Home

Hillary Clinton Isn't Vetted, the Rezko Trial, Barack Obama, and Karl Rove

Submitted by mark karlin on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 8:01am.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
by Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher

April 24, 2008

u

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald

The notion that Hillary Clinton has been fully vetted is about as credible as the notion that she can be fully trusted. As P.M. Carpenter points out in his commentary today, Clinton has reached unprecedented polling numbers in the number of Americans who don't trust her: nearly six out of ten, according to a recent Washington Post poll. Furthermore, her negative attacks on Obama have resulted in her negatives, which were already sky high, soaring far faster than his.

So Clinton proceeds by squandering what is left of "brand Clinton" and attracting the relatively small cluster of votes that she would attract in a general election, because she has little reach outside of older people and people without a college education -- not to mention those who are voting her merely because of her gender.

If Clinton were clearly vetted, then why did we just find out a few weeks ago that she has been a fabulist about her trip to Bosnia and her claims to playing a major role in settling a peace in Northern Ireland (and let's not forget the NAFTA dishonesty)? What about that scam felon fundraiser, Mr. Hsu, who put hundreds of thousands of dollars in her campaign funds? What about when John McCain starts rolling out the cases Clinton handled when she was a corporate lawyer for the Rose Law Firm for more than a decade -- and even represented defendants in rape cases? What about her time with anti-union Wal-Mart? What about the claims that not only did her one major initiative -- health care -- collapse because of her managerial incompetence, misguided strategy, and secrecy (think of Dick Cheney and the Energy Task Force), but that Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch -- of all people -- did the heavy lifting on the SCHIPS program.

The fact is that Clinton has been hardly vetted at all in this election. Obama has treated her with kid gloves as far as her past "experience," because the reality is that she does not have 35 years of results, unless you call getting corporations and rapists off the hook "success." Her record of actually "getting things done" on a governmental level -- as far as progressive issues are concerned -- can comparatively be fit in a thumbnail. And that's not an exaggeration.

So, while Obama hasn't brought out that her "35 years of experience and results" is a tall tale (except for a relatively war hawkish Senate career), you can be sure that the McCain camp will.

And that brings us to the Tony Rezko trial, one of the non-issues that the Clinton campaign has been littering on the primary trail like red meat to the sensationalistic corporate media.

As our readers know, BuzzFlash is located in the geographical heartland of the United States. Being in Chicago, I follow the Rezko trial closely, as well as Illinois politics, which I have been involved with off and on for years.

We have said this before and will say it again; if you want to condemn a candidate for having their name mentioned in passing during the trial of a corrupt political fundraiser, Hillary Clinton should have exited the presidential race a long time ago.

The goal of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois has been known by anyone who has followed the Rezko case for months and months: It is to nail the Democratic Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, for personally participating in a pay-to-play contracts and jobs for campaign contributions scheme. Blagojevich is not officially a "target" yet, because the U.S. Attorney's office -- headed by THE Patrick Fitzgerald -- is squeezing Rezko and the witnesses against him in a classic prosecution tactic of following the fish upstream. In short, the case against "Blago" (the Governor's nickname) is just starting to emerge bit by bit.

It should be noted that there are simultaneous efforts, supported by many Democrats in the State House, to either enable legislation to have the Governor recalled or impeached. Yes, that is how badly the Governor's standing has deteriorated (for reasons that go beyond the Rezko trial, relating to his political interaction with the legislature and the management of the Governor's office). Last week, a poll showed Blagojevich with an approval rating much lower than Bush's in Illinois!

So, if the Clinton campaign wants to keep bringing up the Rezko trial, you can be sure that John McCain (who has some questionable fund-raising baggage of his own) is not going to leave Clinton unvetted: he will go after Bill's sleazy business dealings of the last few years, and he will unearth the multi-million dollar contributors to the Clinton Foundation, which the Clinton campaign is still keeping under wraps. Remember that what Bill earns through seedy overseas dealings is jointly owned by Hillary. She cannot run away from that, and McCain won't let her. Nor will he forget about letting her myth about "35 years of experience" go unexamined.

