It takes a village to raise a child but it takes a village idiot not to see through the maelstrom of messy comments made by ‘Chillery’ and Bill Clinton. The MSM echoed my last article with a laser-like focus on two racially questionable comments made recently. But there is one comment I thought needed to be restored from the garbage bin. It came during the now-famous trail of no tears with a “woe is America” look on her face. Holding her head, Hillary said, “I just don’t want to see us fall backwards.”
The Clintons are masters of third person generalities. Yes, Hillary can get specific about policy things and legislative matters when she needs to. We should expect that. Obama will eventually also have to get specific. What bothers me is that the Clintons are deeply suggesting that Obama will or can simply wave the race wand and, by magic, lasso in the nomination. The definition of fairy tale: magic wands, glass slippers, ruby red shoes, and no messy blue dress.
As for someone bringing up personal information disclosed for or by that person as being justified, that argument does not hold water. If a teacher or principal points out in a public manner (black) students with learning disabilities, low test scores or a physical handicap, even if it is public knowledge, they risk being fired. It is not enough to hope that the preface “but it is public record” will protect them from outrage. Politicians are adept at the use of mouthpieces who are not on any payroll, and have no one to answer to when they point out “the public record” — brilliant, bravo.
Despite my prediction, before she announced, that a huge something would keep Hillary from becoming president or at least foil her attempts, I was actually a fan when she became a candidate. I thought, and rightly so, that Bill would become co-president. That’s a good thing. Good if we doubt that a woman alone could provide true leadership of the free world. Good if we buy the Bill hype. Good if we want to keep sending young black men to prison and keep the death rows filled to capacity.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
1 - Arch Conservative
It takes a village to raise a child but it takes the Democratic party to keep minorities dependent on the government all their lives.
2 - Dave Nalle
Truer words were never said, AC.
Dave
3 - Baritone
A rant for all of BCs smarmy, smirking, scatophagous Clinton haters and baiters:
Perhaps GW should just use his executive power to follow Ann Coulter's Republican imperative, and enforce the unilateral imprisonment, or if it tickles their collective conservative, white assed obligatos, to summarily execute all democrats and left leaning independents - that determination made on the whim of whoever's dispensing the gas pellets. Then the country, and eventually, one would hope, the world will be free of the liberal scourge and all good god fearing christians can live in right wing, anal retentive harmony.
Of course the Clintons would be the first to go, perhaps publically via guillotine just to set the tone and make an example of them as they are obviously the source of all current evil - minions of Satan, maybe the devil incarnate. Dont' get too close. you could get burned.
All of you remaining righteous souls must remember though to maintain the proper degree of "rightness." The further you edge over to the right, the less apt you might be wrongfully accused of leaning even the tiniest bit to the left. Careful, careful, careful.
B-tone
4 - Arch Conservative
A rant for all of BCs smarmy, smirking, scatophagous Clinton haters and baiters:
Was that comment directed at the author? I didn't see anyone commenting on the article even mentioning th eClintons.
My comment was an endictment of the entire Democratic party and their politics of enslaiving monorities through government dependency under the guise of compassion and their demonization of anyone who even hints the government controlled social engineering is not the cure for all of scoiety's ills.
You seem to be much more a Clinton apologist than myself, Heloise and Dave Nalle are " smarmy, smirking, scatophagous Clinton haters and baiters.'
5 - Dr Dreadful
Feeling a bit more chipper this evening, Arch?
6 - Baritone
My "rant" may seem to be somewhat of a non-sequiter, but it is in response to what I see here at BC as repetetive personal attacks primarly against the Clintons, but also at turns against Obama, Edwards and all of the Rep candidates. I understand that such meaningless crap is part and parcel to most political campaigns, but to see it go on here, pretty much ad nauseam is, at least disturbing. To take up space here, to waste time and effort making unsubstantiated jabs against the candidates does not further the discussion of campaign issues. It is "smarmy, smirking and scatophagous."
