The Clintons' are co-narcissists. IT IS THE ONLY EXPLANATION. How much longer will the democratic party allow this to continue? I suspect not much longer after today.

The narcissistic personality has several core problems, all involving dysregulation of one sort or another. First, they are subject to wide mood swings, the reason being that their mood regulation is not internalized but is dependent upon external circumstances. Circumstances good, mood good. But if circumstances turn bad, than their mood will become poopy very quickly, as is true of a 17 month old. In that case, it is entirely developmentally appropriate. However, it’s a little frightening imagining that 17 year old carrying around the nuclear football when he/she hasn't gotten their way.

The adult narcissist has a specific difficulty auto-regulating shame, the “keystone” affect of their disorder. It is unconscious and therefore unrecognized, or only dimly so. Narcissists are quite brittle, the reason being that they attempt to bypass their shame by erecting a facade of grandiosity. But when the grandiosity is poked or prodded, the narcissist will bristle. He might well accuse you of having a “little smirk” on your face or being part of a right-wing conspiracy after making some innocent comment that threatens their grandiosity.

Narcissism is not a monolithic condition, but is actually situated along a spectrum from mild to severe. However, the most severe narcissists can often appear to be the most outwardly accomplished. One of the reasons for this is that the more severe the narcissism, the more driven they are to accomplish something in accordance with their grandiosity.

There are two main classes of narcissism, an egotistical, Clintonian type, and a dissociative type. See if this does not ring a bell: the egotistical (also described as the “oblivious”) type is self-absorbed, arrogant, unabashedly self-aggrandizing, attention demanding, and seemingly shameless.

But underneath the smooth and competent facade, these individuals show a preponderance of shame over guilt, the latter of which is much more healthy.

For a narcissist, guilt instantly descends into shame, which cannot be tolerated. The EJECT SHAME NOW button has been pushed--therefore, the finger in the face and the shrill accusations of unfairness and/or right wing conspiracies.

I read is that psychopaths often show speech anomalies. Mixing up metaphors, inabiltiy to discuss matters of emotion (awkwardness and mistakes--they have no experience of emotion--except anger and self-pity--and no empathy, so when trying to mimic these human emotions, they stumble.

I also believe that narcissist personalities attract and support others like them. It is possible to be highly "functional" in our society with NPD, and often these individuals are admired as huge successes. But their personal agenda is all about exploitation--they thrive on it and need it as much as a vampire needs blood. They must feel they get the best of every situation and their grasping greed knows no bounds. This is not your ordinary kind of ambition. It is a sick need.
This disorder is very resistant to change, since of course, nothing feels wrong. The narcissist subject strives to protect their elevated sense of themselves at all costs. For those in their orbits or suffering from them it is not healthy or productive to pander to them in any way.

The more you give or compromise, the more they will take. When crossed they are ruthless and swift in retaliation. They ONLY understand 'hardball' tactics. You can waste a lot of time treating them as though they have 'normal' emotions.

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

After reading the rules the committee can throw out even the totals in the primary and just pick by delegates.

As for me, there are no rules especially when a Republican can walk in raise their hand and declare to be an independant even after voting in their own party which happened in IOWA.

As Oregon anyone walk up and just declare to be a Democrat just to vote in the primary,get a ballot and vote but vote different in the general. When I found out that band stand Obama was on was there for a rock band it hit me why 75,000 people were there, then some said Kerry did that same thing in 2004 and 50,000 people came. All a bunch of baloney.

The only rules are any which way you can...This whole primary taught me a lesson these college people are a bunch of ego idiots thats why America is screwed up. 99% of government jobs are held by college graduates and you wonder why America is screwed up.

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

Her strategy clearly is to deny the presidency to Obama so she can run against president McCain in 2012.

Some "feminist!" She claims her husband's resume as her own - then claims to be the "experienced" candidate even touting McCain's experience over that of Obama's!

Some Democrat.

She has played the race card with an intensity not seen since George Wallace or Nixon. She has feigned hurt feelings, then scolded her opponent like a schoolmarm. I have never seen anyone so eager to have it both ways - and the Florida and Michigan delegations are the perfect example. Her math is one big lie - and she has become a consummate liar.

I have always rejected the notion that the Clintons were the embodiment of evil. I considered Bill to be the best Republican president since TR. But Hillary has made me rethink that.

She has courted not only every corporate crook willing to donate a buck but even Murdoch (who threw her a fundraiser) and RM Skaith - eternal enemy of the left. She now has kind words for both.

She has shown herself to have the ethical standards of the Bush administration she seeks to succeed. I am sooo glad I won't have to cast a ballot for her.

She is toast - and has forever tarnished herself in the eyes of every real Democrat.

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

For some time now, many of us have felt uncomfortable about Clinton's behavior, but mostly appropriate PC forces have suppressed much individual as well as collective expression of anger and disappointment. Even now, I for one am almost inclined to simply walk away from the thought processes that Clinton catalyzes. I have difficulty identifying the direct causal relationships, but somehow she evokes a fundamentally unsavory state-of-being.

Can we be sure that we are correct in our emerging impression of this unfortunate person? This article presents the beginnings of a reasonably disturbing psychological profile of one of the leaders of US society. Many people seem to have developed a deep rooted mistrust of Clinton's intent in this world. But with yesterday's comments on Bobby we are dealing with something more sinister.

Maybe it's just me, but yesterday I saw something much, much more dangerous than inconsiderate bad manners towards the Kennedys. If it was what I think it was, it was quintessentially dark and evil. Carried out by a less practiced master of demagogy such utterances would be construed as ... I cannot bring myself to finish this sentence.

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

that Hil would compromise principles, ethics, morality and good sense in order to achieve her ends. This is all too hauntingly reminiscent of the rightwingnut-dingbat currently commandeering our White House and I for one have had enough of scandalous pieces of fecal fragment making bad decisions that affect me, my country and the world in general...

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

Do you Americans realise that if you didn't have the disgusting, corrupt chushrovian cabal, Billary would probably be the worst aspect of your political sphere. There's even a few on the other side that might be better; Hagel maybe?

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

We need to ask, "Who is the audience for this kind of nonsense?"...[2] Voters

Unless Billary can play the Manchurian Candidate angle and have Obama assassinated a la RFK, she is going to drop her Democratic Party allegiance after the DNC convention. That’s why she’s ripping the party to shreds, to form one made up of 100% of her supporters. She’s hoping that racial bigotry, reverse sexism and Bush burnout will siphon enough votes from the two party system to put her in place.

