she's insane, emotionally disturbed, both Clintons, that has to be it. I can't believe this is happening. If I'm repulsed and reeling from her conduct how do you think undeclared super Ds are taking it? She is going to ruin herself with the dem party, both of them. They don't understand no one is indespensible.

Who knows, maybe she will join Dick Morris and Karl Rove as a political consultant for FAUX?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It looks like Hillary is doing her best to make sure that breach between the Clintons and the African American community will never be healed. But even using her own racial calculations, has a Democratic presidential candidate ever won the popular vote in the last 50 years without a substantial turnout of black voters? They probably won't vote for McCain, but I don't see them turning out in droves to support her if she somehow snatches the nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You don't suppose it's possible she was trying to say he has less support among hard working white Americans than hard working black Americans?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And it emerged a couple of months ago.

Let's watch while Clinton's wide-eyed, who, me?, race-baiting not only loses her the support of every single person of color in this country, but fails to provoke the angry attack she hoped for from the Obama campaign.

What a mess she is. If this was an intentional statement, she's not qualified to be my President because she's racially biased. If this was an error, then she's not qualified to be my President because we can't afford errors in judgment as large as this on the part of the person running the country.

Feh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just when the American populist movement was gaining strength as a bi-racial rural and urban tide of reform and change in American politics, "elites" found a way to split the movement along racial lines. Steelmakers did much the same in Gary, Indiana in the early 20th century making sure that blacks got the worst jobs and putting workers with different languages together on the shop floor all to inhibit organizing. Obama is the very first movement candidate to emerge on the scene since Jesse Jackson and the establishment tactics are the same - make sure the coalition doesn't come together, find ways to force the working poor and working class to separate themselves from each other, isolate the young people from the rest of the population. The problem Clinton and her elitist friends have is it isn't going to happen this time. This time, the tide of change is bigger and taller and stronger. Change is on the way, ready or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By the logic of Clinton’s argument, we should also note that her support among African Americans is quite poor, and the “pattern” is pretty clear. Are we to assume that if she were the nominee, those same voters would back McCain over her? That Clinton couldn’t possibly win because she’d never get the support of African-American Dems? Of course not.

No you are not to assume that I, an African-American have only one option if Hillary is the nominee. I certainly won't vote for McCain although, he is trying to redefine himself with Black voters moreso than she is. And if given a choice of either/or it would be neither. The more she talks the less difference I see between her and McCain. I would have to vote for Ralph Nader, the two things I know for sure about him is he really is concerned for us all, and he is fearless when it comes to big business. As far as I know the purpose of voting is to affirm your belief in an candidate, unless Obama can walk on water, he can't deliver me to a candidate Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary won Indiana by some 20,000 votes. So what is she suggesting? No hard working whites voted for Obama. This is ridiculous. Hillary has already demonstrated a problem with math as it relates to her own finances and her ability to count delegates, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that with her 20,000 'win' that she would claim white votes as all her own. Aside from her pathetic mathematical abilities, her moral compass is sadly lacking as she attempts to set race relations back to her generational mindset. Indiana, a real red state, didn't buy into her race baiting or the grandstanding by Rev. Wright. None of her race baiting is by accident - it's deliberate and it's time for this election to move on with the two nominees.
Hopefully, voters in the general will say no to more of the same with McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the limit--far worse than Obama's comments about "bitter" small-town voters. But it's not Clinton's fault that she's attacking the Democratic nominee and further splintering the party along racial lines. She can't help it--that's just the way she is. Blaming her is like blaming a snake that bites you. Whose fault is it? The snake's, or yours, for allowing the creature into your house?

No, the blame rests with the superdelegates who could end this tomorrow and put a permanent muzzle on her. Hillary may be a snake because she cannot be anything else, but the superdelegates are cowards. Every single one of them needs to do what McGovern just did, and THAT would put an end to this intra-party warfare that is helping no one but John McCain.

Clearly, Hillary will never bow out gracefully. Now she has to be kicked out ungracefully. And fast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone will find this information very interesting. It seems as though La Rodham was more trouble than she was worth, and she wasn't getting paid much, believe me.

March 31, 2008
By Dan Calabrese

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do? (Continued in next post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

==============

A year out of law school, which means about six months after passing the Bar, a lawyer has lots of sizzling knowledge, but not a bit of it is about being a lawyer. You know things, but you don't know how to DO things until you PRACTICE. You know how to write a brief in form, but you don't really know the rules of the game.

Ms. Rodham was obviously drunk with playing a role at the center of one of the most important legal investigations in history. Unfortunately for her, she came under the aegis of a couple of hotshots who were no better than the people they were trying, and what they were doing either seemed fine to her, or she was so caught up with dealing Nixon out that it didn't matter if the tactics were dirty.

Either way, this is not the person we want making decisions about torture, war and policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry--this is a re-post from a reply to a troll up there somewhere. The linked text didn't come over for the article. Here it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Put all those tinted people in their place, a Ghetto.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok, why does the media and poll pundits keep harping that Obama can't get the votes of blue collar white voters?

What about Clinton, not getting black votes. Obama has been getting greater than 80% of the black vote.

So, why no talk about Clinton having a problem getting a lion's share of black votes. That's the mainstream media for you. Blinders on as always.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was the media every voting Tuesday that sliced and diced us into black and white,young and old,poor and rich,educated and neducated---now it is Hillarys fault?Give me a break.Donna Brazille has bragged about over 90% of blacks voting for Obama since she has been on cnn.Today she had an editorial in the Oakland Press in MI whining about the same issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms Clinton's own statement endorses both racism and elitism. She cares not for white blue collar Americans or for black either. To further her own political ambition she appeals to these very people by using low rhetoric. Let's face it educated voters do not read the National Enquirer or other super-market check-out Trash or watch Fox news and Bill O'Riley or listen to Hillary Clinto for that matter. She is a loser who has to resort to sleeze and to insult the Hard Working White Americans by trying to convince them that the Black Menace is among them and stealing their jobs. She lied, cheated and for all I know agreed to screw donkeys just to get this nomination. I am one democrat who will not vote for her and I will encourage my friends and family also to reject her. She is like a McCarthyite, a Goldwater and a George Wallace in skirts and a great threat to the Freedom of America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]