript or watching the debate would know it.

you've characterized it as though clinton started the squabbling, and that's not what happened.

tc

http://kayobi.blogspot.com/

sa5766: You are right - Obama made the Wal-Mart comment before Clinton made the Rezko comment. And BOY was I pleased to see him finally respond directly to the long string of divisive tactics they've been deploying ever since he won Iowa.

It's interesting you think the press is biased in Obama's favor. It looks to me like you're as devoted a Clintonite as I am an Obamamaniac. And I can say that my perspective is just as skewed as yours is -- in the other direction. The press isn't on anybody's side. They just want the war to continue because they think it makes a good story. What's more amazing is that as much as we loathe what they have to say alot of the time, we can't stop reading it. The joke's on us.

By the way, shouldn't the moderator get rid of hotnuke2007's ugly response to mamacrookshank?

She makes a good point. Given the ugliness both Clintons have shown themselves capable of in this campaign, I've also concluded that I'm not going to vote for her if she's the nominee. And since I registered to vote 25 years ago, I've always voted the straight Democratic ticket. (I'm 43 and female and not black.)

At the start of this race, I loved that we had two qualified candidates in our camp. I also liked that one was a woman and the other a black man, and that FINALLY, we had two candidates good enough so that neither Hillary's female-ness nor Barack's blackness struck me as an issue.

But Hillary's right. Character matters. I have a 10 month old daughter. And when I think about it, I wouldn't want my daughter to grow up to be like Hillary Clinton, but I sure would be proud if she were to grow up to be like Barack Obama.

Politics is a dirty game and we need the best to take on the Republicans. Do you think the Republican nominee is going to be gentle on the Democratic nominee? They will swift boat Obama by painting him as a soft liberal lefty. This is great practice for Bill and Hillary so that we can take back the white house. Obama can cry about Bill all he wants by calling Oprah.

JUST IN:

BAD NEWS FOR HILLARY'S "ELECTABILITY" ARGUMENT

(or "YOUR SLIP IS SHOWING")

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/blacks.html

New poll: U.S. more ready for black prez than female one
A new poll just out from CNN/Opinion Research tied to Martin Luther King Day today finds blacks and whites optimistic and pretty much in agreement -- 84% whites, 78% blacks -- that a lot or moderate progress has been made toward the civil rights leader's dream of equality in American society.

But hidden near the bottom of the survey of nearly 1,400 adult Americans Jan. 14-17 is some disturbing news for Sen. Hillary Clinton heading into tonight's Democratic debate in South Carolina and the party's primary there Saturday. ...

Senator Edwards looked strong tonight, and all three of them were very good and impressive, much more coherent, smart, and willing to tackle difficult problems facing America head-on than any of the Republican candidates.

Mr. Edwards' chance for becoming the Democratic nominee is remote, but he will stay in the race fighting hard till the Super Tuesday state primaries are over. His strategy, I suspect, is to gain enough delegates so that if the convention delegate counts between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are very close then he will become a kingmaker, which should also assure him of the vice-presidential spot. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama need a white Southern male running mate.

In other words, Mr. Edwards has the strategy of "if you can't beat them, join them." Since there is a good chance that any Democratic ticket will win this fall's presidential election, provided that Clinton or Obama administration does well, he will then, at the end of either administration, be the shoe-in presidential candidate.

It's a wise strategy knowing that he is only 54. In eight years, he will be 62, still an excellent age to run for president. For more on this, and the possibility of 24 years of Democratic rule, you might want to check on this blog: (http://aviewfromthefringe.blogspot.com/) titled "The Decision Time for 24-year Democratic Dynasty."

Dividing the Democratic Party along racial lines will only give the presidency back to the Republicans, which, of course, is exactly what the media and its wealthy executives are trying to do. Stop and think! We are all Americans. WWMLKD?

Anne -
With all due respect, I must ask for a correction to the record. Let the record show that OBAMA threw the first low personal BLOW about their bios.

You stated the Clinton accused Obama of consorting with a slum landlord, then Obama retorted..."saying that while he had worked on grassroots development, she had been 'a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.'"

WRONG! It is the exact opposite. Obama threw the first punch with the Wal-Mart low-blow (the lagest employer in Arkansas incidentally). Then later Senator Clinton RETORTED that Obama was defending a slumlord.

I'm sick to death of the media taking Obama's defense and showing their obvious bias. Since when is it unfair to question a Presidential Candidate's record? Somehow some in the media seem to think that Senator Clinton nor anyone else is allowed to question him on his record and to take responsibility for the votes and decisions he's made?