She will use her self-righteous rhetoric about disenfranchised voters, along with her blatant racist and sexist appeals to white women, to cry foul to the DNC and lead a voter revolt. Most of these Dem voters don’t care about her policies, etc. they just want to see a white woman in the White House. Neither she nor they have been shy about vocalizing it either. She will instruct voters on how to vote a “split ticket”; selecting her for POTUS but Dem or GOP for congressional and local reps. She’ll attempt to lure elected super delegates into her party as well though I doubt few will take her up on the offer. Her deluded advisors/supporters will argue that those GOP and independents who crossed party lines were real supporters, not moles part of the GOP run Operation Chaos trying to undermine the Dem primary process. Either way, as she has stated, she will not concede defeat even if Obama gets the Dem nomination. This nightmare will not end until he’s dead or the general election, whichever comes first.

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

He articulates my sentiments exactly. I am so angered, infuriated, and sickened by the Clinton's recent bad behavior. I am so ashamed of them! I worked very hard to get Bill Clinton elected the first time. I met his mother Virginia Kelley before her passing. I stood by them during the Lewinsky scandal and defended him through the impeachment hearings. I have long admired and loved Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Toward the beginning of this race I gave Hillary a chance. I believed the rumors about Obama's inexperience and Hillary's experience. It did not, however, take me too long to see the light. Obama soon erased my every doubt, and Hillary soon shocked me with her bad behavior.

Again and again I have fully believed Hillary, as a reasonable and intelligent woman, would bow out of the race and give credit where credit is due, and stop her divisive actions. However, I had an early clue. She stated that after all Bill had campaigned through June before winning, and the implication was that she deserved at least as much time.

This is no ordinary year, no ordinary time, and the world and our country are in no ordinary state. Eight years of the Bush regime has caused deep cracks in our democracy, our Constitution, our international reputation, our national security, our treasury, and our economy. The dollar has fallen in value. After 9/11 Bush told us to "go shopping," but who wants to shop and drive now? The real estate bubble burst, gas is over $4 a gallon, foreclosures are at record highs, and groceries are becoming very expensive. The list of the Bush administration's destruction is seemingly endless.

The Republicans, as a whole, have failed Americans. They have proven themselves incompetent to rule alone.

Hillary doesn't get it. She is out of pace, out of step, and out of time. Between Hillary and Bill they ought to care more about America, and they ought to know better than to put their wants before the best interests of America. Obama, however, does get it.

It seems to have come to the point where Hillary chooses to do harm simply because she can. This a grave disappointment. This is not all about what is best for Hillary, or how soon a woman can be the first president, or whether there is still misogyny in the world. This is not about Hillary and Bill's sense of entitlement. It is about what is best for America now, in 2008. Most would argue that Obama is best, and that he has long since won by any reasonable measurement.

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

She also realizes she has burned way too many bridges in the Dem party to have any power if she returns to the Senate; she will be a pariah. Someone will challenge her seat in four years. If she doesn't mount a successful POTUS campaign now or in 2012 she's politically finished. NYC alone will bury her alive. Perhaps she and Geraldine Ferraro can form a new Joy Luck Club.

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

Like her husband Bill ,Hillary has taken over the right wing style of campaign. Whatever she believes in or not does not matter.Bill won the White House by being more republican that the republicans. Hillary is trying the same thing.
If this is just a technique to get in as president , this time it wont work, It will take a kind of raw sincerity like Obama's to defeat the
madmen currently in power.

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

I am a lifelong Democrat. I think she has gone too far recently with the rhetoric about Obama. Evoking imagery of RFK's assassination is not only trashy but raises fears about her mental stability. Not only that but by prolonging the division of the party, she is just playing into Republican Rove-type strategies to "divide and conquer." I'm sure McCain's group is laughing their heads off.

When the campaigning started, I thought it a long shot for Obama but that I could vote for any Democratic candidate [her] who got the nomination. But now I think the campaign has turned from political competition to craziness. I think she is creating Nader voters and a McCain presidency!

I left the south 40 years ago because of the racial problems: I just never wanted to raise children in that place. I certainly never thought I would find such hatred again in the Democratic Party and foisted upon me by Bill Clinton's wife at that! Everyone must stop enabling her hysterical behavior. The uncommitted delegates must commit themselves and put her out of her misery. Then she needs to see a doc and get some meds and then take a nice long vacation to someplace they don't have CNN.

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

I think that the turkey is done. There are few people left who believe that Hillary will get this nomination. There is also no problem with her finishing the primaries, which insures that the remainder of voters in state primaries will get to vote. The Florida and Michigan voters may well feel alienated with solutions offered and we can only speculate as to how that will play out in the general election. Continuing to ridicule Hillary will further alienate the voters who support her. Let the process finish and the voters select their candidate. Obama has the delegates and he will win the nomination.

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

How is it possible that almost no media organ has put forth commentary like this one? It is almost as if everyone is completely cynical and believes that the whole presidential race is only about power.

There are two kinds of politicians: Those who appeal to reason and our higher nature, and those who rally support through fear and anger. The media flocks to these politicians like crowds to a sporting event.

The real question is: Where is the ref? If Howard Dean has let this go on so long without stepping in to defend the rules, he can't be a very good one. I don't know in which game moving goalposts is a legitimate way to win, but the DNC appears to condone the sport.

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

OUTSTANDING OBSERVATION! The post concerning the narcisissit traits exhibited by both of the Clintons is exceptional! The article that prompted this response have brought clarity out of the confusion that is being promoted by the Hill machine. Personally in my own life I have had experience dealing with the narcissist personality disorder. It is a daunting task! They are sick people who, unfortunatly represent a huge portion of the 'power elite' ruling/running the planet. No wonder there is so much chaos thru out the world. Sadly. Without mercy, without love, driven by an emotional set of robotic responses' that force them to always prevail(win) in every circumstance. The reality is that their 'nuts'.
They need help both emotionally and Spiritually.

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

Its like winding the flames of fire , she knows that there is enough sick men out there to encourage the hit. Or could she be just wishfull thinking?
All I know is this biatch will stop at nothing and is powermad.

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

After Hillary's shameful explanation on Friday for her insensitive RFK assassination remark, I am convinced without doubt that she is George W's soul mate -- i.e. a power-hungry narcissist who cannot admit to making a mistake.

During the past eight years, Bush has confessed to a personal failing just once. It happened on January 14, 2005, when he told reporters at a round-table interview in the White House that tough talk can have “unintended consequences.”

Dub-ya’s misgivings were about two of his most famous inflammatory expressions: “Bring ‘em on,” in reference to Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. troops, and his vow to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive.”

“Sometimes,” Bush told the reporters, “words have consequences you don’t intend them to mean. ‘Bring ‘em on’ is the classic example. I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood what a great job they were doing. Those words had an unintended consequence. Some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn’t the case.”

Read his explanation again and you will realize it wasn’t an apology. It was an excuse.

In his typical self-serving way, George W. suggested he had been victimized by eagerness to motivate our soldiers. At the same time, while lamely rationalizing his impulsive oratory, he couldn’t resist shading the truth.

Hillary comes from the same cut of egocentric disingenuous cloth. Capitol Hill should be the closest she comes to the White House.

