Puzzled In Gaza

By Findalis

The world has been screaming about the horror that Gaza has become due to Operation Cast Lead. That it is all in shambles, thousands of innocent civilians were wounded, hundreds of innocent civilians were killed. That the Israelis are the worse people on Earth since the Nazis. This sentiment has been echoed from the highest levels of many governments. Voices like Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Congressmen Ellison and Baird plus that perennial loser John Kerry, have echoed these remarks, shouting that the time has come to cut off all funding from Israel. But they did not see the real picture that is Gaza. Only the Pallywood version that they were allowed to be shown.

What I saw was that there had been precision attacks made on all of Hamas’ infrastructure. Does UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticize the surgical destruction of the explosives cache in the Imad Akhel Mosque, of the National Forces compound, of the Shi Jaya police station, of the Ministry of Prisoners? The Gazans I met weren’t mourning the police state. Neither were they radicalized. As Hamas blackshirts menaced the street corners, I witnessed how passersby ignored them.

THERE WERE empty beds at Shifa Hospital and a threatening atmosphere. Hamas is reduced to wielding its unchallengeable authority from extensive air raid shelters which, together with the hospital, were built by Israel 30 years ago. Terrorized Gazans used doublespeak when they told me most of the alleged 5,500 wounded were being treated in Egypt and Jordan. They want it known that the figure is a lie, and showed me that the wounded weren’t in Gaza. No evidence exists of their presence in foreign hospitals, or of how they might have gotten there.

From the mansions of the Abu Ayida family at Jebala Rayes to Tallel Howa (Gaza City’s densest residential area), Gazans contradicted allegations that Israel had murderously attacked civilians. They told me again and again that both civilians and Hamas fighters had evacuated safely from areas of Hamas activity in response to Israeli telephone calls, leaflets and megaphone warnings.

Seeing Al-Fakhora made it impossible to understand how UN and press reports could ever have alleged that the UNWRA school had been hit by Israeli shells. The school, like most of Gaza, was visibly intact. I was shown where Hamas had been firing from nearby, and the Israeli missile’s marks on the road outside the school were unmistakable. When I met Mona al-Ashkor, one of the 40 people injured running toward Al-Fakhora – rather than inside it as widely and persistently reported – I was told that Israel had warned people not to take shelter in the school because Hamas was operating in the area, and that some people had ignored the warning because UNWRA previously told them that the school would be safe. Press reports that fatalities numbered 40 were denied.

I WAS TOLD stories at Samouni Street which contradicted each other, what I saw and later media accounts. Examples of these inconsistencies are that 24, 31, 34 or more members of the Fatah Samouni family had died. That all the deaths occurred when Israel bombed the safe building it had told 160 family members to shelter in; the safe building was pointed out to me but looked externally intact and washing was still hanging on a line on one of its balconies. That some left the safe building and were shot in another house. That one was shot when outside collecting firewood. That there was no resistance – but the top right hand window of the safe building (which appears in a BBC Panorama film Out of the Ruins” aired February 8) has a black mark above it – a sign I was shown all day of weaponry having been fired from inside. That victims were left bleeding for two or three days.

The media have manufactured and examined allegations that Israel committed a war crime against the Samounis without mentioning that the family are Fatah and that some of its members are still missing. They have not considered what might flow from those facts: that Hamas might have been active not only in the Samouni killings but in the exertion of force on the Samounis to accuse Israel.

THE GAZA I saw was societally intact. There were no homeless, walking wounded, hungry or underdressed people. The streets were busy, shops were hung with embroidered dresses and gigantic cooking pots, the markets were full of fresh meat and beautiful produce – the red radishes were bigger than grapefruits. Mothers accompanied by a 13-year-old boy told me they were bored of leaving home to sit on rubble all day to tell the press how they’d survived. Women graduates I met in Shijaya spoke of education as power as old men watched over them.

No one praised their government as they showed me the sites of tunnels where fighters had melted away. No one declared Hamas victorious for creating a forced civilian front line as they showed me the remains of booby trapped homes and schools.

From what I saw and was told in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead pinpointed a totalitarian regime’s power bases and largely neutralized Hamas’s plans to make Israel its tool for the sacrifice of civilian life.

What the writer saw and heard was the truth. Not what Hamas wanted the world to see, but the actual truth behind what happened. But the Moonbats in the world will only listen to Hamas’ lies and scream out that there was an atrocity committed in Gaza by the Israelis.

And what does the US government do? The allocate $900 million for Gaza reconstruction. Almost a Billion Dollars to flow into the hands of Hamas. A Billion Dollars for weapons, for rockets, for terrorizing innocent Israelis. A Billion Dollars to steal and put in their personal Swiss Bank Accounts. And yet, this same administration cannot find a single dollar to help rebuild the City of New Orleans, especially the lower 9th Ward.

And where does the US get this money from? You guess it. The American Tax Payer. Congratulations America! You have a new partner in the world: Hamas! I am sure you are all very happy with this idea and will take them into your bosom. After all, they will now be your biggest partners in your War against Terror, War against Islamic Fascism, War on Israel. How wonderful for you!

Is Hillary Clinton Eligible to Serve as Secretary of State?

Is Hillary Clinton Eligible to Serve as Secretary of State?

Not until 2013, says Judicial Watch:

According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton’s current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption…Continue reading on Judicial Watch >>

Introducing Vice Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton…

(Cross Post from Highly Opinionated)

It’s coming down to the wire. Obama has states, and Clinton has votes, I read on another analysis about the Democratic contest. Stacking the two candidates up side by side, what’s the difference, really, when it comes down to it? They both want to socialize…everything. They both are liberals. They both have basically blown off their senate terms in the race for the White House. Neither of them gives a rat’s ass about our troops mission in Iraq, and the damage that would be done if we pulled out our combat forces and left non-combat forces behind. They’re both willing to surrender to terrorists by cutting and running. They’re both clueless on how to handle the economy. They’re both desirous to raise taxes on the American people. And despite claims to the contrary, they’re both are really, technically, within range of picking up enough delegates to put either one over the top to be the nominee. Obama is ahead in number of delegates, but Team Clinton has pulled rabbits out of their as…errrr…hats, before.