The fact is Obama is pretty transparent. The issues that have been hurled at him by Clinton are the ones that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are echoing. They are peripheral wedge accusations that have nothing to do with dealing with the serious issues facing this nation.

As it turns out, in an odd turn of events, a government witness at the Rezko trial is apparently ready to testify that Rezko knew of an effort by Karl Rove and the then Republican Chairman of Illinois to try and dislodge Patrick Fitzgerald as U.S. Prosecutor for the Northern District of Illinois, which would have simultaneously precluded his role in the Libby prosecution.

The irony is that at the end of the primary season, Hillary Clinton -- who admitted she lied about Bosnia at the ABC debate, but it hardly got a mention -- will be the one who remains largely unvetted regarding the financial activities of the Clintons over the past few years -- and there are files of GOP opposition research from the Clinton years before that which will be blasted across television screens.

So when it comes to the superdelegates looking at the facts on the ground, it is almost impossible to become elected when nearly 60% of the population distrusts you -- and the more you campaign, the higher your negatives go.

And as far as Clinton being vetted, there are still a lot of Hillary and Bill bags that haven't been opened yet, and you can be sure that the McCain campaign is rummaging through them right now.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash | delicious delicious | digg digg | technorati technorati
Technorati Tags:

» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version

Hillary supporters

Submitted by VettaKing on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 1:29am.
The problem with you people is you just don't like math. Your candidate has lost and yet she still stays in the race by lying, slandering, and republicaning. HRC obviously cares more about herself and her ambitions than she does the country or the Democratic party. All the math adds up for Obama and all the numbers consistently say he is more electable. I guess visions of Clintonian empire are going to have to die hard. Considering your candidate has run the most slimy Republican campaign she could and Obama has not returned the favor in kind, I don't know what you are so uppity about. Of all things, Democrats should be happy that the numbers are going to decide things this time.
» login or register to post comments

Obami and his weining followers -Why Ayers, Wright, Farrakhan

Submitted by VoteResponsibly08 on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 10:35pm.
I am truly amazed as how easy it is for people to try and divert faults and not take responsibility for thier own actions! Obama's relationships with Anti-Americans are his responsibility and saying that Hillary has smeared Obama is ridiculous. He has smeared himself by having such associations. Obama is thinks that all American's are idiots. Having the notion that we believe him about not knowing Wrights positions and comments is absolutely ludicrous and insulting. In regards to Ayers, I as a lay person would never serve on a board, or attend a fundraiser for at Ayers home. I would not even shake Ayers hand now or never and I am just a little poor American!!!.So please don't start blaming Hillary for smearing Obama. She has the right to express her concerns because they are all of our concerns, She represent millions like me many Americans feel that the questions asked Obama must answer.Obama Having the following Associations (see below) should be something that all Americans must question and reject. We must all remember that Obama is applying for the most powerful position of our nation and having associations of this sort is something we must think again before considering Obama for our Next President of the United States. If Obama and his supporters do not like the questioned it is too bad. That Obama fell apart at the debate and demonstrated weakness is the reason that there is so much hallabaloo with the questions. The question here is Why did Obama fall Apart? He usually is the aloof and the standing kool candidate that is so honest he will answer anything, for he has been given the free pass for a year and certainly no one would dare ask him anything for they would be characterized as Racist....but Sorry Mr. Obama the questions needed to asked and needed to be answered truthfully...But no he demonstrated a weakness that was really not attractive and it was very concerning! Obama was being ask a simple question that if there was nothing for us to worry about he could have answered eloquently and truthfully and move on. Yet he fell apart, seemed flustered and actually stuttered more than his usual when questions are a little to touch for him that he has not gotten the lead from Clinton. This was a direct question just for him.. And frankly to no ones fault he fell Apart! WHY? Obama continually on the road had to resort complaining about the questions and pointing the finger at Hillary , diverting again in blaming Hillary just like this writer to the real issue here: HIS ASSOCIATION WITH ANTI-AMERICANS and even more deeply continued with the Litany of complaints against America. Could Obama be the new Bill Ayers just a more sophisticated Ayers? I ASK AGAIN!............So our (Americans) questions in regards to all this is why is he getting so upset if there is nothing to all this???I personally admired Hillary because she expressed millions of peoples concerns? Well Yes I and millions of others like me are very concern!!!..After all this is the position of the President of the United states !!Obama should not have any connections to people that hate us, have hurt in the pass and people that would like to hurt us in the future. Diverting the real issue is unfair! We need to know and that is the bottom line Why has Obama associated himself with such sorts?????? Obama’s Connections: William Ayers - American Terrorist Raul Reyes - Columbian Terrorist Antonio Rezko - Muslim Slum Lord Professor Khalidi - Muslim Terrorist Supporter Reverend Wright - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/Preacher Louis Farrakhan - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/ Faux Preacher Nadhmi Auchi - Muslim Billionaire Sohaib Abassi - Muslim Millionaire Rea more here: http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com
» login or register to post comments