---------------------------------

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, ARDENT Obama supporter and the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com -- the only website about George W. Bush that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption.

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

These candidates are a major headache.

So, if they are that to you, how do you spell relief?

Check out C-SPAN l Saturday at 9:00 P.M. Eastern or 6:00 P.M. Pacific for a debate among Libertarian candidates. Some of these are really great...anti-war, pro-civil liberties and you might find it interesting.

At least you'll find it different!

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

For Bill and Hillary, charity begins ar home -- literally.

The Clintons have gotten fawned praise from mainstream media for giving 10 percent of their $109 million income since 2000 to "charity."

At first glance, 10% is a worthy and commendable amount. However, as many things about Hillary and her hubby, you have to look beyond their press releases for the facts, as follows:

The Clintons gave most of their tax-deductible donations to THEMSELVES. Case at point -- Clinton tax returns that show $10,256,741 was donated to "CFF" -- the Clinton Family Foundation.

On the 2005 forms and those from previous years, Bill Clinton was listed as CFF president, Hillary Clinton had the title of secretary/treasurer and daughter Chelsea Clinton was a director.

'The 2006 tax forms also list Gloria Clinton as CFF CEO who was paid $252,500 for her "work" that year.

Of the $10 million-plus the Clintons donated to CFF, the foundation only parceled out $2.5 million to other charities. So what happened the remaining $7.5 million? A good question to ask the IRS.

Here's something else to consider. Although the CFF has been in operation since 2001, Hillary failed to mention it in annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.

The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact.

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

Clinton's spokesman said her failure to report the existence of the family foundation and the senator's position as an officer was an oversight. Her office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late yesterday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.

Among the institutions receiving grants from the Clinton Family Foundation was a charity connected to the Arkansas businessman who helped Hillary Clinton make $100,000 on a commodities trade that stirred controversy.

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

If Hilary Clinton is allowed to change the rules as the campaign progresses, it will be the 2000 election all over again and we will wind up with Bush-like ethics all over again. She is acting so un-Democrat that if she continues, the election process will be tainted for years to come. She needs to stop acting like a spoiled elitist and start getting with the program.

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

... the media, especially the 'left' internet media, has been carrying Obama on it's shoulders the entire election. No matter that he's inexperienced, that he sounds naive about economic and foreign policy issues (remember his Pakistan 'commitment'?) - he's about hope, and change, dude, and he's not Hillary. Clinton is set to win the popular vote, and has an overwhelming lead in electoral votes (by state), if you went by that metric.

You would think that Democrats would be a little more sensitive about disenfranchising other Democrats after the lessons of 2000. But Howard Dean is the new Scalia, and no one seems to care when it helps the Golden Boy, and harms the wicked witch of Gotham.

This election has shown me a lot about where my fellow Democrats stand on things - they're obsessed with identity politics, negative (they react to what the other side is doing more than propose solutions of their own), and 'hooked on a feelin' when it comes to Obama. Many of them have joined the mainstream media they so 'despise' in the bash-fest of Senator Clinton. Articles like this have caused me to rethink it all - I'm now an independent, and will make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Starting with Nader, if Obama gets the nomination.

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

I have just one correction to an otherwise right on piece.
If you know any Democrats in Florida please let them know this.
Florida Democrats did not set the early date for the Democratic primary.
The state legislature in Florida sets the primary dates. Democrats are outnumbered there 2 to 1 and the governor is a member of the Republic Party.
Both parties wanted a paper trail when they voted and the Republicans added the early Democratic primary date to the "paper trail" bill in 2007. The Democrats in the legislature tried to pass an amendment putting their primary in line with the Democratic National Committee's rules. The Republicans voted against the amendment 2 to 1, knowing full well what they were doing [the hand of Rove? hmmmmm]. The governor signed the bill into law with much fanfare about the paper trail and nary a word about the way the Republic Party sabotaged the Democratic voters of the state.
So thank the Republic Party for disenfranchising the Florida Democrats.
Michigan Democrats however, shot themselves in their own feet with no help from anyone.

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

Her refusal to drop out when it's CLEAR to the rest of America that she can't win only serves the GOP and her ego! (the GOP knows this - every time they talk about the Dems it's always with 'support' for her over Obama.) Someone should tell her that refusal to give up when one can't win is NOT a sign of strength! (Sadly, Gore knew this after the rigged 2000 election, although I wish he had stayed and fought for what was his!) It would not surprise me if Hillary tried a few 'October Surprises' of her own, since so much of her method of operation seems torn from the GOP handbook. She's gonna take it all the way to the convention - even though it should be clear that the longer the Dems take, the more of an edge it gives McCain.

I've said it before: Hillary cannot beat McCain - Obama can! She'll get little or no crossover votes from the GOP. Those from that side of the aisle that want change (as mandated in the 2006 election) know that she doesn't represent change. Others still have a bug up their butt over Bill and wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was running against Cheney! And now she's created division in her own party and is fanning the flames of dissent. All she'll succeed in doing is to return us to the days of 'what's-the-use?' apathy.

I agree with Shyler and many of the other comments above: She is trying to conjure up assasination fantasies with the nutjobs! And without trying to sound paranoid (and as unlikely as it sounds), it would not completely surprise me if she joined McCain as his Veep, knowing an eventual incumbant run or even takeover when the old man kicks is inevitable! Far fetched? Yes, but so was stealing the 2000 election right in front of our faces!

Bottom line: Hillary is weakening the Democratic Party by dragging this thing out wa-a-ay past any reasonable time. DROP OUT, HILLARY! - YOUR PARTY NEEDS THAT! The Dems have finally gained an upper hand over the years of GOP tyranny, and yet they're squandering all that momentum and good will with this silly in-fighting - yet another reason why I gave up being a registered Dem decades ago.....

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

H. Clinton doesn't the Democratic party rules to be broken or ignored, except just this once and just for HER.

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

How very frightening to read that many of you are continuing to drink the media 'kool aid'. You probably are the ones who allowed the media to convince you that war in Iraq was necessary as well! Yes, I am aware that Hillary voted to give the president authorization to go to war if all else failed. I am also aware that Obama was not in the Senate at that time and therefore, did not vote. He did later say that he wasn't sure how he would have voted had he been in the Senate. He doesn't want to remind you of that now, (naturally). He also takes credit for having expressed an opinion against the Iraq war instead.

It's interesting to me that those of you who are willing to let the media select the next democrat who will be the nominee, clearly have no interest in the feelings you are stirring in about 17 million of us who do support Hillary.

Many of us feel that the Obama supporters are being more than a bit harsh, considering if Obama is the nominee, he will require the support of the 17 million Hillary supporters in order to beat McCain.

And, out of curiosity, are any of you among those who felt that since Gore won the popular vote, he should have been our president? Hhhmmmm??? Why does the popular vote no longer matter? Or am I forgetting something?

