Tuesday, May 27, 2008


Politics is a dirty business. Everybody knows that. You don’t have to be a political science major to see this.

But the other day thanks to Barack Obama, his campaign manager, The Axelrod of Evil, and the mainstream news media it just got dirtier.A lot dirtier.In fact it got dirtier than anything politics has seen since the days of Richard Nixon.And that's not being fair to Nixon because I doubt even he would have ever stooped as low as Obama did in his response to Clinton's remarks.

Bill Burton from the Obama campaign and Barack Obama himself responding to Clinton's remarks about RFK immediately issued a statement that Clinton's remarks "were unfortunate and had no place in the campaign".Just in case the idiots in the news media didn't get the point Burton included a link to a NY Post story referencing Obama's early secret service protection and that he had been the recipient of threats.

The implication that the Obama campaign was trying to convey and which many in the media swallowed like trained seals catching a fish, was that her remarks implied that she was staying in the race just in case someone knocked off Obama. The press dutifully behaved like the trained seals they have been since the beginning and swallowed the fish that was thrown to them, then blew their horns.

Keith Olbermann,who tries every night to be the Value Meal version of Edward R. Murrow, swallowed the fish, and did some of the biggest tricks, throwing his head around with the fish in his mouth, eating it, then blowing the horn the loudest as he joined the growing list of pro Obama journalists making total fools out of themselves, shredding their credibility worse than it was before. Anyone who watched Olbermann give you your Value Meal dollar's worth saw that he had his knee jerking uncontrollably while he spat out the the word "assassination".
(Maybe we should get him a horn to blow to put on his desk).

Less than 24 hours later, Olbermann and the NY Post, and other main stream news outlets looked like their jerking knees knocked out their front teeth since Robert Kennedy Jr and the board of the newspaper to whom Clinton made the remarks came to her defense and anyone with 2c for a brain which seems to exclude Olbermann and the NY Post and as usual, Andrea Mitchell, knew that Clinton had not been referencing Obama or assassinations but that Kennedy had been campaigning into June when he had been assassinated.

Yes a clumsy remark and not the best reference she could have used, but that was more the fault of her campaign than anything else, a failure on the part of her campaign people for not having a prepared and well thought out answer for a question they had to know was coming. And given all the good answers she has to that question it makes you wonder what these people behind the scenes are doing.

But when Obama issued his statement he and his campaign hit new lows when they twisted her response so that Obama could play something he loves to play-- the victim.The passive - aggressive victim.

It's not the first time The day after the ABC debate when Obama was nailed consistently and hammered with questions he couldnt adequately answer, he accused Clinton in a speech the very next day, of "sticking in the knife and twisting it". And this is what Obama has been doing from the beginning while the news media aids and abetts his political muggings. He sucker punches Clinton then hits the deck and acts the victim so if Clinton hits back he cries victimhood.

Obama then went into Act Two of his passive/aggressive dirty politics drama when he accepted an apology from Clinton that she didnt give him and that he didn't have coming. Again the equivalent of hitting the ground after you sucker punch someone so the person cant hit back and if they do you scream that you re being attacked. Another cute little trick from Mr. Rejecting the Politics of the Past.

First he and the Axelrod of Evil put out this nonsense in much the same way Bush accused Kerry of "insulting the troops" ( Obama has learned his Karl Rove lessons well), hoping to stir up a media frenzy which it did, and then Obama hits the pavement before she can swing back, say he accepts her apology ( when she wasn't even apologizing to him) and then The Axelrod of Evil goes on television and says after the sucker punch does as much damage as it can, that, as far as he is concerned the incident is over.That is Obama once again hitting the deck.

It's probably time for Clinton supporters to let them know its not over. Maybe its time to let them know that after this it's never going to be over.

If this isn't the last straw for Clinton voters it probably should be. Clinton voters and everyone connected to her campaign should let it be known publicly and to Obama personally that after this, there will be no reconciliation, no unity, no coming together IF super delegates are stupid enough and corrupt enough to subvert the democratic system and give the nomination to the person the majority of Democrats have voted against . They should let everyone know there will be no reconciliaton. In fact if Obama gets the nomination the winds are already blowing for a huge democratic defeat in the fall.

And then the Democrats responsible will once again wonder why Democrats lose elections.

The Democratic party cannot afford to send out a candidate the majority of voters voted against. They cant afford to send out a candidate just to fullfill a false and corrupt media agenda. And the Democrats cant afford to send out a dirty politician as their presidential candidate. The country will not elect a dirty politician. Not one who has shown the capacity to be as dirty as Obama.