Shut up Rethuglican troll

Submitted by VettaKing on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 1:32am.
If you are so happy with America and want to get down on you knees and felate the flag go ahead, but stop pretending you're any kind of progressive, liberal, or democrat. The Vietnamese baby melter is waiting for your vote you coward.
» login or register to post comments

Rezko

Submitted by andyod on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 3:24pm.
The trouble for Obama supporters is. Hillary cannot get any worse and Obama cannot get any better.
» login or register to post comments

Great article. I only half-agree with this comment on it.

Submitted by tommy paine on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 6:40pm.

andyod said, Hillary cannot get any worse and Obama cannot get any better.

This is partially true, but shouldn't be troublesome for we Obamites and Obama:
He IS really good. That will be enough.

It's hard to keep positive in the face of all the Clinton bulls**t,
but we have to.

She's just a BS-hurler, and since it's only BS, it hasn't been sticking.
The best defense is a powerful coordinated positive one.
Stay on the program, stay on message.
Refute each BS dropping, one by one, but don't get dragged in too deep.

We've still got the popular vote by around half-a-million.
We've still got a 130 delegate lead, with no chance of Hillary evening it up.

We've still got Howard Dean, whom I personally believe is smarter than Billary.

Obama, as a man of faith, will keep on keeping on,
and we must follow his example and do so too.

andyod said, Hillary cannot get any worse and Obama cannot get any better.
Basically true, but Obama DID get better with his 'race speech' - and it was because Hillary had gotten worse.

So I believe we're all right!

» login or register to post comments

Tangencial...

Submitted by euthyfro on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 2:15pm.
I've got an interest in popular political language, i'm still in amazement at "Improvised Explosive Device", i'm thinking that "bomb" was working well enough as a label everyone understood, but who am i? so i'd like to ask if anyone knows the etymology of "vetted" and the "vetting process"? maybe i'm just too young but i don't remember it used to the extent it's being used this election.
» login or register to post comments

"VETTING"

Submitted by RedBaronSIU on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 5:44pm.

Don't quote me on this, but my understanding of 'vetting' is that the word is a short, derivative form of 'veterinarian'---as in the practice of one who 'examines', 'probes' or 'investigates'--in this case, animals.

Its versatility has been expanded (by usage), to cover a wide range of subject-matters, stemming from its definiiton of 'to examine or appraise expertly'.

» login or register to post comments

Vetting came hard for Obama

Submitted by patcoghm on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 4:25pm.
Yes Vetting was dicussed by Hillary, that Obama was not Vetted. Since that statement, he has reluctantly been vetted and had to answer questions. Many he lied about, like the amount of money from Rezko, his closeness to Wright, and the corporate jet rides from the outsider insider Senator. Can Vetting be goood for the campaign, yes but one side feels its not good for the party and could split the vote if it asks their candidate the questions. Has Hillary been vetted. I like most Democrats feel she has been vetted, then tramped on, while we tippy toe thru the questions about Obama..... Mark again is blinded to equal truth from BOTH candidates. The Democratic media and talkers "Ed Schultz" and other like Huffington and Buzzflash, will be the reason the Democrats are fractured in the general election. Only one thing will give us the election, and that's a recession that drives the Republicans to abandon their party. So as Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy Stupid" and will be the reason for winning or losing this election.
» login or register to post comments

Randi Rhodes...