I had always said that I would support the democratic nominee. I would like to still feel that way, though I am increasingly feeling disenfranchised. I'm appalled at how many Obama supporters are so willing to trash Hillary and spew such hatred.

It doesn't surprise me that Obama doesn't ever have to say anything. He has a host of media who are willing to do it for him...on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. I am feeling more and more that I want my voice heard!!!

Perhaps those of you who are convinced that Hillary's comment regarding the Primary which she made in South Dakota was a way of stating that she wanted to stay in because something bad might happen to Obama may want to look up the word 'projection'.

Many in the media have speculated that Obama may be at risk. They have made such statements publicly. We all know that threats have been made on Obama's life which is why he had secret service protection early. His wife even commented that he was at risk going to the gas station! Those same media people would not remind you of their comments while they are trying to suggest that Hillary has some sort of secret wish that would automatically make her the nominee!

I believe that both Obama and Clinton want to be president. If they didn't, they would not be continuing the hard work of campaigning. How dare you, any of you, determine that you know what motivates either Barack or Hillary. I am sick of hearing all the negative about the Clinton's and the failure to recognize that in spite of decisions that we don't like, Bill Clinton was a good president. And Hillary would be better , she is not Bill, and disagrees with some of what he did.

So, how about a little fairness. Or have you all gone 'bill o'reilly'!!! How about insisting on fairness in media...for EVERYONE!!!

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

THE UNDER-EDUCATED. THE RACISTS - BUT WHAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR THE SUPERDELEGATES!! THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED!! IF THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DEMOCRATIC ELDERS, IT'S TIME TO START A NEW PARTY!!

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

One of Hillary's positions makes this move oh so very very ironic.

Her stance on violent video games.

Now hillary clinton has said repeatedly that games are a threat to morality or that they're the scum of the earth etc. (she also lies and exaggerates as to how bad the games actually are but that's another story). She even said we need to treat them like alcohol and tobacco and all sorts of other holier than though crap.

And now look at how she's acting.

She claims that a game where you murder rob lie and steal to get ahead is ok and yet her campaign consists of her lying, being manipulative, and doing whatever it takes to get elected (and she'll still probably claim some sort of moral high ground, pathetic).

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

We've all been wondering why Hillary keeps hanging around, embarrassing herself, in an obviously losing race. Now we have an answer: The prospect of Barack Obama being assassinated. Is this the Clinton's current definition of "hope?"

At a minimum, this places Hillary among the most craven opportunists in American political history, as well as one of the dumbest, most tone deaf. It is hard to imagine even a moron like George Bush making a comment as stupid and insensitive as hers, then not even apologizing to Obama for it.

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

HILLARY CLINTON IS THE GREATEST CAMPAIGNER IN AMERICAN HISTORY !!!

HILLARY CLINTON CAN BEST WIN IN NOVEMBER:

IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!

It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania, and loss in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Sen. Obama has zero chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources without Hillary Clinton. Zero chance.

It is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Sen. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Sen. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Sen. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Sen. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Don't be fooled by the pledged delegate, and math arguments. Neither candidate has the necessary pledged delegates. The entire delegates counts, and votes from Florida, and Michigan are not even being counted. Plus the democratic caucuses, and primarys have been heavily corrupted by fraud, and vote cheating. The only relevant question now is who can best WIN IN NOVEMBER and take back the Whitehouse for the American people. And the answer is HILLARY CLINTON. Everyone knows that now.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I'm with ya baby. All the way. "Clinton Supporters Count Too."

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

Dearest Guy T. Saperstein . . .

I do not know how you were able to put pen to paper in reference to these recent statements. I have written so much on the Clinton's calculations and methods for communicating. These pronouncements stunned me. I was perhaps immobilized.

"This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party,” she said. “From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak.”

“people go through the motions of an election only to have them discarded and disregarded.”

“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe," Clinton explained. "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people,” Clinton told the crowd of senior citizens at a retirement community in south Florida.

“So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote. It is the single most important, privilege and right any of us have, because in that ballot box we are all equal. You’re equal to a billionaire. You’re equal to the president, every single one of us.”

I could not bring myself to inscribe my thoughts on this . . . ploy, plan, or pondering. I thought these assertions took my breath away until, last evening. I could not let the reference to Robert Kennedy stand without comment. I sigh.
June is Busting Out All Over.

The Hilary and Bill history does not baffle me. It speaks volumes of the way we raise our children. For me, little ones in hurtful homes grow up to become warriors, with no regard for unity.

I invite your review and reflections on . . .
Calm Communicators Unite Us. Cruel Commanders Divide Us

Thirty-Five Years of Hillary Experience. Do We Want Eight More?

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

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

This is the sentence that says it all. Has anyone located the original show on which Ickes said this? Thx.

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

The writer of this article evidently doesn't remember the 2000 election in which Al Gore LOST by only a few votes. IF WE DON'T COUNT THEM WE COULD LOSE THIS WHOLE ELECTION!

SO HILLARY IS RIGHT, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO AT LEAST COUNT PART OF THEM. EVEN THE REPUBLICAN'S COUNTED 50%. IF YOU VOTED AND IT WASN'T COUNTED HOW WOULD YOU FEEL.

PISSED OFF!!!!!!

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

Nice to have a good analysis of this issue -- though I think I might've been happier still believing it seemed crazy because I didn't have all the facts.

The most grotesque piece is the Michigan election -- so I really enjoyed this neat summation: "the Stalinist one-candidate election in Michigan". How we can even be discussing using the results of an election with only one candidate on the ballot is an indication of how low this primary has sunk.

I was also glad to have someone notice that those of us who spent half a day participating in caucuses are, by Mrs Clinton's reasoning, not real voters -- that's been sticking in my craw for quite some time now.

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

Dearest Guy T. Saperstein . . .

I meant to share a thought that often is not discussed. You may recall, Hillary Clinton so coyly courted Florida voters. We all knew she would arrive in the Sunshine State when the polls closed.

I tried to include the image of a poster plaster throughout Florida. However, it will not post here. Instead I offer a Washington Post article.

Clinton Thanks Florida Voters

Democratic presidential candidate, US Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), attends a campaign rally in Davie, Florida, after the polls closed on the Florida primary election, January 29, 2008.
By Anne E. Kornblut


DAVIE, Fla. -- After winning Florida's non-binding Democratic primary, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton thanked Florida voters for their support. "I could not come here to ask in person for your votes, but I am here to thank you for your votes today," Clinton told a cheering audience in a ballroom in Davie, near Fort Lauderdale, where many in the crowd waved the trademark green signs of the municipal workers' union AFSCME, which campaigned for Clinton in Florida after the Democratic party ban took effect.

"I am thrilled to have had this vote of confidence that you have given me today," Clinton said. "And I promise you, I will do everything I can to make sure, not only are Florida's Democratic delegates seated, but that Florida is in the winning column for Democrats in 2008."