What Obama did with Clinton's remarks would have been too low even for Nixon. To exploit one of the country's greatest tragedies for his own political gain would have been beneath Nixon. But not Obama.

Whatever ones wants to say about McCain, however much one wants to disagree with him ( and I do about almost everything) he is a clean politician. There is nothing dirty about him or his politics. On the other hand, Obama is not only unprepared for the job he wants, he is not only not qualified for the job he wants, he is unfit for the job he wants. His lack of character has been apparent for a long time.What he and Axelrod did with Clinton's remarks speaks for itself. Obama would lose in a landslide to John McCain and he would deserve to. He has nothing to run on.

It will be up to the remaining super delegates,even the ones Obama is trying to bribe with campaigin contributions (more on that in another peice), to decide if the country is going to be more important than their campaign chests. If they do Clinton wins the nomination because when the primary process is over she will be the choice of the majority of democrats and will beat Obama handily in every metric available. It already obvious that the delegate apportionment system is corrupt and in no way a reliable indicator of the will of the people.

If super delegates corrupt the democratic process and send out a dishonest and dirty politician like Obama, one that the majority of Democrats voted against, the Democrats are assured of losing in November.

Super delegates have only one decision to make now. Do they want a Democrat in the White House come January or not. Because any super delegate vote for Obama is going to be a vote for John McCain. And in the fall.17 million Clinton voters are going to make sure of that. And no one can blame them.


Anonymous said...

Well said! There will be absolutely no "coming together." Many of us are set to pull the lever for John McCain. As a lifelong Dem and staunch liberal, I never thought I'd come to this point, but the evil that has been displayed by Obama and his camp has to be stopped. Also, the complicit silence of the Dem leadership is very disturbing. My family and friends--all previously loyal Dems are now struggling with whether we should campaign for McCain or just vote for him in November. We know Hillary will be compelled to call for "unity" but you know what? That will have NO EFFECT on us whatsoever!

PortiaElizabeth said...

I wish you could hear me applauding, Mr. Rubin. Your post makes so much sense, and speaks so much to the important issues that it will undoubtedly be denied by the main stream media. And Democrats will lose again. We live in an asylum called the USA and the MSM aren't taking their meds. Thank you for stating the truth.

Anonymous said...

I am a black man in TX with 2 degrees and my own business. I am, have been from the start, and will be through the general an ardent Clinton supporter. It is with great shame that I look at who is even contending for the nomination from the Democratic party, and I am coming to realize more and more that Democrats are no different than Republicans (save of course Sen. Clinton and the many of us that support her). The shame of it all is that if Sen. Obama wins, McCain will win, and it is because of tactics like these weaken his ability to connect with the voters that EVERY PRESIDENT NEEDS TO GET TO 1600 PENN. AVE - white voters. I will work, donate and blog until Sen. Clinton gets the nomination. If she doesn't, I will max my contribution to the RNC, send tips to them about how to beat Sen Obama, and then write in Sen. Clinton on election day. After that, the DNC should lose my name and my number.

Anonymous said...

AMEN. IF anyone has any doubt how Obama would govern, they only need to look at how his campaign has been run.

Sigh. America deserves better

Anonymous said...

I truly agree with you on this assessment. I am an african american well educated female who whole heartedly supports Senator Clinton, and if she is not the nominee, I will change my party to democrat because a write-in vote would go towards him, Sen Lieberman did that and one his election, and we should too.

Dr. McCullough

Anonymous said...

Fabulous synopsis of what we have been subjected to this past week.

"Axelrod of Evil" I love it!


madamab said...

Thank you for this post!

I passed the "final straw" moment a while ago. My disgust with both Obama and his transparently ugly and divisive campaign knows no bounds. ("Axelrod of Evil!" Priceless!)

I see that many commenters here echo my sentiments. I am sending a petition to Howard Dean at 5 pm today that says Obama does not deserve the nomination, and if he gets it, he will not win.

If you like what the petition says, please sign it.

Thanks very much - found you through NoQuarter.

Anonymous said...

For the first time in my democratic life I would vote for a third party candidate esp. if this person were Hillary Clinton. This latest RFK episode is the last straw. and I could not even force myself to vote for Obama in Nov. even if someone offered me a $1000. No way should the Clintons go to Denver in August unless she is on the ticket in either position. She is too decent of a person to take the humilation of the Obama crowd who do not know how to be civilized. So my hope now is that the Obama campaign and the MSM have p.o. the Clintons enough that they do an independent run.