Submitted by Fanques on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 5:31pm.
used to be a defender of the the Clintons and she would counter all the phony allegations made against them, and now she reads something like this on the air. The fact is, when it came to the Northern Ireland peace process, Hillary did play an "important role", because that is exactly what Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams said about her role. Catholic leader John Hume said "in private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward." Former senator George Mitchell, who chaired the peace talks in the 90s, said "she was helpful and supportive, very much involved with the issues, she knew all the delegates." Shame of Randi for doing the very things she used to reject.
» login or register to post comments

It's a legal term

Submitted by darlenem on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 3:56pm.
Actually shows up in journalism and publishing a lot. You vet a news story, vet a book manuscript (looking for any potential liabilities).

That's funny about the IED versus bomb. That's simply the government. I remember many years ago there was a newspaper article about how everyon is trying so hard to make everything more politically correct and thus were dreaming up terms perceived to be non-offensive (homeless people in cities became -- honest, I'm not making this up -- "urban campers"). The article also touched on how government makes up some pretty strange terms for perfectly good words, be it the transportation department, the USDA or the labor bureau. I still recall these gems:

ground-mounted confirmatory route markers (road signs)
ambient replenishment assistant (supermarket shelf stocker)
grain-consuming animal units (cows)

I kid you not. Wish I still had the article to reference.
» login or register to post comments

'vetting'

Submitted by buddyrayx on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 2:47pm.
'VETTING' It's a new 'buzzword' and like every buzzword, it is being beaten-to-death by journalists [who want to sound like all the other journalists... 'hip'] "AT THIS JUNCTURE", you want "CLOSURE".
» login or register to post comments

Hil-Rod "VETTED" - Hahahahahaha - Is the Pope still Polish?

Submitted by susanstudioz on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 2:07pm.
susanstudioz - No disrespect to the past Pope nor the present Pope - but GIVE ME A BREAK - "Hil-Rod", as she named herself & I think is HILarious - stating she is VETTED is one of the BIGGEST HOAXES she has tried to perpetrate yet! What bothers me is that "The Press" keeps saying her constituency is OLDER, WHITE, BLUE COLLAR, FEMALE! I am a WHITE, COLLEGE ED. w/a Degree FEMALE, 64.5 years old and I ONCE was Catholic! Most of my friends and our MALE counterparts are the same! We VOTE OBAMA! We ALL ARE FOR Barack Obama, since the day we saw him speak at The National Democratic Convention! I am a Senator Obama VOLUNTEER in my area of New Hampshire - & - BTW (By The Way) - Sen. Obama came really close here but it was her schizoid CRYING at a Family Diner that won that day! People really felt sorry for her and were taken in by this display of "wacky behavior" (My friends & I were NOT!). Most people in NH think you are as REAL as THEY, themselves ARE! New Hampshire is a really HONEST place! I normally would think that way too - HOWEVER - in THIS case - I can remember the "Clinton Years" very well! I didn't like Hil-Rod then & I like her even less now that I have gotten to know her. While those years were very much better then - than what The Joker who sits on the Throne now has handed us - the two of them (Clinton's) were a DANDY Twosome and I knew it - FELT it! When it is said that The Clinton's brought PROSPERITY to our Nation - does The Nation FORGET that was The Era of THE BOOMING COMPUTER BIZ and everything connected to it!? Do we remember Senator Edmund S. Muskie of Maine (Democrat) - running for the Presidency years ago? Do we remember how Sen. Muskie was scorned by the "Manchester Union Leader" (A VERY Conservative Newspaper STILL printing away to this day!) for CRYING on the State House Steps when it most was likely a flake or two of melted snow on his face - which HAPPENS when it's snowing. He L O S T. Much was made of HIS SUPPOSED "crying". He never again was a "CANDIDATE" and he was a VERY GOOD person for the job! My, my, narry a word was mentioned when Mrs. Hil-Rod REALLY did CRY in a NH Diner and although it gets COLD here - it was NOT snowing inside that diner! She was given a BREAK BECAUSE she is a woman! My advancing AGE has it's benefits! I remember a lot! As far as the ECONOMICS of the Clinton years goes, I was a part of THAT TECHNOLOGICAL BIZ BURST scene and remember it came about because of the NEW TECHNOLOGY - the timing was right & NONE of THAT had a thing to do with The Clinton's or are they known as: The-Hil-Rod-Clintons now? She IS NOT what she says she is and WORSE - SHE LIES & flirts with THE TRUTH, as much as "W"! Haven't we had ENOUGH of LYING, SNEAKING, TERRIBLY UNSCRUPULOUS "LEADERS"? I can't IMAGINE her in the HIGHEST office except for a "Feel-Sorry-for-Ya" Visit. Also, I find her not only to be a better Machiavellian than Machiavelli, himself - I find her to be either emotionally unstable - AND/OR - just a SPOILED BRAT who thinks "SHE" is somehow ENTITLED to the Presidency! In case anyone wants to TRY to pin an "UNKIND to WOMEN" or, as Hil-Rod would say: "A Misogynist's" Label on me - I say she is just as emotionally unstable - and/or - unfit for The Office as bushwhack, himself and many other MEN! Whatever way she IS - it's probably ALL of the above - she is unfit for this office. It is too, too, too important now to PUT-UP with and BLINDLY SUFFER ON with Appalling Incompetency and/or Emotional Shiftiness - in that POSITION! We have in Senator Obama a calm, REASONABLE, well-thought-out, INTELLIGENT person of INTEGRITY - who does NOT Play Games and is FAIR! No one can dispute that and he was one of the very few who stood-up to bush on the war! Look where we are now??? We NEED Barack Obama! He has come at just The MOST Unimpeachable Time and I say that with it's FULL meaning! May God help us ALL and our USA! Susan P.S. I would like to see a woman President someday - it's long overdue! B U T it should be the CORRECT and HEALTHY One of Mind, Body & Soul female not The Hil-Rod with her entitlement Issues and The Rest!
» login or register to post comments