By the way, I suppose if I were to go back through all of my posts and comments here, I would find that I, too, have been guilty of the same kind of attacks. In that vein I submit my own mea culpa and will have a Benedictine Nun repeatedly strike my knuckles with an uncommonly heavy wood ruler as punishment and will say a hundred "Hale Bopps" in repentence.
B-tone
7 - JustOneMan
All the Dumbocrats want to do
1. Is keep the blacks in the field picking cotton so they feel special when the Master (Dumbcrats) give them some dirty water and stale bread to eat and....
2. Keep the wetbacks washing dishes and mowing lawns...while they feel luck to get a drivers licence...
JOM
Dumbocrats - The Official Party of the KKK
8 - JustOneMan
...while they feel LUCKYto get a drivers
9 - Dave Nalle
B-tone, those who attack public figures are just doing what everyone does and what public figures are made to be the target of.
You, on the other hand used a big word (over the heads of some of your readers) to call everyone on here who has a negative opinion of a politico a 'shit eater', which is a lot more personal and directed at people whose only crime is having an opinion about a public figure.
Not so nice, really, and it certainly disqualifies you from judging the judgmental.
Dave
10 - Baritone
Dave,
It disqualifies me from nothing, even if you say it does. At least it perhaps made a few people scramble for their dictionaries, and it was meant in the best possible way.
B-tone
11 - Arch Conservative
I didn't know what scatophagus means either.
In the interest of objectivity regarding illegal immigration, the most important issue to me this election cycle...neither side has done a damn thing about the problem.
Republicans and democrats have, in recent years, proven themselves equally useless in stemming the tide of illegals. The left likes the votes and race baiting politics and the right loves the cheap labor. The American people are getting screwed in stereo.
I hope the American people wake up soon and do something about this problem.
12 - REMF
"Not so nice, really, and it certainly disqualifies you from judging the judgmental."
- Dave Nalle
So is it worse than calling people "dumbass" or "moron"?
13 - Baritone
My word choice may have been a bit over the top, tasteless even (no pun intended.) But I have read a great deal worse here, let alone the plethora of obscenities which have been dutifully deleted before they could poison our pure sensibilities.
All that notwithstanding, my point remains. Dave excuses it as business as usual. I contend that personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations against the candidates such has Heloise's above among others are crap. (Sorry, I can't be more polite about it.)
There is a strong strain of disdain and out and out hatred against Clinton. While all the candidates have been dissed to one degree or another, Clinton has taken the most hits. Of course Clinton has accumulated more baggage than any of the other candidates, but how does it serve the election process to sling mud and unsubstantiated accusations against her ad nauseam?
How about learning about the issues, learning each candidate's position on the issues - each candidate has a web site and, I presume, other means to access all this information. Do some fucking homework!
If you oppose the positions of any of the candidates, submit your arguments. Otherwise sit on your hands and quit clogging up the internet with unsubstantiated crap.
B-tone
14 - Dave Nalle
I'd suggest that you're hypersensitive about criticism of both Bill and Hillary Clinton for some reason.
Not long ago you accused me of attacking her unfairly and I've hardly written about her and you threw in Bill as well, and I've had almost nothing but positive stuff to say about him.
Dave
15 - Baritone
No, I'm not hypersensitive about it. I have, in fact, been quite critical of Bill owing to his prurient behaviour in the White House, and the horrendous fall out that caused.
If you were to go through the myriad of posts and their respective comments here, though, you would find that Hillary has been relentlessly lambasted and in one way or another accused of about everything short of the sinking of the Titanic. The gut hatred that many commenters here have for her, is irrational and without any substantive basis. Osama hasn't suffered as much vitriole here as has HC.