Anonymous said...

I thought that this was a joke until Obama’s spokesman stating that Clinton's remarks "were unfortunate and had no place in the campaign" is a new low??? This is a huge exaggeration at best. It’s not like Obama’s spokesman was the only one interpreting this comment as HRC (again) intimating that “Anything” could happen as she has previously stated.

Further, your fan base reiterating what seems to be the standard HRC supporter line of “I will vote for McCain rather than vote for Obama” is the adult equivalent of “I’ll take my ball and go home”. If you believed in what Hillary said she supported than voting for McCain makes no sense whatsoever – even Hillary has stated that her supports should vote for Obama over McCain. Grow Up.

Angie said...

Have you people always been this stupid or is it something that happened overnight?

First of all, Clinton's examples of campaigns lasting until June is inaccurated. He husband won the nomination in March not June. And you can't compare this political calender to the 1968! In 1968, the primaries DID NOT even begin until March. If she was trying to make the point about primaries lasting until June, she did a poor job! There were any number of examples she could have used without dragging RFK into it!

Either she was purposely trying to bring the spectre of assassination into the picture or her research was very, very poorly done. Either way, it does not bode well for the job she would do as commander and chief!

Besides, she has run her own campaign into financial ruin! Why would you expect do any better for the country? You people need JESUS!!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this post. One really has to wonder if the Dems even want to win the WH? I'm beginning to think they don't.

For those here who say they will vote for McCain -- I'm wondering if we would send more of a message to the Democratic party if we either write in Hillary, or vote "none of the above" in states that don't allow write-ins?

I will not vote for McCain, but I will not vote for O! either.

Thanks, madamab -- signed the petition!


Anonymous said...

This is just another example of Obama's distorting the truth and playing the race/victim card. Moderate Dems will vote McCain this November. We've had enough of this clown and his followers.


Smedley said...

My stars! Someone was playing politics in a primary? Where's my fainting couch?

I see you've got the real cultists like Madamab and the No Quarter racists on your side. I'm sure the Super Delegates will be really impressed by an online petition!


Anonymous said...

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! I never thought I might not be voting Democratic in this election, but I can't vote for Obama, and I won't vote for McCain.

I cannot believe that Democrats are going to jump off a cliff for Obama. I voted for Kerry, Bill Clinton, and even Dukakis, but I just can't do it this time. Not after Obama's awful smear campaigns against both Clintons, and his use of RFK for political gains. He brings shame to the Democratic party, as do all those spineless superdelegates who are supporting him.

The Democrats deserve the thorough butt-kicking they will get in November if he is the nominee.

Anonymous said...

>>>>>Well said! There will be absolutely no "coming together." Many of us are set to pull the lever for John McCain. As a lifelong Dem and staunch liberal, I never thought I'd come to this point, but the evil that has been displayed by Obama and his camp has to be stopped. Also, the complicit silence of the Dem leadership is very disturbing.

EXACTLY!! and major reasons we're not voting for Oblahma.

Anonymous said...

When AAs are honest they admit Obama has ginned up the race-baiting and false accusations of racism against the Clintons.

Obama is high on hype and low on substance and had to smear Hillary and divide the Dem Party to currently be leading in delegates.

Obama even lied about his own father - in order to obtain the Kennedy endorsement!
Never mentioned on TV - so that means Obama "never lies."


And now today - Obama lies about his uncle!


Elsa Texas said...

THANK YOU, THANK YOU!! You've made my day. Boy, you are a good writer. Your word pictures are great. I feel like I'm in a third world country. MSM refuses to speak the truth so we have to go underground, blog world, and try to sort what the heck is going on. I intend to send your article to every super.

Laurie said...

wow. I thought that Bushites had been delusional. The Clinton supporters on this site seem to be living in an alternate universe.

There are plenty of news items out there about how this story spread, and Obama had nothing to do with it. Do some research.

By the time of Obama's first statement that Clinton's remark had been "unfortunate", the story had already spread to the New York Daily News and the internet, with the spin that Clinton was staying in the race in case Obama was assassinated. Obama's original response to this story was hardly incendiary, as this is definitely not a story that he would want to spread. The whole point of the outrage, is that assassination should not be normalized as a valid political option; not unlike words like holocaust or nazi, it is a word that should be used very carefully, particularly in the middle of such an emotional primary campaign. Obama then responded to a media question with his statement that she was tired, mispoke, blah, blah, let's move on.
His campaign apparently sent out links to KO's rant, perhaps not a good idea, but by that point it was a runaway train. KO's rant simply reflected the outrage that was already spreading throughout the blogosphere and the media.