susanstudioz

Submitted by Thomas M on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 3:39pm.
susanstudioz.... You said.....We have in Senator Obama a calm, REASONABLE, well-thought-out, INTELLIGENT person of INTEGRITY - who does NOT Play Games and is FAIR! The only way you can say that is because you hear no evil, see no evil with your Messiah Obama. Here are ten troubling questions for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama that he would be wise to answer. If he’s the Democratic presidential nominee you can bank that John McCain and the GOP truth squad will ask him them. The questions were sent directly to him at his national campaign headquarters Friday, March 28. The questions are not campaign rhetoric, gossip, and partisan allegations. They are fully documented, and totally a matter of public record. If Obama won’t answer them, then the challenge is for his supporters to answer them point by point. This doesn’t mean hurling the usual cheap shot, brainless, personal invectives, name calling, personal insults, or character assassination. This is no substitute for factual answers. 1. You stated that you were not in the Senate in October 2002 when President Bush rammed through Congress the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But you also stated that “perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence.” This implies that you might have voted for the war if you had been in the Senate when the vote was taken. Why then do you condemn Hillary Clinton and other Senators who voted for the war authorization resolution when you admit the possibility that if you had been in the Senate you would have done the same? 2. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Foreign Relations you could have held oversight hearings, called witnesses and offered alternatives to Bush’s disastrous efforts against A Qeada in Afghanistan. Your subcommittee held none and provided no alternatives to Bush policy that you condemn, why? 3. In the Senate you have one of the poorest attendance records, and you often simply vote present on thorny issues, why? 4. Senate Legislation was proposed to require nuclear giant, Exelon to make public disclosure of its radiation leaks. You did not fully support that requirement. Exelon has been identified as your fourth biggest campaign contributor. Why did you oppose the tougher regulatory proposal for Exelon? 5. Chicago financier Tony Rezko has been accused of numerous financial illicit dealings. You have claimed that you did no political or personal favors for Rezko. Yet as an Illinois state legislator you wrote endorsement letters to government agencies on his behalf, as well as having conducted other documented financial transactions and dealings and with him. Why do you deny that you have no relationship with Rezko? 6. The head of your campaign finance chair is Penny Pritzker. Before taking over Obama’s campaign finances, she headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority. Why does she still have a principal financial role in your campaign? 7. You have taken money in past campaigns from straw donors. These are donors that have taken money from tainted and dubious sources and then contribute to your campaign under their names. You have talked much about financial openness in campaigns. Why did you take money from straw donors in the past? And do you take money from them now? 8. Following a speech by Hillary Clinton praising Lyndon Johnson for his role in helping pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an Obama campaign advisor privately released a four page memo urging hammering Clinton for denigrating Dr. King. Yet, you told reporters that neither you nor anyone in your campaign had made the accusation that Clinton denigrated King. Why did you say that when clearly it was the memo from your campaign advisor that triggered the media and public assault on Clinton regarding King? 9. You have not produced a single public document that would provide the public with greater insight and knowledge about legislation, initiatives proposed, your votes on key bills, and your attendance record during your terms in the Illinois legislature. Why? 10. You have repeatedly charged that Clinton violated a pledge not to put her name on the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. However, neither Clinton nor any other Democratic contender pledged to the DNC not to have their name on the ballot. Three other candidates had their name on the ballot in addition to Clinton. Why do continue to make this claim that the other candidates, but especially Clinton, violated a pledge not to have their name on the Michigan ballot? Obama’s campaign is based on the firm pillar that he represents a new, open, fresh, and transparent politics. He is the candidate that is the antithesis of the political duplicity, double dealing, evasions, lies and corruption that marred other candidates. Obama can prove it by answering these questions; questions that raise serious doubt about his contention that he represents a radical break from the political past. If he won’t answer them then will his supporters answer them for him? That’s again, before McCain asks them. Don't throw rocks if you live in a Glass house!!!!!
» login or register to post comments