Beyond that, though, as I noted, such attacks against any and all of the candidates is neither warranted nor deserved. Perhaps, I am myself turning over a new leaf. While I can't imagine wanting to be president, or even running for so much as dog catcher, I do admire, even if grudgingly, anyone who puts themselves "out there," opening themselves up to unimaginable scrutiny and braving what I'm sure seems to some a never ending gauntlet of verbal abuse, no sleep and bad chicken. To do so requires a huge ego, no question. Even if we don't look upon the current and former crops of presidential candidates as our truly "best and brightest," if not for them, who the hell would do it? As you well know, I'm far from being a fan of GW. But I will give him at least a few points for going after it, and staying the course as president. (He loses most of those points, however, for Iraq and a number of other disasters over which he has presided.)
I have witnessed a bit more history than have you simply owing to age - I've got around 10 years on you. That in itself doesn't make me smarter, but I have lived through several political campaigns, not to mention coming of age during the 1960s which was nothing if not highly charged politically. Even while leaning to the left regarding many of the relevant issues over the years, I have found wanting spokespersons and critics from all sides, including the left, owing to their tendancy for cheap shots and spouting meaningless diatribes casting unsubstantiated aspersions against the opposition, while generally ignoring the issues at hand. It's tiresome.
I don't find it useful to just wink and smile at such crap. The stakes are far too high. I'm about as casual a guy as you'll ever meet in most respects. I love good humor, including political humor, satire, etc. But the cynical garbage that comes out of the minds, mouths and fingers of a lot of people here and elsewhere is simply without merit.
B-tone
16 - Dave Nalle
No, I'm not hypersensitive about it. I have, in fact, been quite critical of Bill owing to his prurient behaviour in the White House, and the horrendous fall out that caused.
All I can say is that yuu took me to task for a relatively mild comment as if I had been the source of the kinds of attacks you talk about, which I have not. That suggests a buildup of anger on the subject which I just happened to catch the result of.
If you were to go through the myriad of posts and their respective comments here, though, you would find that Hillary has been relentlessly lambasted and in one way or another accused of about everything short of the sinking of the Titanic. The gut hatred that many commenters here have for her, is irrational and without any substantive basis.
But is this any different than the way she's treated in the media? Certainly those inclined to criticize her are pretty relentless and some of them have said far worse things than I've seen here, even from the likes of JoM.
Osama hasn't suffered as much vitriole here as has HC.
OMG, was that misspelling of his name a vicious attack? Well, probably not. But the reason Obama isn't attacked as much is that people feel much more positive towards him. He doesn't scare people the way Hillary does and I can understand that. He seems well intentioned even to conservatives who don't agree with him, while Hillary is perceived as partisan and malevolent in a way which he is not. I think this is accurately reflected in the difference in their negative ratings. His unfavorable rating is about 30% and hers is about 50%. Her unfavorable rating is barely lower than Bush's. That means something.
Beyond that, though, as I noted, such attacks against any and all of the candidates is neither warranted nor deserved.
But it's politics as it has always been in America. It didn't destroy the union when Jefferson was accused of having fathered black children or when Jackson's wife was accused of being an adulteress and a bigamist or when Buchannan was accused of being gay. If anything the partisan critics were even more vicious in the past than they are today and even more prone to just making up ridiculous stuff about candidates.
Perhaps, I am myself turning over a new leaf. While I can't imagine wanting to be president, or even running for so much as dog catcher, I do admire, even if grudgingly, anyone who puts themselves "out there," opening themselves up to unimaginable scrutiny and braving what I'm sure seems to some a never ending gauntlet of verbal abuse, no sleep and bad chicken. To do so requires a huge ego, no question. Even if we don't look upon the current and former crops of presidential candidates as our truly "best and brightest," if not for them, who the hell would do it?
As you know, I've run for office. Frankly I'd rather have negative press than no press at all. Negative criticism gives you an opportunity to respond and get your message out. I agree that straight out slander and lying is unacceptable, but criticizing people harshly on legitimate grounds seems like it ought to be part of the process.
I have witnessed a bit more history than have you simply owing to age - I've got around 10 years on you. That in itself doesn't make me smarter, but I have lived through several political campaigns, not to mention coming of age during the 1960s which was nothing if not highly charged politically.