But realistically, it does look like Obama is going to be the front runner to come out of the nominating process and head into the general election come November to face McCain. Barring, that is, something untoward happening to Obama in June, as Clinton inferred the other day, causing such an uproar, referencing the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 68. Perhaps she knows Sirhan Sirhan’s relatives?

I digress.

Many pundits have referred to an Obama/Clinton ticket as a way to bridge the gap that has been created in the Democratic party this election cycle. Bridging the gap, mending the rift, sewing up the split crotch in the straddle of the pants, whatever analogy you wish to use. Screaming Howard Dean and the other heads of the DNC would love nothing more than for this whole thing to be over and done with so that they can get back to the business at hand for the Democratic Party.

Robbing the American public blind.

Um, I mean, doing the people.

Doing the people’s business. That’s it, doing the people’s business. Doing business to the American People. Or ON the American people. OH WAIT, doing business FOR the American people.

Ok, now we’re back on track and are phrasing things correctly in order to mislead people more than we had intended (to paraphrase the late Peter Jennings).

Since there is basically no difference between Obama and Clinton other than that she’s a woman and he’s a man, and of course that skin issue (referring to thickness, and his lack of it, I’ll leave the race issue to the Democrats), why not put the two of them together on the ticket as a team, him for President since he’s in the lead, her for VP since she’s, well, not in the lead…

Let’s look at the pro’s list for teaming the two of them up in this capacity, shall we? You’d have a Presidential candidate who’s running mate would be totally and completely on board with turning the United States into a socialist regime, you’d have a Presidential candidate and running mate who would be totally and completely on board. They both seem to have a bit of trouble differentiating between fact and fiction, they both have controversial spouses, they are both lawyers (back to that trouble differentiating between fact and fiction again), neither has any executive experience, and both will be willing to hand us over, lock, stock, and barrel, to the United Nations.

Isn’t that a fabulous dream ticket? If this was some sort of Science Fiction movie, one could argue that really, Obama and Hillary are the same person. That would work out well for Bill, come to think of it, because then he’d have access to Michelle…hmmmmmmmmmm. Okay, let’s not go there, shall we? The thought of Clinton and his willy…anyway. Policy wise Obama and Clinton are virtually indistinguishable.

Let’s leave it there.

Then there is the popularity issue. He has roughly half the Democrats sewn up and on his side, so does she. Put the two of them together, and you have almost the entire Democratic party all sewn up and in one giant happy bed together. A veritable orgy of liberal-socialist policy and program planning for the next four years. And since the Democrats are the party who are so very much in favor of gay marriages, civil unions, free love, and all that, yes, I do think that orgy is an appropriate term for the Obama/Clinton years to come.

Why is that? Think about it, very, very carefully. At every orgy, someone is going to get fucked.

Grab your vaseline, America, and get ready. If either or both of these two win in November, you can guess who’s gonna get fucked for the next four years…

Just an observation.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Liberals Agree With Conservatives About The Clintons?

Cross posted from Spree at Wake Up America!

(Cartoon by Glenn McCoy at Townhall)
When Bill and Hillary Clinton were bare-knuckle fighting the Conservatives in this country, the liberals all bought in to their “vast right wing conspiracy” theory; now that their tactics, lies and underhanded tricks are being used against the other members of the left, lo and behold, the liberals are starting to notice some thing they don’t like about the Clinton Duo.

Poetic justice and greatly amusing at that.

Let me start with Hillary’s latest gambit which is causing a little firestorm on the left side of the blogosphere and then I will get into the harshest outright criticisms of Hillary and Bill, about their “character”–again using the words from liberals.

I did a few pieces on the DNC refusing to sit the party delegates in states which broke the rules and moved their primaries forward; I even asked if they were slitting their own throats by making Michigan and Floria feel irrelevant, but they did and they agreed not to campaign there; in Michigan most candidates took their names off the ballot because of those agreements.

Hillary didn’t.

Now Hillary wants to change the rules midstream, and you don’t have to take my word for how the left is seeing through this gambit–we will show you how liberals are seeing it themselves.

Ezra Klein, a liberal, thinks this little game of Hillary’s has the potential to tear the party itself apart:

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

[…]

But if this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn’t contest those states because they weren’t going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC’s procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It’s as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama’s victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate.

This next one shocked even me, because some liberals (as I will show below) might not like the Clintons, Hillary especially, but would be willing to hold their noses and vote for her anyway to keep a Republican out of the White House…not so with shamanic from NewsHoggers. Iff you have ever read NewsHoggers you already know they are so far to the left that they cannot even SEE the center anymore.

This is tough stuff for me to stomach, wanting a politics of aspiration and hope and progress. Call me crazy, but I have this thing that I do where when I agree to something, I do my best to fulfill my obligation to the agreement. I’d like to think it’s possible to elect leaders who also do their best to fulfill their obligations.

But I look at Hillary Clinton’s campaign and I see people lacking in goodwill, overcome by raw ambition, and devoid of principle. This is exactly what drove my parents and tens of millions of other Republicans crazy during the 90s, and I’m not looking forward to a repeat.

I’m crossing my fingers for John McCain if Clinton wins the nomination. I disagree with him on everything, but I’ll take him over four more years of this kind of shady, leave no opponent standing politics.