She began speaking at 8:45 p.m., less than an hour after the polls closed. . . Clinton spoke for about six minutes before exiting the stage to the tune of "Takin' Care of Business."

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

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

Although i have been very distressed by the way the Clintons have run their campaign, i think i'm more baffled by Hillary's supporters? Those of us who have paid attention are quite familiar with the republican playbook of deceit and race-baiting and anti-american divisiveness, so i would think Democrats would support Hillary would recognize and reject this kind of campaign even though it's coming from someone they favor. I know i could not and would not support such activity if it came from Barack. And before you Clinton supporters write saying the Obama campaign has been doing the same ,don't lie like the Clintons because we all know that's NOT true. Hillary, you don't get to change the rules that YOU AGREED TO just because you are trailing. Do you really think we Democrats are so weakwilled that you can whine and pout and throw a hissy-fit and get your way. Forget it. The rules you agreed to are the rules you agreed to!
I had many an argument with those on the right concerning Hillary, and remember saying more than once i liked her better than Bill and hoped she runs for president and i would vote for her. My family and friends considered the Clintons are people and were very fond of them. All of that has changed, of course and i'm very unhappy about it.

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

I was so excited to see this article on what is going on with Hillary. I have felt for some time that this whole race is about "her" and not what is best for this country.

As a woman, I would hope that women would care more about who will make a CHANGE, than what race or sex they are. And she is definitely playing the sex card. We will have a woman someday...just not her!

Thanks to all of you who see the superficial, power hungry couple they are. OBAMA O8, 09 and on. We need to get the old and come in with the new!

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

PART 1
Barack Obama, the New and Improved Jim Jones
By Steven L. (age 16)

5/15/08

In 1978, a man, respected and honored by major Democrats including Willie
Brown, Jerry Brown, Mervyn Dymally, Rosalyn Carter, Walter Mondale, Harvey
Milk, George Moscone and others, led a group of his followers into a mass
suicide in Guyana. Jim Jones was about change and he forever changed the
lives of those who followed him.

Willie Brown, one of the strongest backers of Barack Obama, served as the
master of ceremonies at a large testimonial dinner for Jones in September,
1976. The attendees honoring Jones were a who's who list of the top
people from the Democratic Party. Famous attendees, still living, at the
testimonial dinner for Jones are now giving testimonials for Barack Obama.

Jim Jones packed the audience at the 1976 grand opening of the San
Fransico Democratic Party Headquarters and received an even louder
applause than Mrs. Jimmy Carter. Jones had been instrumental in the
election of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone in 1975 and was an
inspiration to Democrats across America.

Barack Obama's path to the Democratic nomination is one of dirty election
tricks, betrayal of mentors and friends, elimination of opponents through
underhanded methods, and receipt of funds from disreputable sources
opposed to the interests of the people.

In 1976, Barack Obama betrayed his friend and mentor Alice Palmer. Alice
Palmer is a great African-American leader who had worked hard for human
and civil rights in Illinois. Alice Palmer was running for re-election to
the Illinois State Senate, along with three other Democrats and Barack
Obama. But Barack Obama was in the hands of political dirty trickster
David Axelrod, a Rovian type of political hitman, and Antoin (Tony) Rezko,
a shady slumlord, political fixer and indicted influence pedler. Obama
knew he could not beat Alice Palmer in a fair race. Operatives for Barack
Obama filed into the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and
challenged the hundreds of signatures on the filing petitions of Palmer
and the other candidates. Were any "i"s not dotted? Were any "t"s not
crossed? Though the candidates had double the number of required
signatures, Obama's operatives got enough signatures disqualified to have
all his opponents, including Obama's mentor, thrown out of the race.
Obama was not going to let honor, democracy or an African-American friend
and mentor stand in the way of what he wanted. How much drugged punch
does one have to drink to believe Obama supports fair elections?

With six figure financial support from the Crown Family that owns war
profiteer General Dynamics, and with the support and money of nuclear
power giant Excelon, Obama has never wanted for anything. In the Illinois
State Senate, instead of stepping into Alice Palmer's shoes, Obama made an
art out of not taking any stand, voting "present" 130 times. Of course,
he was there for Excelon, rewriting a nuclear waste bill to make it easer
for Excelon to dump its waste on unsuspecting residents. How much punch
is required to believe Obama is for change or for the people?

When he was unable to eliminate his opponents in a U.S. House race in
2000, Obama lost. It was a lesson, from which he learned.

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

PART 2Barack Obama, the New and Improved Jim Jones
By Steven L. (age 16)

5/15/08

In 2005, Obama bought a house and property with the assistance of Rezko.
Rezko got $10.5 million from Nadmi Auchi and received $3.5 million of
this when it was time for him to purchase the land that became part of
Obama's home. This land was transferred to Obama at a reduced figure,
bringing to mind the words "money laundering" and "bribe."

Here's where the real drugged punch is kicking in. Obama's supporters
claim he is anti-war. By a conservative estimate, in his first three
years in the U.S.Senate, Obama voted in favor of war in excess of 24
times. On at least three occasions he specifically voted against ending
the war and bringing the troops home (Roll Calls 174 and 183 in 2006 and
Roll Call 248 in 2007). To make matters worse, Obama rewarded proponents
of the current Iraq War by actively working and voting to confirm their
nominations to posts like Secretary of State.

Obama's supporters need to get really drunk on punch to believe he is
anti-Bush. Obama voted to seat Bush's Ohio electors in 2005 (Roll Call 1)
after it was clear that Kerry had likely won Ohio. He has spoken of
Ronald Reagan as his hero and of putting George H.W. Bush in charge of
foreign policy. In saying the latter, he praised George H.W. Bush's
handling of the First Gulf War, which was brought about as part of a fraud
by Bush upon the Gulf War nations and the American people. Due to the
release of conversations preceding the invasion, it is now known that Bush
encouraged the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein.

Obama's supporters probably didn't notice that Obama voted five times to
renew the PATRIOT Act and that he supported the Real ID Act, the most
racist piece of legislation in U.S. History, which gave Micheal Chertoff
(the Sacker of New Orleans) the unlimited power to waive all laws with no
judicial review and no relief.

Obama has voted to cut health care funds to the poor, to cut education
funds, to punish countries opposed to the death penalty, to waive labor
and safety standards, and to build the "New Berlin Wall" between the
United States and Mexico. What part of liberal or progressive is that?

His supporters aren't drunk enough to call him an environmentalist. He
has worked hard to assist coal and nuclear power companies get the
legislation they wanted through Congress. He has worked to make it easier
for nuclear companies to dump waste at the locations of their choosing.
He even approved a bill to drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge at the
cost of the polar bear. He voted to fund the Yucca Nuclear Repository
that scientists and engineers are calling a major nuclear disaster in the
making. In fact, Yucca is a threat to life in more than half of the
states and especially in California.