Is it a slow day at the Clinton campaign office?

Submitted by HelenBack on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 4:46pm.

I thought all of you HRC staffers would be counting the shekels that came rolling in the last two nights? It must be nice to have a couple big-wigs with those fancy-smancy, black, shiny American Express cards where you can drop $500k over the Internet. Or did Slick Willie give another speech to Despotofthedayistan?

Give it up sweetie, your candidate had a 50+ negative rating BEFORE the primaries. Now after her selective memory, creative achievement building, her campaign tactics out of the Atwater/Rove school of mud-slinging and her total flip-flop on the importance of voters, super delegates, and the alienation of to 67% of the electorate, she is toast.

Nobody hears republicans going after HRC because they dream of her getting the nomination. McCain has no chance versus Obama but he stays up past 10 PM dreaming to run against Hillary and Slick Willie and the $100,000,000 post presidency speeches to anyone who will write a check. Why have the republicans only mentioned Obama? Why have republican ads only mentioned Obama? Is there a republican “get out the vote” in Democratic primaries for Obama? Are Rush and the other blood suckers saying vote for Obama? No! Because they want Hillary.

You guys need to lay off the choking game, you are killing too many brain cells. Nice try on the glass house bit but when the opposition is dying to meet you, something is rotten at HRC headquarters. That carcass is integrity, dignity and a dying campaign...

» login or register to post comments

Hillary Clinton and her definition of who decides the election.

Submitted by HelenBack on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 1:47pm.
Hillary Clinton quotes and her definition of who decides the election.

When she was the frontrunner: “Ultimately you have to be humble because it’s up to the voters. The voters get to decide” “Look I trust voters. Voters decide on whatever basis is important to them.”

After she lost the first state caucuses: “You know my sense of caucus states they are primarily dominated by activists; they don’t represent the electorate.”

After she lost unimportant African-American states like South Carolina and Louisiana: “In the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate which I totally understand”

After she lost Iowa, Wisconsin, Alabama, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Virginia: “I have won the big states. I’ve won the states a democrat has to win.”

When she fell far behind in the popular vote, her attention turned to the super delegates: “We do a great disservice to those who have a record of service, who have independent experience with candidates. People with those kinds of personal experiences which voters don’t have. They see us from a far, they come to a speech, they watch us on television and they vote. And that is part if the process, an important part.

Then hypothetically if a state where Obama was not even on the ballot was counted: “If you actually counted the votes that have been cast then more people have actually voted for me.”

Then if the Democratic party could change THEIR rules to fit the Clinton agenda: “If we had the same system of the republicans, I would already be the nominee.”