Take a second to let that sink in. This radical left liberal would not just sit home on election night if Hillary was the nominee, but would actually go vote for McCain!!!!!

Pretty much makes Ezra’s point above, wouldn’t you say?

Lawyers, Guns and Money, perhaps not as radical as NewsHoggers, but still a liberal blog from the few times I have read it, starts off with “this is pretty appalling”:

It’s dirty business on the part of the Clinton campaign, no question. And cloaking the nasty little power grab with the language of democratic inclusion irritates me even more. I can’t say that I’m completely surprised, but I would have preferred if Hillary had demonstrated more appreciation for party unity than this; it amounts to an effort to steal delegates.

As a side note…click that link and take a look at the comment section. They are even harsher, calling her out on exactly what she is.

You can find more liberals taking Hillary to task for this at Carpetbagger, Talking Points Memo and Rolling Stone.

That is simply but a small sample of the reactions against Hillary on the far left liberal side of the blogosphere and media.

Now for the meat and potatoes of this post, a very surprising article caught my eye from the Los Angeles Times Opinion page, from a liberal writer who seems to have just discovered what and who the Clintons are and finding their character, ethics and morals seriously lacking. (Notice this is written without mention of her latest little sleight of hand about the Michigan and Florida delegates)

The title itself gave me a huge chuckle when it asks “Is the right right on the Clintons?“

The sub header is just as amusing: “Hillary’s campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.”

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people — friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read — kept saying the same thing: They’ve suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we’ve reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We’re not frothing Clinton haters like … well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they’d go away.

It goes on to say the turning point for them was when the Clintons misrepresented what Barack Obama said about Ronald Reagan, they mention Hillary’s email tactics against Obama before the New Hampshire primaries and goes straight into the robocalls happening now in South Carolina against Obama…lastly they find “the Clintons’ habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on.” (That was in relation to the Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoking Obama’s youthful drug use.)

The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That’s what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn’t the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.

Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It’s a scary thought. Of course, to conservatives, it’s a delicious thought…..

I am stopping there because I have no problem admitting that yes, it IS a delicious thought as well as poetic justice; the irony also comes into play.

But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons’ character. Bill’s affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.

With all that said, they acknowledge that if Hillary ends up the Democratic nominee, with all those negatives they just listed themselves, they would probably hold their collective noses and vote for her again.

Talk about a lack of character…

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

From the right side of the blogosphere is some justified snark at the very fact it has taken members of the left 16 YEARS to FINALLY start seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton for what they are.

Captain Ed titles his piece “Rules? The Clintons Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Rules!” and PoliGazette asks if “Anyone really up for four years of this deceit?” That piece is appropriately named “Cheater”.

Macsmind put the figures out there, a reminder of what happened under Bill Clinton when he held the office of presidency:

– GOP seats gained in House during Clinton: 48
– GOP seats gained in Senate under Clinton: 8
– GOP governorships under Clinton: 11
– GOP state legislative seats gained under Clinton: 1,254
– State legislatures taken over by GOP under Clinton: 9
– Democrat officeholders became Republicans under Clinton: 439

You can keep up with the firestorm of comments, blog posts and discussion about Hillary, Bill and this latest salvo in dirty politics, and left against left, over at memeorandum.

A quick note to the far liberal left here: You knew what they were and you didn’t care as long as those tactics were only used against the right, so quit whining, quit bitching…… You are getting exactly what you deserve.

Liberals Agree With Conservatives About The Clintons?

Cross posted from Spree at Wake Up America!

(Cartoon by Glenn McCoy at Townhall)
When Bill and Hillary Clinton were bare-knuckle fighting the Conservatives in this country, the liberals all bought in to their “vast right wing conspiracy” theory; now that their tactics, lies and underhanded tricks are being used against the other members of the left, lo and behold, the liberals are starting to notice some thing they don’t like about the Clinton Duo.

Poetic justice and greatly amusing at that.

Let me start with Hillary’s latest gambit which is causing a little firestorm on the left side of the blogosphere and then I will get into the harshest outright criticisms of Hillary and Bill, about their “character”–again using the words from liberals.

I did a few pieces on the DNC refusing to sit the party delegates in states which broke the rules and moved their primaries forward; I even asked if they were slitting their own throats by making Michigan and Floria feel irrelevant, but they did and they agreed not to campaign there; in Michigan most candidates took their names off the ballot because of those agreements.

Hillary didn’t.

Now Hillary wants to change the rules midstream, and you don’t have to take my word for how the left is seeing through this gambit–we will show you how liberals are seeing it themselves.

Ezra Klein, a liberal, thinks this little game of Hillary’s has the potential to tear the party itself apart:

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

[…]

But if this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn’t contest those states because they weren’t going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC’s procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It’s as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama’s victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate.

This next one shocked even me, because some liberals (as I will show below) might not like the Clintons, Hillary especially, but would be willing to hold their noses and vote for her anyway to keep a Republican out of the White House…not so with shamanic from NewsHoggers. Iff you have ever read NewsHoggers you already know they are so far to the left that they cannot even SEE the center anymore.

This is tough stuff for me to stomach, wanting a politics of aspiration and hope and progress. Call me crazy, but I have this thing that I do where when I agree to something, I do my best to fulfill my obligation to the agreement. I’d like to think it’s possible to elect leaders who also do their best to fulfill their obligations.

But I look at Hillary Clinton’s campaign and I see people lacking in goodwill, overcome by raw ambition, and devoid of principle. This is exactly what drove my parents and tens of millions of other Republicans crazy during the 90s, and I’m not looking forward to a repeat.

I’m crossing my fingers for John McCain if Clinton wins the nomination. I disagree with him on everything, but I’ll take him over four more years of this kind of shady, leave no opponent standing politics.