If Obama's supporters came to a football field to play ball, they'd be
sent home to sober up.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, like with Jim Jones, the Obama punch may
be fatal. The Republicans are fully aware of Obama's financial ties that
link him to Saddam Hussein. Those who believe that Saddam was bad but the
war was wrong will think twice about voting for Obama in November. More
and more political observers are predicting a news blitz on the
Obama-Hussein connection in October. Like the followers of Jim Jones, the
Democratic Party leaders appear ready to drink the punch and hari kari the
chances of the Democratic Party in November.

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

PART 3
Barack Obama, the New and Improved Jim Jones
By Steven L. (age 16)

5/15/08


If this were a football game, the nomination of Obama would be called a
forfeit. This would be a great time for an independent to jump in and go
for a winning touchdown.

My generation was born long after Jonestown. Now, we get to see first
hand what we've only read about in history books.

The world will long remember Jonestown/Denver, the last stand of the
Democratic Party.

Funeral services for the Democratic Party will begin on November 5th,
2008. May it rest in peace.

Copyright ©2008 by Steven L. and NextPresidentofUSA. com

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

They could end this morass TODAY if they would stand up. Why aren't they? If they would get off their collective butts, they could now put an end to this misery and we could get on with the campaign. The idea that they "are afraid of the Clinton's" is ludicrous. As long as they piously continue to say, "we're going to let this play out and allow her to exit with dignity", this nonsense will continue. For all the reasons that have been pointed out, she no longer deserves a dignified exit. She screwed it up all by herself. She reminds me of a pentulant child who is invited to a party but is so obnoxious that the hosts, (the U.S. electorate), just wishes she would go home.

I'm just getting sick and tired of it.

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

I would like to think that after nearly 8 years of The Texas Turd, we would not have people who will actually throw their little hissy fits over the fact that if Hillary can't be the nominee they will never vote for Obama. Good grief people. That means you condone this war and a possible third one with Iran, you approve judges in the Roberts, Scalia, Alito stripe who will, without a doubt, be appointed, tax cuts, health care, the environment, immigration, education will cause a continuous fight with Congress and once again, nothing will get done.

So go ahead, but before you cast your "protest vote", just think what you are doing to our country, our standing in the world and the huge fall-out of yet four more years of this absolute misbegotten current administration.

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

All across this country people from all demographics who understand eighth grade civics and high school intro to American government are coming together in a mood of celebration, and pitching in to work for the election of president Barack Obama.

At the same time a minority of apologists for the reconstitution of the civil war confederacy are beating larger and larger drums and tamborines in a concerted effort to drown out the voice of reason. Their unfounded arguments for the installation of Bill and Hillary Clinton as the co - presidents of the new confederacy is now solely dependent upon the illerate and most commited to the doctrine of racial White supremacy.

In the interest of time and space on this week end when some of us are forced to reflect on the ignorance of our past regarding world wars coupled with the insanity of the worst practices of our American past suffice it to say, the last line has been crossed and in the interest of America it is time for the un-American criminal nonsense that is the Clinton campaign to cease and halt.

Yesterday while registering people to vote in my hometown the female volunteer working with me and I were acosted by a Hillary supporter who did not possess the mental powers to distinguish between partisan political action and a volunteer non partisan voter registration effort.

This female "store manager" also thought that the company that hired and promoted her also owned the development that contained the mall that housed her store. They do not, (own the mall,) and we were in violation of no ordinance, law, company policy, rule or regulation. Prior to yesterday my family were customers of her company having spent many dollars over several years.

After explaining exactly who we were and what we were doing she admitted that she objected to our work based on her "personal" beliefs. Engaging her with 'just words' in a friendly conversational tone she became totally frustrated and lost it. When she pointed her finger at me and gave me the one word command "GO!" as if I were a dog I reminded her that I had gone, been shot at while in uniform and now I am back registering my fellow citizens to participate in their government. "I have no where to go, I'm home," said I.
This american woman "store manager" then whipped out her cell phone to call the police. I gave her the number to assist the call. I then asked her if this is what her support the troops magnet guarantees young, wounded, returning Iraq and Afgahnistan veterans. The only response I got was a more angry "GO!" I pointed in the direction of her store's door and told her to go and manage her store.

"PART 1
Barack Obama, the New and Improved Jim Jones
By Steven L. (age 16)"

When I read this 3 part load of pitiful crap attributed to a 16 year old child following the inane Clinton sponsored sewage spewed on my personhood yesterday I realize profane words of condemnation aren't strong enough to express my feelings. I also believe the sincere and reasoned expressions of civil and intelligent posters on AlterNet are wasted on those who never learned to learn. Pigs have no appreciation of pearls.

The un-american idiot community among us is only concerned with electing a woman or a white person as POTUS. In the words of Rod Parsley they "get off" on warfare. How sad. They neither care or know what the governmental, social and economic issues are that confront us, them and their grandchildren. They just know that God ordained them to be against everybody who ain't them. How sad.

http://www.redroom.com/video/
tim-wise-creation-whiteness-clip

bc.

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

Dearest Betsy,

I see from the thought provoking articles that you point to on your own blog, that many of your observations have their roots in evidence based reality while many of your conclusions appear to evolve on the back of extraordinarily well developed intuitive capacity. I happen to have similar views of our world and, in the case of the Clinton abyss, I do also.

I reached my own conclusion, on the severity of Clinton's recent 'mis-speak', by watching the video-clip - her body language, her facial expression and listening to her intonation. I concluded that the words, were thoughtfully calculated and expertly presented. The words themselves could be seen to be reasonably innocuous in a factual historical context - giving a wide margin of benefit of the doubt here.

I just wonder, if what could be the thought process of a minority - I sometimes feel that is what I am part of - can be explained by Jungian stereotype behavior. Have you ever done one of those Myers Briggs online psychological assays. I have been a lifelong ENFJ.

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

Hillary's math does not add up
She cannot win the crown
The most that she can do right now
Is bring Obama down

So bring Obama down she will
She thinks it worth the wait
By sabotaging Dems this year
She'll seal her party's fate

A Democratic train wreck 
Appears to be ahead
A third Bush term (by John McCain)
Should fill us all with dread

But Hillary’s hopes remain alive
With twenty-twelve her aim
And if we all go down the tubes
To her it’s all the same

Fascism, war, insolvency
What matters that you ask?
Ambition is her deity
Just look behind the mask.

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

Before I go further I’d like to say I AM a Democrat but I’m not Clinton or an Obama supporter. I did not vote for either in my state’s primary, effectively throwing away my vote. I will grudgingly vote for Obama but I WILL NEVER vote for Clinton. It has nothing to do with her gender; it has to do with HER. Her divisive nature, Machiavellian schemes and disorganized campaign have shown how uniquely DISQUALIFIED she is as a candidate. Just as her supporters whine that Obama has been anointed the nominee by the press, a year ago she was the anointed one. She was heavily favored this time last year across all demographics whereas Obama was less well known than Dennis Kucinich. Who in their right mind would pick someone who squandered a resounding lead and ripped their camp to shreds out of pure spite as commander in chief? Obama has truly earned his place in the spotlight; after all John Edwards was considered her only serious competition a year ago. It is due to her own many failings that have cost her the campaign, yet she’s exploited her gender and stayed in far beyond what any white male candidate would have been afforded. Now THAT’s sexist!