There you have it, when she was the frontrunner it was the will of the people. As the voters spoke and she lost, the rules changed at every turn. Now she wants the same system as the REPUBLICAN party. Enough is enough. Perhaps Hillary should run as a republican. Her “kitchen sink” tactics are straight out of the Attwater/Rove book.

The time has come for Democrats to end this vicious cycle. Look at the words of this candidate. She doesn’t care about the American people or the Democratic party. She cares about Hillary Clinton. It is time to cut bait and fish with the Clinton who believe they are owned the thone.

Obama lead us to victory for the next eight years….

Thanks to the “Daily Show” for Hillary’s quotes.
» login or register to post comments

HILLARY'S SECURITY UMBRELLA - RETURNING FAVORS?

Submitted by christyLA on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 1:25pm.
Dick Morris raises a question that can become an issue superdelegates need to consider with a Hillary nomination. Morris asks if Hillary's proposal for a "Security Umbrella" (counter-attacking Iran if it attacks not only Israel but other countries in the Middle East, e.g. Saudi Arabia) -- was created to return favors to countries that contributed millions to Bill Clinton's Library (or for that matter his foundations). It's one thing to develop business relationships after leaving the White House, and another to return to the White House with those connections. Definitely a conflict of interest and can compromise a Hillary Presidency. Look at the Columbia bilateral trade deal. One spouse is against it while the other is negotiating it. Republicans will be glad to point out the conflict of interest. At the very least, this issue raises questions as to Hillary's true intentions in her policy decisions.
» login or register to post comments

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING???

Submitted by Thomas M on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 2:38pm.
christyLA.....You said Dick Morris raises a question.........Why in the world would you ever quote DICK MORRIS???? He has hated & lied about the Clintons ever since they fired him!!! He's a blood-sucking slime! You're swimming in the swamp!!! Is this who the "cult" is listening to??
» login or register to post comments

you are attacking the messenger

Submitted by cagey on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 3:31pm.
So what if Dick Morris is slime? We in the "cult" tend to do our own investigations into stories like this once they are raised anyway.
» login or register to post comments

cagey

Submitted by Thomas M on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 4:06pm.
Well I sure haven't seen any of you investigate your Obama, nor has anybody else!!! Buzzflash has become nothing better than Dick Morris. For 5 years I've been a donor to Buzzflash & then all of a sudden they turn into a partisan blog for Obama! To allow what goes on here bashing Hillary is low class.
» login or register to post comments

That's like...

Submitted by Fanques on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 5:14pm.
This site linking to Drudge, of all people, when that "native garb" photo of Obama was supposedly "leaked" by the Clinton campaign. The only problem with that was the fact that the photo has been available and published in at least two tabloids over a year ago. But if it's bash Hillary, then it's join in with anyone. I will vote for either one, but I am sick to death of most of Obama's supporters.
» login or register to post comments

Why she isn't being vetted

Submitted by cagey on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 11:17am.
"So, while Obama hasn't brought out that her "35 years of experience and results" is a tall tale (except for a relatively war hawkish Senate career), you can be sure that the McCain camp will." Hillary's alliances with Scaife and the Republican Corporate Media are shielding her, for the moment, and catapulting the propaganda about Obama (Rezko, Wright, Ayers) in order to set her up as the nominee. In addition, her negatives are going up at the same time. If somehow she becomes the nominee, just wait til the Right unleashes all they've got on her. Scandal + high negatives = President McCain = Right-Wing Supreme Court for LIFE.
» login or register to post comments

cagey

Submitted by Thomas M on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 4:20pm.
Somehow Obama supporters have got this notion that the Republicans want to run against Clinton. If you've done any heavy investigation of Republican blogs & sites, you would know that Obama is the one they want to run against. It's been their plan all along. Democrats always get fooled by Republicans.
» login or register to post comments