Take a second to let that sink in. This radical left liberal would not just sit home on election night if Hillary was the nominee, but would actually go vote for McCain!!!!!

Pretty much makes Ezra’s point above, wouldn’t you say?

Lawyers, Guns and Money, perhaps not as radical as NewsHoggers, but still a liberal blog from the few times I have read it, starts off with “this is pretty appalling”:

It’s dirty business on the part of the Clinton campaign, no question. And cloaking the nasty little power grab with the language of democratic inclusion irritates me even more. I can’t say that I’m completely surprised, but I would have preferred if Hillary had demonstrated more appreciation for party unity than this; it amounts to an effort to steal delegates.

As a side note…click that link and take a look at the comment section. They are even harsher, calling her out on exactly what she is.

You can find more liberals taking Hillary to task for this at Carpetbagger, Talking Points Memo and Rolling Stone.

That is simply but a small sample of the reactions against Hillary on the far left liberal side of the blogosphere and media.

Now for the meat and potatoes of this post, a very surprising article caught my eye from the Los Angeles Times Opinion page, from a liberal writer who seems to have just discovered what and who the Clintons are and finding their character, ethics and morals seriously lacking. (Notice this is written without mention of her latest little sleight of hand about the Michigan and Florida delegates)

The title itself gave me a huge chuckle when it asks “Is the right right on the Clintons?“

The sub header is just as amusing: “Hillary’s campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.”

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people — friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read — kept saying the same thing: They’ve suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we’ve reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We’re not frothing Clinton haters like … well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they’d go away.

It goes on to say the turning point for them was when the Clintons misrepresented what Barack Obama said about Ronald Reagan, they mention Hillary’s email tactics against Obama before the New Hampshire primaries and goes straight into the robocalls happening now in South Carolina against Obama…lastly they find “the Clintons’ habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on.” (That was in relation to the Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoking Obama’s youthful drug use.)

The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That’s what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn’t the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.

Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It’s a scary thought. Of course, to conservatives, it’s a delicious thought…..

I am stopping there because I have no problem admitting that yes, it IS a delicious thought as well as poetic justice; the irony also comes into play.

But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons’ character. Bill’s affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.

With all that said, they acknowledge that if Hillary ends up the Democratic nominee, with all those negatives they just listed themselves, they would probably hold their collective noses and vote for her again.

Talk about a lack of character…

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

From the right side of the blogosphere is some justified snark at the very fact it has taken members of the left 16 YEARS to FINALLY start seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton for what they are.

Captain Ed titles his piece “Rules? The Clintons Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Rules!” and PoliGazette asks if “Anyone really up for four years of this deceit?” That piece is appropriately named “Cheater”.

Macsmind put the figures out there, a reminder of what happened under Bill Clinton when he held the office of presidency:

– GOP seats gained in House during Clinton: 48
– GOP seats gained in Senate under Clinton: 8
– GOP governorships under Clinton: 11
– GOP state legislative seats gained under Clinton: 1,254
– State legislatures taken over by GOP under Clinton: 9
– Democrat officeholders became Republicans under Clinton: 439

You can keep up with the firestorm of comments, blog posts and discussion about Hillary, Bill and this latest salvo in dirty politics, and left against left, over at memeorandum.

A quick note to the far liberal left here: You knew what they were and you didn’t care as long as those tactics were only used against the right, so quit whining, quit bitching…… You are getting exactly what you deserve.

Serious Allegations Against The Clinton Campaign in Nevada

Cross posted from Wake up America

Statement from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:

We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.

We will investigate all of these thoroughly and would encourage anyone who had concern about actions at the caucus sites to call (866) 675-2008.

Normally, when one campaign makes statements like this, they must be taken with a grain of salt; when they are followed up with firsthand eyewitness accounts backing those statements up, whether the incidents would have changed the final results or not becomes secondary to the question of accountability for using underhanded–and possibly illegal–tactics to begin with.

Let’s start with the first allegation of caucus doors being closed thirty minutes early and people being turned away.

From a Daily Kos diary, thereisnospoon:

Here’s my story:

I got to the location at 10:30am and set up. The Hillary people were already there. In charge of them was a 60-ish woman with a slight Brooklyn accent. Here were the irregularities in my precinct alone:

* The Hillary operative tried to force the doors to close at 11:30am. KK was outside greeting people, and she overheard the Hillary campaign mention that the doors would be closing at 11:30am, and she went to talk to the precinct chair. So we intervened and said that that was absolutely not legal by the rules. She then started screaming at the chair to close the doors. When he read the rules that they were open until 12noon, she said that “that’s not what I was told, other campaigns were spreading misinformation.” We stood our ground, and the doors remained open.

* A man in a wheelchair came in with his daughter, and said he was an Edwards supporter. When his daughter began to wheel him to the middle of the room, the Hillary operative tapped her on the shoulder, took the wheelchair and took him to the Clinton corner. I rushed over from talking to an undecided voter and objected loudly, but his daughter was a Hillary person. The Clinton operative said, “I don’t control what he does; she does.” At that point I said to the man, “Nobody controls you. If you want to vote for Edwards, you have every right to go to the center of the room. Do you need help?” He looked at me plaintively, but said nothing as his daughter dragged him farther back into the corner and just shook his head.

* The Clinton operative herself had a Brooklyn accent and I overheard her mention having been from New York. When she stood to be counted in the middle of the room, I objected and asked her if she was actually from Nevada. She said yes. I talked to the chair and asked him to ask her name and find her on the list. He asked her her name and checked the list, and she was not on it. At this point the chair said, “well, I can’t ask for ID.” I said, “She can’t participate if no one will vouch for her.” At this point a Hispanic man wearing a Hillary shirt said she was his wife. While that’s not impossible, it was also improbable–but I had no way to verify or object further.