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

RFK has been romanticized over the years yet the core of what he represented remains the same - a voice of empowerment to all average citizens. In 1968 the US was in turmoil with a major old establishment political shake up. The Dixiecrat-Republican conversion was almost complete while the liberal movement was in complete disarray, compromised and infiltrated. College youth, anti-war activists, white feminists, civil rights activists had competing agendas whose only common ground was their collective opposition to the establishment, thus the specifics and priority of their opposition varied widely. RFK represented, for some the hope of ideological reconciliation. Many feel that unique opportunity was lost, perhaps forever, with RFK's death. Nixon won; the different movements became fragmented and corrupted leading to Republican domination of the Oval Office for 28 of the past 40 years.

So when Clinton evokes RFK's assassination to many she doesn't just imply the death of her opponent but the inclusive ideology he stands for. That's where this moral outrage comes from. Obama is popular among a contemporary cross-section of the 60's groups; he's pushing for a long overdue discussion, reconciliation and healing within the Democratic Party while addressing Gen X/Y issues often ignored by an increasingly arrogant, out-of-touch older generation.

Contrast this with Clinton’s stepped up appeal to the old-school white feminist guard which is racist at its core and willing to get into bed with other bigots to achieve their ends. These feminists rode on the coattails of the civil rights movement to make the valid demand for gender equality, while secretly desiring white male privilege extended to them at the detriment of the group that did all the heavy lifting which gave them that voice. Many older feminists are notoriously racist but it's a taboo subject rarely discussed for fear they'll scream "sexism" and abort any meaningful dialogue.

This is the schism between traditional feminists and civil rights activists - minorities feel they've been used as political pawns in a power struggle between white men and women going back to the abolitionist movement. White women used the moral high ground on racial human rights as leverage for their internal gender wars while ensuring racial minorities remained subjugated to whites. Now these feminists have adopted the neo-con attitude that moral high ground is no longer a requirement for bigoted self-interest.

A sizable number of white women have no true empathy for minority women, who are viewed as inferior competitors and often met with open hostility. Because white women are the perpetrators they get a pass the average white guy cannot. Until the late 60's 2/3 of black women were domestic servants. The upper-middle class white females leading the women's movement saw them as nothing more than maids, cooks, nannies who, much to their chagrin, were often screwed by their husbands on the down low. After the ghetto riots whites became nervous with blacks being in their homes and replaced them first with Southeast Asians then later Hispanics.

White women have always been second in the political food chain with blacks traditionally dead last. Some current black progress is due in part to anti-Hispanic/Arab bigotry distractions. So to suggest that somehow a black man gets preferential treatment over a white woman because he is a man is as ridiculous as it is offensive. You don't have to dig deep to uncover that fallacy. Clinton is well aware of this - she has enjoyed both private and political privilege because of her husband that no black man has rivaled, until perhaps now. The tacit rule that drove the 60’s women’s movement – "our rights BEFORE (not with) blacks" is fueling much of the false victimhood and resentment towards Obama.

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

This settles it. The big baby obama and his crying cohorts don't deserve my support.

You lying lowlifes have cemented my vote for McCain. That way Obamababy will loose and Clinton will not make the same mistakes in 2012

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

Just curious. I notice Bill's book on Giving is going nowhere.

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

I usually watch Meet the Press, and it's usually pretty good.

Yesterday there was a discussion of Hillary's remarks and her general stance--no one on the panel had a supportive word to say, and everyone pretty much agreed she's engaging in self-pity and calling it misogyny.

They cut to a film of a reporter asking Barack a question that went something like this:

"Would you consider ALL eligible people for the Vice Presidential slot? Even those whose spouses have occasionally been a pain in the butt?"

Barack belly laughed, could hardly stop smiling, and said that he wants the best government that we can get, which means that he has to win. Then, he said, we don't just pick our friends, but bring EVERYONE together, our opponents, our supporters, EVERYONE who can be an asset, and give them cabinet posts.

He then mentioned Doris Kearns Goodwin's book--Team of Rivals--The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, and said that Lincoln did just that, and gave every critic and opponent a post in his government, and the government was the better for it.

Doris, who happened to be on the Meet The Press panel yesterday is a Presidential historian, and was there to point out the untruths in Clinton's statements about Bill's and RFK's candidacy. She added: "Obama is also using the principle that we got from that star politician, LBJ, who used to say he'd rather have his enemies inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."

I have a mad crush on Doris Kearns Goodwin. I've loved her for years, and have read everything she's written. She's the best.

But get ready. Barack Obama is a man of his principles. He isn't petty and angry, and will bring Clinton on board for an important cabinet post, if not for the Vice Presidency.

One of the mainstays of his campaign is that we bring everyone to the table.

We have not seen a man of his calibre in politics in my lifetime. What will it be like to have an adult in the White House, who does what he says he's going to do?

I can hardly believe it!

BARACK OBAMA! THE 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!

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

Frankly I'm sickened at all the Hillary bashing.

I'm sorry but some of you Obama "FANATICS" are getting as vicious and nasty as any republican nut case that I've seen.

The biggest problem I is that we drag these elections out for SO LONG. WE SHOULD ALL VOTE ON ONE DAY AND HAVE IT OVER WITH!!!

This is exactly the kind of hateful divisiveness the media (aka the republicans) want to screw up this election for us.

Stop looking for the bad in Hillary and start viewing this election as a fight for the Democratic Party, no matter which one wins.

The media is trying to put nasty spins on everything, and I mean everything that Hillary does, says or even looks at. She really has not done anything worthy of all this craziness.

Everyone calm down and lets work together and let the election play itself out.

Let's try to get one of these equally worthy candidates into office!!! before McCain starts looking good..... which is a horribly frightening thought.

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

All these commentaries are about means and ends. Simply stated, Barark should make it clear to Hillary that she will not be allowed to put her means in his end.

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

This is typical of the Clintons. They think they deserve preferential treatment and will continue to pursue this pointless journey towards failure. They are the one who are being elitist not Barack Obama. She's backing out on an agreement that she had agreed to and signed a testimony that she would adhere to them. This is Michigan's, Florida's and Hillary's goof. And she damn well knows better. How presumptive of her to think that she was above the rules. If it were Barack Obama pulling this bunk, then she would be on him, calling him a rule breaker. She would demand that the DNC enforce it. But because it's her screw up, she wants special consideration. She has to deal with the consequences, whether or not she likes it.