HILLARY DILLARY HAWK

Submitted by Joan Wile on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 9:45am.
Joan Wile, Grandmothers Against the War I am practically crying with joy after reading this terrific piece, so comprehensive and so to the point. We anti-war grannies here in New York City have been angry with Hillary for many years, particularly since she voted to authorize Bush to launch bombs on Iraq. We noted that she called for MORE troops once we were there -- even more than Bush. But, when she was well into her campaign, when there was much criticism of her hawkish stance, she started making noises about how she would end the war the day she assumed the presidency. But, then, another flip-flop -- she refused to say whether she would end the war by 2013! Now, when the heat is more intensely on her, she's vowing again to start bringing the troops home immediately. As she plays politics with Bush's war, we see blazing red! We surmised early on that she seems to have no core ethics to guide her, but bases her decisions exclusively on her estimation of what will bring her the most votes. The last straw for us was when at the end of 2005 she cosponsored a bill to ban flag-burning, seemingly out of nowhere. It struck us as a pointless action, particularly in view of the fact there has been virtually no flag-burning to speak of for many years. It was instead, obviusly, a strategic move to position herself right smack in the political middle for a presidential run, and of absolutely no value in solving the really critical issues facing us. This unvetted woman is totally irresponsible and dangerously ambitious. I thank you, Mark Karlin, for writing and publishing this fine article. I hope it's read by millions and gooses the mainstream media to do some digging into her questionable resume.
» login or register to post comments

The Voting Public

Submitted by ernieson on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 8:39am.
I find it jaw-dropping that the electorate can dismiss baldfaced lies right out of the mouth of the liar and tout her has the experienced more electable candidate. This speaks volumes about the questionable intelligence of the electorate. These people should just go shopping as their 91 IQ president suggests, and go to the mall rather than the polling place. Uninformed, uncurious and gullible emotionally motivated people make poor voting decisions. 15% of the population believes Obama is a Muslim. DEPLOREABLE. It all depends on how and how long the spin is spun and who is spinning it. The MSM will run with a story as long as ad time can be sold to companies wanting the story told.
» login or register to post comments

The Voting Public

Submitted by patcoghm on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 4:05pm.
I find it jaw-dropping that the electorate can dismiss baldfaced lies right out of the mouth of the liar and tout her as the experienced more electable candidate..... One year Senator and one year campaigning is not experience, nor is yes we can mean anything. Who is we, like we shall overcome, or we as anyone who is not mainstream but one issue oriented. We is a broad word and everyone can find a reason to dislike government as we know it. So the word "we" is meaningless unless you define who we is. The Democratic party has always been the party of change, progressive, liberal, and alway a fractured party made up of diverse groups. So we covers all sounds good on a bumper sticker, but makes me uneasy.
» login or register to post comments

You gotta be kidding!

Submitted by vtjozef on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 1:10pm.
Obama coming out of nowhere backed by Zbigniew Brzezinski is fully vetted? Imperialists of a feather flock together. Don't they? Prospect magazine says it all in a piece called, "Obama the Conservative" See: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9988 Sure, ahuh, right. Obama will bring about the change from the tactics and behavior of BushCo that Democrats enabled. Sure he will. That change will look like the "change" that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid brought about after we, the suckers, voted for them back in November 2006. And now, we, the suckers, are about to do it again. Ross Perot was only partly right when he said that sucking sound you hear is our jobs going South. It is also the sound we suckers make when we vote for another more of the same Democrat. Run Ralph! Run!
» login or register to post comments

vtjozef...

Submitted by Thomas M on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 2:53pm.
You're wasting you time talking to these kids!! They happen to like Zbigniew Brzezinski! Why? Because they don't even know what Obama is about! They don't know Zbigniew Brzezinski is a War Monger!! They want Hillary to be vetted, but have no intention of vetting their Messiah Obama!!! I posted a ton of lies that Obama has made and Buzz Flash deleted it. The Republican part likes to say the far left of the Democratic party has turned communist. I think I and many others Agree!!!!
» login or register to post comments

Go Away, Clintonista Troll

Submitted by drprodny on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 3:20pm.
Your support of the Corrupt Slimy Bigot Clinton is no longer welcome here.
» login or register to post comments

Obama Supporters are like children

Submitted by patcoghm on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 3:54pm.
Name calling by Obama supportes is getting sick. Randi Rhodes called people names, and she's gone. Its time for Obama to step aside so we can elect a experienced Democrat, not McCain.
» login or register to post comments

drprodny

Submitted by Thomas M on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 4:08pm.
You're such a classy person!!!
» login or register to post comments