Compare this to the 'bitter' comments, which started out as an blog on the Huffington post. In this case, it was the Clinton campaign that sent this out to all the media outlets within hours of the original post, and Hillary milked it for all it was worth, for weeks. All of this information is available if you do a little research.

That you are using words like 'evil' to describe Obama simply confirms that talk of assassination is dangerous, and anybody with Presidential aspirations would know better.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree. The Obamatites are basically warmed over Naderites. And I am sick of their fainting couch strategy that maligns Hillary every time she turns around. She's the one who knows policy like the back of her hand, so they have to resort to character smears - and they work in the primary. Not so for the general, is my guess. Anyway, I'm not voting for him & like Anonymous, I have always voted for dems from McGovern to Kerry.

Jack Foster said...

Thank you Laurie, for adding some perspective. I think some Clinton supporters are so disappointed that their candidate isn't going to make the cut that they've lost some objectivity.

I do think this was overblown. I heard the comments, and thought it was fairly clear that Hillary was referring to the length of the contest, and not to anything else. She's made the same comments before with no particular controversy. You've got to chock this up to slow-news-day-itis!

For me, it was reminiscent of Obama's bitter-gate. He'd made the same statement before (though better-phrased) without repercussion.

I think it's important for Obama-supporters (like me) to be as nice as possible to our Clintonian allies. Some will not be assuaged. But policy-wise, Clinton and Obama absolutely see eye-to-eye; they're on the same team. I put the burden on Obama-supporters to recognize this.


Anonymous said...

You are so right! Obamais the most divisive and 0% experienced candidate of recent history.He and his supporters are only about hate and division.Hillary is the only one prepared for this job; and if she's not the nominee I will vote for McCain.No "False heroes" for me.GO HILLARY! WE LOVE YOU!

MDR said...

"Obama had nothing to do with it."

As long as Laurie is being thanked for her perspective by an Obama supporter, I decided that I had no choice but to point out that she is factually wrong about everything.

Bill Burton from the Obama campaign put the story out in a press release and in emails to the media along with the link to the Post story about Obama's secret service protection and threats. This happened before Obama's statement.

Burtons press release and email went to every news organization. Do you think he would have had to SEND out a press release if the news media were already doing their holy roller act? I dont think so.

The way politicians handle that kind of situation is to wait to be asked to comment. It makes them look better. They dont send out press releases and emails with links after the press has gone into their frenzy. Your facts are just inaccurate.

But thanks for your perspective.

PNolan said...

Thank you for this post and I agree completely. I have supported every Democratic candidate since 1972, but if Senator Obama is our nominee, not this year! My party has deserted me.

poltclanml said...

I could not believe it when Obama and his campaign chose to inject themselves into the "controversy." Clearly, Hillary was refering to the precedent for remaining in the race till June. When I read the statement abount her comment being "unfortunate" I was livid. I said: "There defintitely will NOT be any uniting after this. Her supporters, including myself will NEVER vote for this ass---".As a former Democrat who recently registered as an Independent after Indiana and NC Primaries, I cannot believe the Democratic Party is going to nominate someone who clearly cannot win the General Election.

Notice he has been spending quite a bit of time out West: New Mexico, Colorado, trying to rewrite the Electoral College Map because he is losing the states against McCain theat Democrats need to win: OH, FL, WV. He is losing to McCain in NV, MS, FL, OH, etc and yet they (DEM Party And DNC) will persist on this foolish and futile journey.

As for this call for UNITY, I don't know about anyone, but I have no obligations to these people. His supporters and the Brass in the Party have clearly dissed Hillary and her supporters. Do they then expect us to smile and play nice? There is NO WAY!

Read more about this and other topics at:

Jack Foster said...

Certainly, Hillary's comments were "unfortunate", because the allusion to assassination was subject to misinterpretation. The Obama campaign did not use a stronger word to characterize the comments; they could have, but they were right not to.

The story was not broken by the Obama campaign. (Watching TV right now as that point was made.) AP broke the story. Burton did broadcast an e-mail making sure reporters didn't miss the story!

I'm definitely surprised that people are still talking about this, but I think for some -- particularly African Americans -- I think there is a visceral reaction to their interpretation that Hillary's staying in the race, in hopes that Obama will be assassinated. I don't think this is a fair reading of the comment. But I think the strong emotionalism of the alternate interpretation is why this has stayed in the news. African Americans have long feared that Obama will indeed be assassinated. Mike Huckabee recently joked about the possibility.