* One voter who hadn’t even finished registering said that she was undecided, and the Hillary operative physically escorted her to the Hillary side. I went to talk to the woman, but she was immediately surrounded by 3 Hillary supporters who would not let me in, and I had to attend to others registering at that point (our operatives were outnumbered by hers 2-1).

* Hillary supporters were doing check-in, and a Hillary sign was behind them. I forced the sign off the table, and I went to the front desk to verify that everything went according to the rules at checkin–but if nothing else, the necessity of doing so prevented me from doing other needed work.

Read the whole thing; they also relay stories of what others are telling them and are saying they have video to support some of these claims.

This diarist also ends with something that should be very disturbing for Democrats in general:

After being a part of this campaign, doing this work, and seeing this level of viciousness from a supposedly Democratic candidate, it will be a cold day in hell before I do any work for anyone in any way associated with Hillary Clinton. At this point, even my general election vote is in question. I am furious almost to the point of nausea. There are so many young, idealistic activists here who are absolutely crushed–not because we lost here, but because of the way we “lost.” Disillusionment is running extremely high–and I doubt very much of many of them will be back in 2008, or ever again. Illegal and immoral campaign tactics like this aren’t just reprehensible: they also come at a cost to the party in the long run.

Another firsthand account comes from LV Pol Girl:

As many of you know I am an Obama supporter and a first time caucus goer. Here is my experience…

We showed up at 10 AM and the Hillary camp was all set with signs and volunteers. It didn’t take long for the Obama volunteers to neutralize Hillary’s head start. For starters, we noticed that Hillary’s supporters were breaking the rules by placing Hillary signs where they were not allowed and we asked them to take them down, which they did. We then noticed, that a car sporting Hillary signage, was double-parked, blocking people who needed access to handicapped parking. We told a woman who just had a hip replacement to park her car right beside the car.

The next controversial issue involved the voter cards disappearing into the Hillary camp, so that the Edwards and Obama people were left with no cards. When we asked them to give us back some cards, we then noticed that they had all been pre-marked for Hillary.

Another controversy arose, when a Hillary supporter became hostile with the Precinct Chair because she felt that things were not moving as fast as she would have liked — the time was only 11:00 a.m. This, along with the voter card stunt, ended up hurting the Hillary camp because the precinct chair, a known Hillary supporter, was turned off by these tactics and decided to join the Obama camp.

Once again, there is much more to that diary–those are just the highlights.

The next account is from RunnerAAA, who lists multiple problems at the caucus as well as from some Hillary supporters, from trying to close the doors early [again] to people trying to vote in more than one precinct, people being sent to the wrong precinct deliberately as well as precinct captains being interrupted–in violation of caucus rules–when they had their five minutes to speak to the group about their candidate.

That diary ends like this:

We’ll see how the results come out, but for now I’m left with a bad taste in my mouth about the Clinton campaign. I won’t forget these dirty tactics today will never be forgotten. I hope that everyone realizes how much this reflects on Hillary’s character. Anything to win, even if it means cheating. I am as strong a supporter for Obama as ever. We can’t let the machine win.

It should be noted that complaints are coming in about both the Obama campaign AND the Clinton campaign as reported at The Hill.

Rick Moran puts together a list of some of the newsworthy dirty tactics the Clinton campaign has recently utilized since before–and during–the Nevada caucus, over at the PoliGazette.

There is quite a bit of buzz about this on the left side of the blogosphere and Ed Morrisey wonders why we even have caucuses instead of primaries being the standard.

He has a point. Precinct chairs who favor one candidate over another leads to decisions being made, not in fairness to the process but with bias for the campaign that the chair supports… there is nothing fair in that process and leaves us wondering if any legal action can be taken against such tactics as those having been reported.

Secondly, many were so disturbed about the process and what they saw from their own “side” they have been turned off of the whole political process altogether.

Third, because of the chaos at some of the precincts, first time caucus goers may never participate in the process again.

I would bet good money on the fact that nasty tactics, dirty tricks, voter suppression and fraud have just begun in this race, but the fun part about it is the Democrats are using these tactics against each other.

It is like finally ripping the roof off of hell and letting the world see what the Democrats really are all about.

Serious Allegations Against The Clinton Campaign in Nevada

Cross posted from Wake up America

Statement from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:

We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.

We will investigate all of these thoroughly and would encourage anyone who had concern about actions at the caucus sites to call (866) 675-2008.

Normally, when one campaign makes statements like this, they must be taken with a grain of salt; when they are followed up with firsthand eyewitness accounts backing those statements up, whether the incidents would have changed the final results or not becomes secondary to the question of accountability for using underhanded–and possibly illegal–tactics to begin with.

Let’s start with the first allegation of caucus doors being closed thirty minutes early and people being turned away.

From a Daily Kos diary, thereisnospoon:

Here’s my story:

I got to the location at 10:30am and set up. The Hillary people were already there. In charge of them was a 60-ish woman with a slight Brooklyn accent. Here were the irregularities in my precinct alone:

* The Hillary operative tried to force the doors to close at 11:30am. KK was outside greeting people, and she overheard the Hillary campaign mention that the doors would be closing at 11:30am, and she went to talk to the precinct chair. So we intervened and said that that was absolutely not legal by the rules. She then started screaming at the chair to close the doors. When he read the rules that they were open until 12noon, she said that “that’s not what I was told, other campaigns were spreading misinformation.” We stood our ground, and the doors remained open.

* A man in a wheelchair came in with his daughter, and said he was an Edwards supporter. When his daughter began to wheel him to the middle of the room, the Hillary operative tapped her on the shoulder, took the wheelchair and took him to the Clinton corner. I rushed over from talking to an undecided voter and objected loudly, but his daughter was a Hillary person. The Clinton operative said, “I don’t control what he does; she does.” At that point I said to the man, “Nobody controls you. If you want to vote for Edwards, you have every right to go to the center of the room. Do you need help?” He looked at me plaintively, but said nothing as his daughter dragged him farther back into the corner and just shook his head.

