I guess it is no surprise why the Clinton campaign has not said a word in defense of Barack Obama during the whole controversy over his pastor.
In truth, in interviews, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said that task was tough and growing tougher and that the critical questions were what would happen with Florida and Michigan and the possibility of developments involving Mr. Obama’s relationship with his spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
There will be no revotes in Michigan and Florida, and Obama gave the speech of a generation yesterday in response to the Rev. Wright controversy. Amazingly, both Mike Huckebee and John McCain offered more robust defenses of Obama than the Clinton campaign.
But, then, the Clintons are not interested in anything but the total destruction of our nominee.
Finally, Mrs. Clinton’s aides hope that disclosures about Mr. Obama’s past like the one involving Mr. Wright could give superdelegates’ pause…
…Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election.
Isn’t that special.
It’s very telling that the likes of Jerome Armstrong and Taylor Marsh have a lesser capacity for reasoned, nuanced thinking from multiple perspectives than Mike Huckabee. I wonder if they have any vestigial sense of shame left.
I keep asking: “Who is Taylor Marsh?” Where did she come from? Where was she born? What were her parents like? When did someone die and make her a spokesperson for anything?
I raise this question because as part of the propaganda array aimed at Americans characters suddenly appear and get inordinately too much attention for their drivel. They ultimately function as either a reactionary mouthpiece for the oligarchy or, as in Marsh’s case, a false leader whose purpose is to calve a certain segment of the natural majority of people into battling segments.
For example, anyone remember Tammy Bruce? If you follow her arc, she came about during the OJ Spectacle. She was a local leader for NOW, which embarrassed the national folks at NOW. She functioned to divide the proletariat, if you will, by making a few rude public statements about black women supporting Simpson (or at least supporting the possibility of Simpson’s innocence or the probability that the LAPD planted evidence). The last time I heard about her Bruce had written a few books (a way to pay off these spokespeople) and had a talk show for a conservative talkshow company.
Gerald Posner wrote a bullshit book supporting the oligarchy’s untenable position that the JFK assassination was the sole work of a nobody named Lee Harvey Oswald and subsequently he became an expert on all sorts of things.
That’s why I want to know who the hell Taylor Marsh is. When was the first time that anyone saw her? Any biographical information on her? Did she work on political campaigns? Did she go to a college? What did she study?
Taylor has a great personality and is a ton of fun to hang out with. I have no idea why she became a pit bull for Hillary, but she is a former Reagan Republican.
Her bio is here.
She apparently came to prominence around 2002 or so. Before that, she was a beauty queen and stage performer with an MFA from Stephens College. So she’s apparently our side’s Ann Coulter, only with a much less impressive CV.
I guess it is to be expected. Which candidate looks more Presidential?
The NYT says today that Clinton Surrogate,Lanny Davis, has stated the same thing i.e. Obama is not electable because of the Wright controversy.Even the NYT has realized that this is the last gasp of Clinton’s imploding candidacy.
She deserves to lose.She is a disgrace.
…but does she have to take the entire Party and the Country down into the depths of destruction with her?
“L’Etat, c’est moi” is a conceit of the ultra-conceited. It worked for long lines of kings, but not newly-made emperors or wanna-be presidents-for-life. Clinton can take her entitlement and nurse it like a stale can of soda. Once the fizz is gone, it is easy to see that there never was any substance.
of nice things being said about Obama by right wingers. Huckabee, McCain, Dick Morris, the Wall Street Journal and others.
Perhaps they’re licking their chops at the prospect of beating BO over the head with the Wright affair all through the summer and fall.
If so, why are they providing video footage of their defense of him for later use?
Hillary has out right-winged McCain and Huckabee. My sig line gets truer every day.
by a Hagee speech or Parsley speech or Falwell or Robertson or Huckabee even.
Bill’s taken to campaigning for McCain:
Clinton 2012. Because Bush needs a fourth term.
This is a great post by Al Giordano, check it out.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=914#comments
Every day the question needs to be directed at the party leadership………..”When will you step in and stop this destructive behavior by Hillary Clinton and her minions?” Every day that this charade is allowed to continue is another day closer to a McCain administration. She can’t win this thing. She knows it. The party knows it. It’s over. When is someone going to gather together the necessary people and pay Senator Clinton a visit and tell her, “It’s time to stop this. It is destroying the party’s chance to win”.
The clock is ticking. Are they willing wait until the damage is irreparable? If this things continues to drag on in the same vein, and Clinton manhandles this till she wins by crook, then my vote for President will likely go uncast.
offered more spirited defenses of Obama than just about any Democrat.
My church going family most certainly will have noticed and it’ll most certainly be shared. Those nice men, they’ll say, defended Obama when no one else would. They even understand Rev. Wright and the black community better than Democrats they’ll say.
If McCain nominates Huck, and HRC gets the nomination, I’ll be interested to see where the black church vote goes.
I think they’ll stay home on election night. This whole fiasco is very discouraging.