I think if you look at this with some sensitivity, it is indeed an unfortunate choice of wording, and Hillary was right to apologize. But she should also quickly be forgiven by Obama-supporters, because I think it's clear what Hillary meant.

MDR said...

"The Obama campaign did not use a stronger word to characterize the comments; they could have, but they were right not to."

they didnt have to use stronger words. The campaign sent out their statement in emails WITH a link to a NY Post story from 4 months ago, about Obama getting Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate because of threats he had received. Strong enough for you?

Jack Foster said...

Well, that certainly explains why it was an unfortunate choice of words . . .


sarik said...

Moderate Dems will vote McCain this November.
Yeah...if they become right-wing ones and don't care about 100 more years in Iraq, overruling Roe v. Wade
and having nutty "Senator Hothead" tell us "there WILL be more wars."

MDR said...

"Well, that certainly explains why it was an unfortunate choice of words . . ."

It explains how Obama tried to twist the words to make it sound like something it wasnt so he could play the victim which is about the only thing he has any talent for. But the backlash has already started and since he will either feel like a victim at the convention when super delegates decide to honor the popular vote,or he will feel like it after getting landsided by McCain when 17 million Clinton voters turn their backs on him and the party is in shambles, he is certainly going to get the chance to feel like a victim all he wants.

Anonymous said...

I don't see where Obama "assassinated the truth."

And your blaming Obama is laughable. You've taken your Hillary lessons very well.

Anonymous said...

I am voting for Hillary or McCain. If you write in Hillary or decline to vote, you are voting for Obama.

MDR said...

"I don't see where Obama "assassinated the truth."

My immediate reaction was to say something about Kool-Aid but instead I will take the time to explain it to you.

Hillary made a comment that everyone understood was a reference to the primary campaign extendng into June when RFK was assassinated. Obama as only a really low sleaze bag politician could do, tried to twist what she said into a comment suggesting that what she meant was that Obama might get assassinated and that was why she was staying in the race. Which was why RFK Jr. and the newspaper she made the remark to came to her defense and Obama had to back off his remark. But its too late. Clinton voters wont forget and Obama is going to be burnt toast, either at the convention or after.

If you still dont understand though, its ok. If you could see it you probably wouldnt be supporting Obama.

Vic from Oregon said...

It still comes down to this - Sen. Clinton can win against McCain without a single Sen. Obama supporter, but Sen. Obama can't win against McCain without substantial support from Sen. Clinton and her supporters. The threat of the Clintonites voting for anyone but Obama is real and should be taken very seriously. The Obama campaign really should have thought this out before increasing their divisive manuevers in order to appear the frontrunner in the media.

Hillary Clinton is too loyal to the democrats to go Independent at this time. As an Independent myself, I don't understand it, as the dems haven't earned much trust these past many years, but loyal she is. She will do all she can, if she doesn't get the nomination, to encourage her supporters to vote for Sen. Obama, though he will not have earned a single one of our votes or our goodwill. She would, then, return to the Senate and work to keep Obama honest and on task to fulfill his campaign promises (to the country, not just to his donors). No small task. His record in Illinois and in the Senate doesn't offer us much in the way of expectation.

I will be either writing in Hillary's name or voting for Ralph Nader. I have to vote for someone who actually works, not someone who takes the work of others and puts his name on it, as he did in Illinois so often his last year while running for the US Senate. Year after year the democrats cry that I should vote for their less than stellar candidate because he is better than the alternative. That might be so, but, I can make the same argument. Vote for Hillary or Ralph and then we don't need to be making such pathetic choices between bad and worse.

I do think, however, that we are poised to create a viable third part that can be far more progressive than the socalled liberals and conservatives have been. And, their tactics are so often the same ones - such as we see with the intentional misinterpretation of Obama and his supporters to tarnish Hillary by exploiting her reference to Bobby Kennnedy's campaign and untimely death. Being from Oregon, I was actually thinking the exact same thing since 1968 was the last time an Oregon primary mattered. He would be so saddened to see how twisted his own death is being used by one democrat against a fellow democrat, a woman he would have admired had he lived to know her, as do nearly all the Kennedy family. But, for Sen. Obama, the ends do justify the means, always.