* The Clinton operative herself had a Brooklyn accent and I overheard her mention having been from New York. When she stood to be counted in the middle of the room, I objected and asked her if she was actually from Nevada. She said yes. I talked to the chair and asked him to ask her name and find her on the list. He asked her her name and checked the list, and she was not on it. At this point the chair said, “well, I can’t ask for ID.” I said, “She can’t participate if no one will vouch for her.” At this point a Hispanic man wearing a Hillary shirt said she was his wife. While that’s not impossible, it was also improbable–but I had no way to verify or object further.

* One voter who hadn’t even finished registering said that she was undecided, and the Hillary operative physically escorted her to the Hillary side. I went to talk to the woman, but she was immediately surrounded by 3 Hillary supporters who would not let me in, and I had to attend to others registering at that point (our operatives were outnumbered by hers 2-1).

* Hillary supporters were doing check-in, and a Hillary sign was behind them. I forced the sign off the table, and I went to the front desk to verify that everything went according to the rules at checkin–but if nothing else, the necessity of doing so prevented me from doing other needed work.

Read the whole thing; they also relay stories of what others are telling them and are saying they have video to support some of these claims.

This diarist also ends with something that should be very disturbing for Democrats in general:

After being a part of this campaign, doing this work, and seeing this level of viciousness from a supposedly Democratic candidate, it will be a cold day in hell before I do any work for anyone in any way associated with Hillary Clinton. At this point, even my general election vote is in question. I am furious almost to the point of nausea. There are so many young, idealistic activists here who are absolutely crushed–not because we lost here, but because of the way we “lost.” Disillusionment is running extremely high–and I doubt very much of many of them will be back in 2008, or ever again. Illegal and immoral campaign tactics like this aren’t just reprehensible: they also come at a cost to the party in the long run.

Another firsthand account comes from LV Pol Girl:

As many of you know I am an Obama supporter and a first time caucus goer. Here is my experience…

We showed up at 10 AM and the Hillary camp was all set with signs and volunteers. It didn’t take long for the Obama volunteers to neutralize Hillary’s head start. For starters, we noticed that Hillary’s supporters were breaking the rules by placing Hillary signs where they were not allowed and we asked them to take them down, which they did. We then noticed, that a car sporting Hillary signage, was double-parked, blocking people who needed access to handicapped parking. We told a woman who just had a hip replacement to park her car right beside the car.

The next controversial issue involved the voter cards disappearing into the Hillary camp, so that the Edwards and Obama people were left with no cards. When we asked them to give us back some cards, we then noticed that they had all been pre-marked for Hillary.

Another controversy arose, when a Hillary supporter became hostile with the Precinct Chair because she felt that things were not moving as fast as she would have liked — the time was only 11:00 a.m. This, along with the voter card stunt, ended up hurting the Hillary camp because the precinct chair, a known Hillary supporter, was turned off by these tactics and decided to join the Obama camp.

Once again, there is much more to that diary–those are just the highlights.

The next account is from RunnerAAA, who lists multiple problems at the caucus as well as from some Hillary supporters, from trying to close the doors early [again] to people trying to vote in more than one precinct, people being sent to the wrong precinct deliberately as well as precinct captains being interrupted–in violation of caucus rules–when they had their five minutes to speak to the group about their candidate.

That diary ends like this:

We’ll see how the results come out, but for now I’m left with a bad taste in my mouth about the Clinton campaign. I won’t forget these dirty tactics today will never be forgotten. I hope that everyone realizes how much this reflects on Hillary’s character. Anything to win, even if it means cheating. I am as strong a supporter for Obama as ever. We can’t let the machine win.

It should be noted that complaints are coming in about both the Obama campaign AND the Clinton campaign as reported at The Hill.

Rick Moran puts together a list of some of the newsworthy dirty tactics the Clinton campaign has recently utilized since before–and during–the Nevada caucus, over at the PoliGazette.

There is quite a bit of buzz about this on the left side of the blogosphere and Ed Morrisey wonders why we even have caucuses instead of primaries being the standard.

He has a point. Precinct chairs who favor one candidate over another leads to decisions being made, not in fairness to the process but with bias for the campaign that the chair supports… there is nothing fair in that process and leaves us wondering if any legal action can be taken against such tactics as those having been reported.

Secondly, many were so disturbed about the process and what they saw from their own “side” they have been turned off of the whole political process altogether.

Third, because of the chaos at some of the precincts, first time caucus goers may never participate in the process again.

I would bet good money on the fact that nasty tactics, dirty tricks, voter suppression and fraud have just begun in this race, but the fun part about it is the Democrats are using these tactics against each other.

It is like finally ripping the roof off of hell and letting the world see what the Democrats really are all about.

Barack Obama Strikes Back

Cross posted from Wake up America

Yesterday we discussed how the Clinton’s continue to dig holes for themselves, (this one by trying to be subtle and using Obama’s race, which offended many in the black community) then when trying to do damage control, end up digging it a little deeper.