If he thinks this primary fight is tough and can't take the heat for his record, he certainly can't take on the Republicans in the fall. They'll eat him for lunch.

Which all goes to underscore that he's not ready. As "soaring" as his rhetoric might be, he's not ready yet to serve as leader of the free world. After 7 years of George Bush, we deserve READINESS and COMPETENCE.

One final question -- whatever happened to the "uniter not divider?" Bush? No, here comes another one trying to sell us that BS again. This is yet another one promising to be a uniter -- and how long did that last with Obama? After 2 losses in a row, he's become a sore loser and DIVISIVE -- personally, politically and racially.

Next...

P.S. If we don't cut this crap, we're going to hand over the election to the GOP in the fall.

Just remember, RyanMcC, you only have about two more weeks of being excited by your lying, lowlife, racist hero. After that it's back to your worthless, pathetic life eating Twinkies and Ho Hos while watching Jerry Springer on your 19 inch black & white tv, watching your ten filthy rugrats run around your filthy trailer, and yelling out to your wife/sister, "Get in here and take care of these fukkin' kids, biatch."

I won't begrudge you your little time away from such a dreadful life...lol

Either the Clintons really enjoy contradicting themselves or else their memories are starting to go.
http://unitedagainsthillary.wordpress.com

You haven't taken your medicine yet, have you Hotnuke? C'mon, buddy, it's bedtime and you've wet yourself again.

Spare us, mamacrookshank.

If you are what you say you are, then you're simply a pathetically stupid fool who's fallen for the lies and racial hucksterism of the Obama campaign.

I'm more inclined though, to believe you're nothing but a Bill and Hillary-Hating lowlife trying to sow division, or an Obama supporter trying to use the lame lie that you were once FOR Hillary and Bill, but now have changed your mind.

Either way, here's hoping you don't vote at all for a Democrat this November. Go vote for a scumbag just like you. There are plenty of them in the Repuglikkkunt Party.

I am a 50 year old white woman. I am a nurse. I have been a democrat my entire life. I have never voted for a republican. These last couple of weeks have led up to my epiphany. BILL CLINTON REALLY IS A SLIME BAG!! I have defended him with all of my being for the last 10 years. I am SO deeply disappointed in him. He will (along with Hillary) Do anything, say anything, in order to retain power. To ensure his own legacy at the expense of our nation. What makes him different than Karl Rove? Nothing in my mind. When these primaries are over, if Hillary is the nominee, I will not be voting for a democrat for the very first time in my life! I am so disappointed in you Bill Clinton! You were my hero. Now you are nothing.

I think Hillary did very well. However, I think she failed on two occasions to really hammer home her point and defend against one of Obama's scurrilous accusations.

First, when she brought up his comments regarding Republican ideas (to which he tried to falsely say she'd just brought up his comments about Reagan) she should not have allowed him to get away with this lame explanation. She should have gone back on the attack and made it clear to the audience and to the people of America that what Obama was CLEARLY attempting to do in that interview, was appeal to Republicans with those comments, whether he was doing it by using slick rhetoric or not. And she should have simply said, "Listen, if you want to appeal to Republicans by SEEMING to praise their ideas, and by SEEMING to praise their most highly regarded president, then go run for the REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. You're running for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION, and Democrats DO NOT believe that the Republicans were the Party of Ideas over the last 10-15 years. Democrats DO NOT believe that Ronald Reagan was a president who brought transformational change in a way Bill Clinton did not."

If she had gone that route, she would have destroyed his lame explanation.

Further, she definitely lost an opportunity, mainly because of Wolf Blitzer, to respond to his scurrilous charge that she was a "CORPORATE LAWYER" on the board of Wal-Mart while he was fighting for poor people. She was the First Lady of Arkansas during that period, who just happened to hold an HONORARY membership on the board of Wal-Mart. His claim was a fukking lie. Her claim against him, while very much a very harsh one, was ABSOLUTELY true, regardless of whether he only worked "5 hours" on the actual project. He was part of it, working with a fukking SLUM LORD. That's a FACT. An INDICTED SLUM LORD, who he took a bribe from according to the Chicago Sun Times reporting.

Still, I think Hillary did far better than most would have thought considering the atmosphere of racial division this fukking lying, lowlife, racist piece of shiite named Obama has brought to this campaign.

Democrats kick off final showdown before South Carolina

The top three Democratic candidates jumped into Monday night's debate with a heated discussion about how to stimulate the economy.

Who Won the CNN Democratic Debate in South Carolina?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1603

.