Unfortunately, this type of political pandering has been commonplace for Sen. Obama throughout his political life. If he does miraculously win against Sen McCain, (because Hillary supporters voted for him afterall) should he become the democratic nominee, then we have a frontrow seat to how he will also run his administration. He will undoubtedly do good things. But his old ways will also rise up within him everytime he is challanged or meets with resistance. Then we see the insolent child, and even the media may tire of this less attractive aspect of their "new phenom".

Thank you everyone for not falling under the spell that has gripped much of this nation. Kinda scary, isn't it?
Be well, all.
Vic from Oregon

Anonymous said...

On an assassination: Shortly after last Christmas the Atlanta newspapers ran a cartoon that showed Hillary melting like the witch in the Wizard Of Oz. This was the same day that Benazir Bhutto was murdered.
That is made me get involved in the Clinton campaign.
fgmwsI don't think that the AJC has ever apologized for that cartoon

Anonymous said...

The angle the Obama campaign is after is BHO=RFK. They've been trying to usurp the Kennedy legend from the very beginning when they recruited JFK speechwriter Sorensen. Ted and Caroline signed on. Fortunately RFK's son didn't. Maybe he understood that the legacy should not be for sale.

Anonymous said...

there is much more assassination of the truth in the original post than in anything that obama has every said. You're a hypocrite that completely ignores anything logical and will twist words into whatever you can to make a more convincing arguement. And i'm still laughing a little over you saying that obama makes himself into the "victim" when that is all that hillary does.

It doesn't matter though - Hillary is a weak candidate that can only gain support from people stupid enough to believe every word that she says.

Go ahead, vote for mccain in november, and vote for more deaths in iraq. luckily, most people in the country are smarter than any of you and recognize how pathetic a candidate must be to constantly shift the focus from and to contradict herself on a regular basis. She is a horrible person, and a liar. The only reason that she is still in it is because of the media, though all of you have your brains in Clinton's pocket so you would never notice. Supporting Clinton necessitates being a mindless sheep, and im sure that come november, most of you will have to conform to voting for the democrat, though if you dont, at least there will be a higher proportion of EDUCATED people that voted for Obama.

MDR said...

"...She is a horrible person, and a liar. The only reason that she is still in it is because of the media...It doesn't matter though - Hillary is a weak candidate that can only gain support from people stupid enough to believe every word that she says.

Thank you for your comment. Its been forwarded to the American Psychiatric Association to be included in their latest study on projection.

Wattree said...


In his Huffington Post article, "Clinton and RFK Deserve Better", my good friend, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Pooh-poohs Hillary Clinton's mention of Robert Kennedy's assassination in the context of this election, and all the while the DNC slumbers.

What is he suggesting , that she's sleep deprived again? I think that's getting kinda old, and I also think that it's way past time for the DNC to come out of hibernation.

On May 11th while appearing on Meet The Press Hillary's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely."

Hillary's behavior has betrayed her to be nothing less than America's version of a Third World demagogue–a woman who is so desperate and hungry for power that the thought of seeing it slip through her fingers has caused her to slip into her own private realm of reality. Personally, I'm seriously concerned that she might have left the ranch and gone camping on us. So at this point it behooves us to take her every utterance dead seriously.

Yet, nervous over the growing fracture in the Democratic Party, the DNC is vigorously reminding Democratic voters of the importance of backing the Democratic nominee in order to win the November election. The problem with their position, however, is the DNC is placing all of the responsibility for Democratic success on the voters, while skirting its own responsibility to act in an appropriate and decisive manner. They don't seem to recognize that party loyalty goes both ways.

In light of what the nation has gone through in the past seven years, political parties can no longer expect the voters to just fall in and march in lockstep to the party line. That's what's gotten us to where we are today–involved in a senseless war, without jobs, losing our homes, and with the very pillars of our society under attack.

The Democratic Party is sure to argue that it is for precisely these reasons that we must stick together, however. But that is only true if you're prepared to accept the proposition that everything that's gone wrong in the past seven years is solely the fault of the Republicans, and that is clearly not the case.

While it is true that our current condition is primarily due to Republican greed, shortsightedness, an ineptitude, it is also true that we find ourselves in this condition as a result of the total impotence of the Democratic Party. Democratic politicians have been absolutely gutless for the past seven years. Instead of fighting for the soul of this nation and the ideals they profess to believe in, Democrats have been basing their actions on the direction of the wind; and instead of standing up for what was in the best interest of the nation, they were cowering in the basement on Capitol Hill, desperately trying to protect their own political careers.