Now we see, via Huffington Post, a memo that Amaya Smith, SC press secretary for Obama has sent out, listing items of the Clinton’s and/or Clinton “surrogates” have, indeed, used the race issue in the same breath as they deny that they would ever use such tactics:

Subject: MUST READ: Key S.C. figure takes issue with Clintons

SHUCK AND JIVE

Clinton Supporter Andrew Cuomo, Referring To Obama, Said “You Can’t Shuck And Jive At A Press Conference. All Those Moves You Can Make With The Press Don’t Work When You’re In Someone’s Living Room.” Clinton-supporting New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the thing that’s great about New Hampshire is that you have to go out and meet people rather than “shuck and jive” through press conferences there. Cuomo said of New Hampshire on an
Albany radio station: “It’s not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can’t buy your way into it. You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.” [Newsday, 1/11/08]

MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON

Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising “False Hope” Said That While MLK Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One Who Got Legislation Passed: “It Took A President To Get It Done.” Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and “false hope” in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox’s Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed. Hillary was asked about Obama’s rejoinder that there’s something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes as false, and that it doesn’t jibe with the careers of figures like John F. Kennedy and King. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Clinton said. “It took a president to get it done.” [Politico, 1/7/08; Video]

Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton introducer: “If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his work and got the republicans to pass all those measures.” [HRC, Dover, NH,
1/7/08] AUDIO ATTACHED

NELSON MANDELA

Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. “I have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years. […] I go to Nelson Mandela’s birthday party every year and we’re still very close. […] But if you said to me, ‘You’ve got one last job for your country but it’s hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I’ll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions […] I would pick Hillary.'” [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]

DRUG USE

Clinton’s NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said It Would “Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter.” Clinton’s Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen’s Comments And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He “Deeply Regret[s] The Comments.” The Democratic presidential race took on a decidedly nasty and personal turn, with the New Hampshire co-chair for Clinton, raising the
youthful drug use of Obama. Shaheen said Obama’s having been so open — as opposed to then-Gov. George W. Bush, who refused to detail his past drug use during his 2000 presidential campaign — will “open the door to further queries on the matter. It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'” Shaheen said. “There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.” By the end of the day, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer had issued a statement asserting that “these comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.” And Shaheen himself issued a statement: “I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the
campaign in any way.” [ABC News, 12/12/07]

Mark Penn, In Trying To Defend His Campaign Over Bill Shaheen’s Obama Drug Use Comments, Used The Word “Cocaine,” Drawing A Rebuke From Edwards Adviser Joe Trippi. Mark Penn, defending the Clinton campaign in light of Bill Shaheen’s comments about Obama’s drug use, repeatedly referenced Obama’s cocaine use. Edwards adviser Joe Trippi accused Penn of dropping the word “cocaine” deliberately. Mark Penn said “Well, I think we have made clear
that the — the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising. And I think that has been made clear. I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator.” Joe Trippie responded and said “I think he just did it again. He just did it again. …
This guy’s been filibustering on this. He just said cocaine again.”
[Politico, 12/13/07; Video]

FAIRY TALE

Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A “Fairy Tale” And Said “It’s An Insult… As An African-American” And That His Tone And Words Are “Very Depressing.” Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton over his insulting comments of Obama, where he called him a “fairy tale” and said “I could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn’t
take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It’s time that they regroup. Figure out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It’s an insult. And I will tell you,
as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing. … I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United States senator.” [Politico, 1/8/08]

Amaya Smith
South Carolina Press Secretary
Obama for America

John Edwards has even jumped into the mix, coming down on Obama’s side, yet again:

In a sign of how the issue was churning the waters, Mr. Edwards, also speaking at a church in South Carolina, expressed pride in Mr. Obama while criticizing Mrs. Clinton for what some have seen as her suggesting that President Lyndon B. Johnson deserved more credit than Dr. King for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign,” said Mr. Edwards, who grew up in North Carolina. He added: “I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through the Rev. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that.”

The Clinton’s have a long history of attacking, sometimes in a subtle manner and other times not so subtle, then crying that they are victims… people used to fall for it, they aren’t anymore because that game gets old after a while.

Spokeswoman for Barack Obama, Candice Tolliver, had this to say “A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements. There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months. Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?”

If this were just Obama and his campaign saying this, it would be chalked up to politics as usual, but many in the black community have come out and publicly taken offense.

Jesse Jackson has taken issue with their remarks and this tactic and said in a statement “Following Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa and historic voter turnout in New Hampshire. the cynics unfortunately have stepped up their efforts to decry his uplifting message of hope and fundamental change.”

Jim Clyburnone, of the leading Democrats in South Carolina and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus,that expressed “disappointment” in the Clinton campaign.

Representative Bakari Sellers a 23-year-old legislator says he is angry about Clinton’s remarks “I think those comments were insensitive. I think they showed a lack of concern about the struggles of African-Americans. I thought those comments were inappropriate.”

South Carolina’s largest newspaper, The State:

Sharp criticism of Barack Obama and other comments about Martin Luther King Jr. — all from people associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — have generated resentment among some black S.C. voters.

The gloves are off, the fight has just begun and this issue isn’t going anywhere fast, it is going to stay front and center and it appears that it is going to get much nastier before all is said and done.

The days where the Clinton’s get a free pass, are over, and rightly so.

.

Barack Obama Strikes Back

Cross posted from Wake up America

Yesterday we discussed how the Clinton’s continue to dig holes for themselves, (this one by trying to be subtle and using Obama’s race, which offended many in the black community) then when trying to do damage control, end up digging it a little deeper.