She has clearly illustrated that she has no values or ethics, which is indicative by her behavior. Her dragging this on shows, not perseverance, but ignorance and disrespect for the political process. She should not be president, nor have any part in politics.

I think that she, and her objecting supporters, should be completely barred from being even one hundred yards from the DNC. And anyone who is should be immediately arrested for trespassing. She should no longer get the chance to slowing up the democratic process.

It's done and the sooner she accepts that, the sooner we can back our democratic candidate, Barack Obama.

I hope that she can find some peace that she tried her best to win. the nomination But I'm sure that she'll regret screwing up her chances for any future running. Her credibility and reputation is forever tarnished, and that's something she's going to have to deal with.

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

.... because she ran a perfectly horrible campaign, arrogantly believing she could not be challenged, others were inferior from the start, it would be over in February she said, under the guidance of her disgusting polling guru Mark Penn and because she picks not the best and the brightest, but those who are completely loyal to her personally.

I can't believe that women, no matter how much they want a woman for president, don't recognize the ineptitude that has marked Hillary Clinton's campain or for that matter the dishonesty and manipulation--Do you think she really believed in the gas tax, that Obama was "bitter," that snipers shot at her when she was in Bosnia, that Bill really wrapped up his campaign in June?

Hillary and Bill Clinton repeatedly disrespecting Obama, dividing the party, putting women against Obama, white blue collared workers against Obama, Using Jeremiah Wright, Ayres, Race against Obama, or her disparagement of Obama in saying that McCain and she are 'ready on day one' to be Commander in chief, all Senator Obama has, is a speech two yrs ago. Don't forget: "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know."

Clintoncrats believe The Clintons are some kind of weird Royalty and the country owe's them. They need to stop blaming other people and look closer to home for the cause of this loss.

By 1998 under the Clinton co-presidency, the GOP gained 48 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, and 1,254 seats in state legislatures, and that during their tenure, 439 (out of 1,998 Democrats) became Republicans as opposed to 3 Republicans who became Democrats.

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

Think about it. Hillary circa 2008 writes in her high school journal about her family trip with sniper fire. She's immediately referred to the high school therapist. Then as head of the class she runs for student council and starts posting on face book. She posts stuff like she's in it to win. Suddenly it gets wierd- she's talking about winning with little support but for "acts of God" and then comments about "anything can happen". It's only when she talks about the idea of an "assassination" & remember it takes only this one word and guess what little Miss Head Of the Class gets the boot. And please xerox this.

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

She's playing a very simple game: It's called "I get to be president this time because I have a vagina".

Hillary would do to the American people the same thing that Bush has been doing the last 8 years, except she'd be wearing a strap-on.

dboy

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

How odd. I distinctly recall both Clintons repeating, like a mantra, that one must "work hard and play by all the rules." Oh,wait, that "play by the rules" business only applies to the poor. Never mind.

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

Not in recent history has the Democratic Party looked so upright, and Clinton challenges that with a petty and obscure objection. All the while, she occasionally drops hints that she will support either candidate, but 'fails' to realize what she is doing to the party. Senator Clinton was a collegiate republican in her hay-day. Perhaps we are seeing her true colors show. This seems to be a case of "If I can't have it...no one can."

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

The inference that counting the results as she prescribes; that it is the will of the people
to break her rule that she supported, sounds like
mob rule. Is she really in favor of mob rule? How far can it go?

The essence of a mob is the lack of counting. The mob counts itself as everything and does not count anyone else.

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

The problem is not Hillary, it is Obama.

Senator George McGovern worked for four years after the 1968 theft of the nomination by Hubert Humphrey in order to reform the rules of the party to make the process accessible to all candidates.

Recently, a detailed review of the Obama strategy reveals how the delegate manager of the Obama campaign studied the rules for choosing delegates, and devised a plan to obtain the most delegates through advantages heavily weighted in favor of any Black candidate.

In other words, precincts with Black voters yield more delegates than precincts with white voters, and this rule obscures the true demographic picture of what one-to-one vote counts will produce in the November election.

In other words, this detailed study reveals beyond any doubt that Obama systematically played "the race card" in nearly every precinct in the nation. He entered primaries where he had the advantage to gain delegates in greater proportions than the total vote percentages would allow on an equal playing surface.

Caucus states also were played to his advantage; the demographic proportions of voters in each caucus state gave the advantage to Obama in that he was more likely to mobilize the first-time voters, college students and others with adequate time to spend at the caucus rather than working people and parents with extensive obligations that precluded six and eight hours required to participate in the caucuses. If these states had held primaries the voters would have favored Hillary by three to 12 percent, following the historic votes cast in other primary states. Obama gained an advantage of 146 delegates in these states alone, and used this to claim "the will of the people" while that claim is disingenuous.

McGovern fought the party to reform these tricky advantages, and for most states the reforms have benefited the party and the nominating process. The reforms that McGovern brought to the party were intended to avoid exactly this kind of uneven playing field that Obama managers have taken advantage of.

There is great irony in this election: If anyone would take the time to study the Hillary supporter demographics, one would find that this is the voter that supported John Kennedy in the 1960 election, and Robert Kennedy over Eugene McCarthy in 1968. The students went for McCarthy in 1968, and he won the Oregon primary, as Obama has.

Only through this controversy in the democratic nominating process have I changed my own support from anti-Clinton to Pro-Clinton. Never a big fan in the past, I have been convinced by the facts. Obama HAS played the race card in gaining delegates in greater proportion to his actual support among voters through his targeted campaign, creating the illusion of "deserving" the nomination.

The facts, and the spirit of the McGovern reforms do indicate that Senator Clinton best represents the people of this country, and those who would be democrats. McGovern sought and fought for the equal playing field, and this campaign has taken advantage of every flaw in the process that favors a black candidate; to proceed as if this is not the case will eventually haunt the democratic party for the next four years.

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

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SHES RACIST WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SHES A LIAR. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SHES THE DEVIL WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.


TALK POLICY OR SHUT THE HELL UP SPINELESS LOOSER.

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

YOUR BIASED AND FILLED WITH SPINELESS CRYBABIES.

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

Against the person rather than the facts.

This is one prolific problematic trait of this forum: the majority of articles and responders are replete with ad hominem arguments without sticking to the relevant facts.

So many attacks on the person, and an exceedingly vicious bias against certain persons, who happen to be candidates for office in this country.

The facts become obscured by the clouds of contempt.

Predominant seems to be the "seer syndrome" that allows an amazing number of responders, and an occasional Article writer, to know the inner thoughts of someone like Hillary Clinton so thoroughly as to pinpoint exactly what motivates her to speak every word.

Suppose that Hillary has a team of advisers and legal experts that analyze these issues before coming up with a position, and that these positions are based on legal precedent? How then does everything hinge on the personal (usually diabolical if these comments are to be believed) inner motivations of this one person, Hillary?

Some of the people who write these comments clearly have issues that need to be aired in a different format.

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