But now that the Republican Party has all but self-destructed, the Democrats have chosen this moment to come strutting out to tell us all they want to do to protect our interest. Where were they before the Republican Party all but dropped dead of gluttony? If the Republican Party is indeed in the throes of death, it's only resulting from Democrats allowing them to gorge themselves to death. And even now, the Democrats don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to two egomaniacal Republicrats, as the wreak havoc within the Democrats' own ranks.

The DNC should have told Hillary Clinton initially that changing the rules regarding Florida and Michigan in the middle of the game purely for her accommodation was out of the question. They should have been unequivocally emphatic that the decision was made in the beginning of the primaries, and everyone agreed, including Hillary, that the delegates from those states would not be counted due their violation of DNC rules. Case closed.

Had the DNC been immediately decisive when the Clintons initially sent up their trial balloon, they would have recognized that they were stepping over the line of fairness. But when the DNC was indecisive, and showed a sign of weakness in carrying out its responsibility, the Clintons smelled blood, and now their trial balloon has become a demand.

So catering to the Clintons and dragging its feet in this matter is only going to complicate things further. The Clintons have no intentions of allowing the Democratic Party to remain unified. Before the Clintons decided upon their course of action, they not only took into account the affect it would have on Obama supporters, but also how it would affect all fair minded voters across this land.

They then decided upon a gamble. They knew that due to Obama's popularity, Hillary would never become president unless he was brought down. So they decided they were going to do whatever they had to do to tear Sen. Obama down, then even if Hillary didn't get the nomination this year, Obama would still be so damaged that he would lose the election, in which case, she would run in 20012.

They've already accepted the fact that their course of action would deeply divide the party, but, ironically, they're depending on Sen. Obama's good character to help rally support for Hillary if, and when, she's allowed to run. They're also gambling that Democrats are so desperate to get the Republicans out of office, that they'd hold their nose and vote for Hillary in spite of her behavior when the time comes. They realized it's a big gamble, but they calculated that a slim chance was better than no chance at all.

Of course, there are those who will say that not even the Clintons could be that Machiavellian in their calculations, but look at the facts–this is a woman who agreed not to count the votes of Michigan and Florida, then even while ahead, managed to leave her name on the ballad in Michigan as an insurance policy.

And we mustn't forget that one of Hillary's earliest influences was radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In fact, she did her colleges thesis on him–a document that the Clintons have managed to be kept securely under lock and key at Wellesley College. But now, Hillary's current tactics are right out of Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals."

Among Alinsky's rules is to always "personalize " the issue. He taught that "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have." He also says that "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." That rule comes to mind in Hillary's declaration that "all Obama has is a speech." Another one of Alinsky's rules is, "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Thus, Hillary's threat to divide the party. Alinsky goes on to advise that you "Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition", and "push a negative hard and deep." And finally he instructs that you "pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it"–thus, Hillary's comment, "Hard working, White voters." Hillary has held to Alinsky so snugly that it's almost as if he's her campaign manager, post mortem. But I think even Alinsky would frown upon this campaign.

So the DNC might as well make its stand now–and the earlier the better. Because there is nothing they can do to head off a crisis within the party short of handing the nomination to Hillary. It is part of Hillary's game plan to polarize the party, because she knew from the very beginning that if all else failed, her end game would involve a scorched Earth, and a Hail Mary.

Eric L. Wattree


Wattree said...


Beneath the spin has never been more meaningful than it has become during this political season, because it’s beginning to look like Hillary Clinton has taken it’s meaning to a new and very insidious level. After her comment regarding Robert Kennedy’s assassination, I began to consider all the “gaffes” that both she and Bill have been involved in during this campaign, and I’ve found strong evidence that points to the possibility that Hillary has been engaged in the practice of subliminal messaging throughout this campaign. If this is indeed the case, it makes her latest misstatement much more serious than many of us would like to believe.

Subliminal messaging involves sending messages to the subconscious mind that are not picked up on a conscious level. This technique is often used in advertising–sometimes overtly, but at other times very covertly. An example of the overt use of subliminal messaging in advertising is to have a beautiful woman caressing a new car that’s being advertised for sale. Having the woman there caressing the car sends a subliminal message to the subconscious of perspective male buyers that if they buy this car, it will draw beautiful women to them. Another example of overt subliminal advertising is in the use of Michael Jordan to advertise tennis shoes. It sends the message that if you buy these tennis shoes, it will help you to play basketball like Michael Jordan. Neither is necessarily true, but the beauty of subliminal messaging is since the message goes directly to the subconscious, it circumvents the scrutiny of logical thought.