Now we see, via Huffington Post, a memo that Amaya Smith, SC press secretary for Obama has sent out, listing items of the Clinton’s and/or Clinton “surrogates” have, indeed, used the race issue in the same breath as they deny that they would ever use such tactics:

Subject: MUST READ: Key S.C. figure takes issue with Clintons

SHUCK AND JIVE

Clinton Supporter Andrew Cuomo, Referring To Obama, Said “You Can’t Shuck And Jive At A Press Conference. All Those Moves You Can Make With The Press Don’t Work When You’re In Someone’s Living Room.” Clinton-supporting New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the thing that’s great about New Hampshire is that you have to go out and meet people rather than “shuck and jive” through press conferences there. Cuomo said of New Hampshire on an
Albany radio station: “It’s not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can’t buy your way into it. You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.” [Newsday, 1/11/08]

MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON

Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising “False Hope” Said That While MLK Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One Who Got Legislation Passed: “It Took A President To Get It Done.” Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and “false hope” in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox’s Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed. Hillary was asked about Obama’s rejoinder that there’s something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes as false, and that it doesn’t jibe with the careers of figures like John F. Kennedy and King. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Clinton said. “It took a president to get it done.” [Politico, 1/7/08; Video]

Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton introducer: “If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his work and got the republicans to pass all those measures.” [HRC, Dover, NH,
1/7/08] AUDIO ATTACHED

NELSON MANDELA

Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. “I have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years. […] I go to Nelson Mandela’s birthday party every year and we’re still very close. […] But if you said to me, ‘You’ve got one last job for your country but it’s hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I’ll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions […] I would pick Hillary.'” [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]

DRUG USE

Clinton’s NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said It Would “Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter.” Clinton’s Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen’s Comments And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He “Deeply Regret[s] The Comments.” The Democratic presidential race took on a decidedly nasty and personal turn, with the New Hampshire co-chair for Clinton, raising the
youthful drug use of Obama. Shaheen said Obama’s having been so open — as opposed to then-Gov. George W. Bush, who refused to detail his past drug use during his 2000 presidential campaign — will “open the door to further queries on the matter. It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'” Shaheen said. “There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.” By the end of the day, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer had issued a statement asserting that “these comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.” And Shaheen himself issued a statement: “I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the
campaign in any way.” [ABC News, 12/12/07]

Mark Penn, In Trying To Defend His Campaign Over Bill Shaheen’s Obama Drug Use Comments, Used The Word “Cocaine,” Drawing A Rebuke From Edwards Adviser Joe Trippi. Mark Penn, defending the Clinton campaign in light of Bill Shaheen’s comments about Obama’s drug use, repeatedly referenced Obama’s cocaine use. Edwards adviser Joe Trippi accused Penn of dropping the word “cocaine” deliberately. Mark Penn said “Well, I think we have made clear
that the — the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising. And I think that has been made clear. I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator.” Joe Trippie responded and said “I think he just did it again. He just did it again. …
This guy’s been filibustering on this. He just said cocaine again.”
[Politico, 12/13/07; Video]

FAIRY TALE

Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A “Fairy Tale” And Said “It’s An Insult… As An African-American” And That His Tone And Words Are “Very Depressing.” Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton over his insulting comments of Obama, where he called him a “fairy tale” and said “I could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn’t
take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It’s time that they regroup. Figure out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It’s an insult. And I will tell you,
as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing. … I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United States senator.” [Politico, 1/8/08]

Amaya Smith
South Carolina Press Secretary
Obama for America

John Edwards has even jumped into the mix, coming down on Obama’s side, yet again:

In a sign of how the issue was churning the waters, Mr. Edwards, also speaking at a church in South Carolina, expressed pride in Mr. Obama while criticizing Mrs. Clinton for what some have seen as her suggesting that President Lyndon B. Johnson deserved more credit than Dr. King for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign,” said Mr. Edwards, who grew up in North Carolina. He added: “I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through the Rev. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that.”

The Clinton’s have a long history of attacking, sometimes in a subtle manner and other times not so subtle, then crying that they are victims… people used to fall for it, they aren’t anymore because that game gets old after a while.

Spokeswoman for Barack Obama, Candice Tolliver, had this to say “A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements. There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months. Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?”

If this were just Obama and his campaign saying this, it would be chalked up to politics as usual, but many in the black community have come out and publicly taken offense.

Jesse Jackson has taken issue with their remarks and this tactic and said in a statement “Following Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa and historic voter turnout in New Hampshire. the cynics unfortunately have stepped up their efforts to decry his uplifting message of hope and fundamental change.”

Jim Clyburnone, of the leading Democrats in South Carolina and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus,that expressed “disappointment” in the Clinton campaign.

Representative Bakari Sellers a 23-year-old legislator says he is angry about Clinton’s remarks “I think those comments were insensitive. I think they showed a lack of concern about the struggles of African-Americans. I thought those comments were inappropriate.”

South Carolina’s largest newspaper, The State:

Sharp criticism of Barack Obama and other comments about Martin Luther King Jr. — all from people associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — have generated resentment among some black S.C. voters.

The gloves are off, the fight has just begun and this issue isn’t going anywhere fast, it is going to stay front and center and it appears that it is going to get much nastier before all is said and done.

The days where the Clinton’s get a free pass, are over, and rightly so.

.

Ain’t It The truth–Joke from Bonnie

The old priest lay dying in the hospital. For years he had faithfully served the people of the nation’s capital. He motioned for his nurse to come near.

‘Yes, Father?’ said the nurse.

‘I would really like to see Senator’s Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton before I die.’ whispered the priest.

‘I’ll see what I can do, Father’ replied the nurse. The nurse sent the request to the Senate and waited for a response. Soon the word arrived.

As they went to the hospital, Hillary commented to Teddy, ‘I don’t know why the old priest wants to see us, but it will certainly help our images and might even get me elected President. After all, I’m IN IT TO WIN IT.’ Kennedy agreed it was a good thing.

When they arrived at the priest’s room, the priest took Ted’s hand in his right hand and Hillary’s hand in his left. There was silence and a look of serenity on the old priest’s face.

Finally Senator Kennedy spoke. ‘Father, of all the people you could have chosen, why did you choose us to be with you as you near the end?’

The old priest slowly replied, ‘I have always tried to pattern my life after our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.’

‘Amen’ said Teddy.

‘Amen’ said Hillary.

The old priest continued, ‘Jesus died between two lying thieves. I would like to do the same.’