Ah, but I spent much of my youth in Washington DC and grew up immersed the political world. I was probably more politically aware at 10 than most adults. I've worked on political campaigns since my early teens, both on the left and right. But I'll give you credit for seniority.
Even while leaning to the left regarding many of the relevant issues over the years, I have found wanting spokespersons and critics from all sides, including the left, owing to their tendancy for cheap shots and spouting meaningless diatribes casting unsubstantiated aspersions against the opposition, while generally ignoring the issues at hand. It's tiresome.
I agree. And I don't think it's a left vs. right issue. The criticism levelled at Hillary is nothing compared to what people on the left say about Bush. Spend some time on Democratic Underground or DailyKos and you'll see things said about Bush and even his kids, mother and wife which are enormously more offensive than most of what's said about Hillary, which is usually confined to harsh criticisms of her policy proposals and past actions, sometimes with some supposition thrown in about her motivations. Sometimes it gets personal, but people DO have strong feelings about her.
You know, I wrote about the viciousness of extreme political rhetoric here on BC more than 2 years ago in an article in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Does anything you've seen about Hillary Clinton compare with this comment about Barbara Bush who's never even run for office:
So before you start going after the critics of Hillary Clinton you might want to take a good hard look at the offensive extremists in your own back yard. This is hardly the one-sided problem you make it out to be.
When relatively reasonable people start holding BOTH sides equally accountable for this behavior then we might see some progress towards civility.
Dave
17 - Clavos
Dave,
Though the focus of B-tone's first comment on the issue was attacks directed at Hillary, in fairness I have to point out he DID deplore (more than once) the attacks from both sides against all the candidates...
Clav
18 - Baritone
Dave,
That wasn't a typo. I meant Osama, not Obama.
B-tone
19 - troll
...freudian slip perhaps
20 - Heloise
"We have continually exposed how Clinton and the Bushes personally profited from massive drug smuggling operations through Mena, while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. Alex Jones has interviewed multiple former CIA officers who were unloading the cocaine... The Clinton-Bush relationship is a long and fruitful one."
Here's just a short quote written a year ago from Prison planet.com. by Paul Watson.
If you google "Clinton, Bilderberg, candidates, presidency" you will get a motherload of hits. People have already given them the title of Antichrists. Obama was also at one of the meetings. He might win but then there would be DEAL struck and we would get Clinton as VP or some such horseshit.
BTW: JFK wanted to overturn the money making feds and there are links to that effect that is why he was killed. This would mean conspiracy which i don't believe. But I do believe he knew something and wanted to reveal it to the people. And that is why he had to go.
From a young child I always felt that I knew something that was top secret and that the presidents of the US always knew something that NO one else knew and had to take an oath. These are the things I thought as a child before I found out they were true.
What better way to control the world than to bankrupt it first?
Heloise
21 - Baritone
Uh -- yeah -- sure.
22 - Dan
Heloise, The disparate sentencing for cocaine types had it's origin in liberal politics.
People tired of having their neighborhoods victimized by the crack epidemic. They implored their Democratic representatives to do something about it. Thus, crack was elevated in punitive criminal legislation.
23 - Heloise
Hmmm, sounds like you are saying all blacks are Democrats, not true. Both sides wanted to make the drug laws more stringent. The people just made it easier for them to "go there." But they went too far, enter California and its three strikes law, that put people in prison for stealing a twinkie!!!
Heloise
24 - Dan
Stealing a twinkie wouldn't land someone in prison. Beating the hell out of someone, then stealing their twinkie might, if you had two other convictions for beating the hell out of someone and stealing their twinkies.
Didn't say all blacks were Democrats, or anything like that. The original legislation that punished crack more severely than powder originated in a Democratic controlled area where the people asked for it.
25 - Marcia L. Neil
The topix.net website, Pittsburgh, PA news tells us that a "former MS woman homeless in Pittsburgh...was found dead in frigid temperatures under the Liberty Bridge...". Have the Clinton's links with the oil industry been researched? Such a death is not excusable.