That’s what makes the use of covert subliminal messaging so ominous. I remember studying one case in college involving a group of moviegoers who were subjected to the technique. In that case, while the group was watching a movie, one frame of a juicy and delicious-looking, cheese burger was spliced into the reel. the moviegoers never even noticed it on a conscious level, but the subconscious doesn’t miss a thing. Later, when they became hungry “out of the blue” and flocked to the concession stand, they never realized that they’d been manipulated.

This technique can also be applied in a political context. But instead of one frame in a reel during a movie, it becomes one word in a sentence, a paragraph, or even an entire speech. I suspect very seriously that this technique was being employed when Bill Clinton mentioned “Jesse Jackson” while discussing an Obama win in the South Carolina primary. By doing so, it was Bill’s intent to implant a subliminal message in the mind of the voter associating all of Jesse Jackson’s baggage, or perceived baggage, on the back of Barack Obama. The beauty of such a strategy is that it doesn’t matter what the context, as long as the statement is graphic, and mentioned while discussing Obama, it serves to implant itself in the mind of the voter.

Another example of subliminal messaging at work was in Bill’s post-Iowa remark that, “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” He said that during a time when the Clintons thought that they still had a chance of getting the black vote, so by implanting “fairy tale” in the mind of black voters, it sent the message that they were wasting their vote, because Obama’s candidacy was a fantasy.

Hillary’s comment regarding John McCain having more experience than Obama is another example of this type of manipulation at work. Hillary said, “He’s [McCain] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

In this case, Hillary was trying to implant two messages. First, by saying, “He’s never been president, but . . .” She was attempting to implant the subliminal message that she had been president. Then, by aligning McCain and herself on the one hand, and Obama on the other, and saying Obama only had a speech, she was contrasting the white experience with the presidency, against that of a black man--and then dismissing Obama by saying all he could bring to the table was a speech.

That was the primary reason that no one could figure out why Hillary had aligned herself with the Republican candidate–it had to do with race, clear and simple. Notice her phrasing–McCain “will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience.” She emphasized, and then re-emphasized the word “lifetime”. So she wasn’t talking about governmental experience, or even legislative experience–she was talking about white experience. So the message she was actually trying to implant was, What experience could a black man possibly have that would prepare him to be president?

Then on May 8th she went there again when she said, “Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." The reason she stuttered after the first comma was because on her first attempt, she forgot to implant the word “white.” The message? Vote white.

In addition, the implication of her remarks left the message that white people are the only one’s who work hard. So the subliminal message is, if many black people are poor, yet, don’t work hard to remedy that condition, what does that say about them–and through extension, what does it say about Obama?

Now we come to her latest “gaffe” about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. She claims that her words are being taken out of context, but she could have made the very same point by using other examples. In fact, that would have been the prudent and compassionate thing to do considering Sen. Ted Kennedy’s condition, and what the Kennedy family was already going through. But for some reason, Hillary deemed it absolutely necessary to implant the word “assassination.”

And this was clearly not an issue that hadn’t been considered within the Clinton camp. On May 11th while appearing on Meet The Press, Hillary’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely."

So let there be no doubt about it, the Clintons know exactly what they’re saying--and it behooves us to listen very carefully to every word. Because these two are desperate, and they want to get back into the White House bad–real bad.

Eric L. Wattree

Kinky Ogremann said...

There's nothing "subliminal" in what she or Bill said. The truth is that whites do make up the majority in this country with Af. Am's making up 13%. Obama does have a problem winning White voters (along with every other major demographic group) as shown by the 40 and 35 percentage points loss in WV and KY. Nothing subliminal about that - as subliminal implies hidden. Those are plain, clear to see facts. In regards to experience, Obama served for ONE year in the senate (exactly 100 actual working days!) before declaring his run for the presidency! In Illinois, he couldn't even figure out which yes or no button to vote, that was when he actually voted at all as he as a propensity toward "present" votes. Hillary and McCain both served on the Armed Services Committee as well as in the Senate for years (with an "s", not singular like Obama), with significant accomplishments such as S-CHIP, campaign finance reform, bipartisan legislation. Obama's list? Nothing - just a speech in 2002, which he delivered because he wasn't even in the senate to vote at the time! And last I checked, a speech is not an accomplishment as the latter entails actual work done for the betterment of society, not just empty rhetoric. Words are just that, just words until they are backed up with significant actions.

So in answer to your long, tedious, boring post - there's nothing "subliminal" about Hillary's statements, they are a matter of facts though I would understand if yet another Obama supporter doesn't find facts to be interesting or useful to their candidate.