It’ll go to McCain…in droves.
All very interesting, but I’ve got to check in with Jeralyn. After all, there’s the Rezko trial going on.
Hillary Clinton is a spoiler. If she can’t have it-she’ll urinate all over it. Talk about a “sense of entitlement.”
I said it to ejmw a couple of weeks ago that Hillary’s only hope is that Obama implodes without any overt assistance from Hillary before the end. Then his followers would despair. They might not like her but they would blame HIM for failing them. It’s the only way she can get the nomination AND not lose large chunks of the Democratic party (i.e. the black vote) as well as the new youth vote in the fall.
It ain’t going to work for her in the Wright matter though.
Hillary thinks she’s walking a fine line on this Wright matter by not appearing to wade into the controversery, as do the leaders of the Democratic party, but she and they are wrong.
The lack of defense of Obama on this is as obvious as the nose on Bill Clinton’s face.
Obama isn’t only fighting a fight about something in his past – like Bill Clinton did when he fought the media knowledge that he screwed around when he was governor of Arkansas.
Obama is fighting the biggest problem that our country has had since its inception – racism and how it is used to feed black anger and white anger and keep us apart. A problem that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY has claimed to want to remedy for the last 50 years. And he’s fighting this fight alone and without any help from any of the party leaders let alone any support from Hillary.
It may be that only HE can answer for why he remained close to Wright and stayed at the church but he reminded everyone in that speech that this isn’t really about Wright – its about racism in this country. And we ALL have to answer for that.
If he were to go down over this Wright matter – Not only will Hillary will be seen as complicit by the black community, white liberals and the youth vote — but alse the entire Democratic party leadership will be seen as aiding and abetting this. They would quite rightly be seen as allowing, once again, the race issue to divide America and the Democratic party.
Personally I don’t think he’s going to go down because he’s shown that he can stand up to the attacks and raise the discussion to a higher level. AND because he made clear to the Democratic party that this is about more than some swiftboating style incident from Republicans – this is an assault on what the Democratic party is supposed to stand for.
Absolutely, mary.
That H. Clinton’s campaign so easily plays the race card shows that her quest for power is more important than the health of race relations in this country.
If her strategy is successful this could destroy the Democratic Party.
I think the Pelosis and Gores of the party are probably now regretting that they hadn’t cleaved her from the main stage years ago. She is functioning as the enemy of the party that no Republican could ever be. Not to be overly dramatic, but she is working in lockstep with FOX et al to destroy hope.
My LTE to the NYT
Every election cycle has its own version of the big smear. In 2004, it was the swiftboat ads. Now it’s Mark Penn’s “testing and vetting” (Nagourney, Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination, March 20, 2008). If the Clintons truly believed in the importance of the “testing and vetting” process, they would make public their financial and other important records so that the public could examine them for conflicts of interest or improper influence. If they were held responsible for the words of their supporters, as Barack Obama has been, discussion of the real issues facing this country would grind to a halt. Because actions speak louder than words, I suggest we bring the behavior of Ron Burkle, Marc Rich and Dick Morris back into the discussion. And while we’re at it, we could examine John McCain’s friends and business dealings. Only then could we claim to have “tested and vetted” the candidates.
My bet: Clinton’s trying to force Obama out now because she’s got something similarly toxic in her closet that she can’t keep under wraps much longer. If she can eliminate her opponent’s support before it comes out, she thinks she can manage to strong-arm her way into the nomination regardless. If she can’t, she’s toast.
The unfortunate truth is that her complete lack of class won’t hurt her one bit with her supporters, who, at least in the blogosphere, are themselves completely lacking in class (not that all Obama supporters are angelic, of course, myself included).
“She has a vagina; her last name is Clinton; and, damn it, this is her reward for everything!” You can’t hope to reason with these people, because Clinton, to them, is always the victim — whether by her husband’s taste for oral sex; or by the Big Mean Black Guy who’s taking that which she’s entitled to away; or by the imaginary standards many believe are set for female politicians that say she has to behave “like a man” and thus vote for war (never mind men who voted against it, like Bob Graham, or women who got it right, like Barbara Boxer).
I’m typically of the opinion that we should debate in good faith and assume people vote for candidates based on what they believe to be serious judgments. That’s not the case here, I’m afraid. These are people who openly and happily engage in spin, and who have no issues with spreading smears about a fellow Democrat if it means “our girl” takes the nomination.
These are not thinking people. They’re selfish and ugly people, and they reflect their candidate. It’s not going to end until the superdelegates end it.
As most of you know, the term referred to Japanese pilots committing suicide by slamming their planes into US ships. So, by definition, they sacrificed their life (interests) for the good of their country. The Clintons are the exact opposite. They’re willing to sacrifice their country’s interests in favor of their own.
Would be Blitzkrieg Clinton, but it lacks alliteration.
Blitzkrieg Billary – Vicarious Experience For America…