I've defended Barack Obama here and at the other site from racist attacks and insinuations about his family, patriotism, and religion. I won't get into that again, except the attacks continue to come hard and heavy.

Now it's the desperate Clinton campaign playing this despicable card.

Matt Drudge has a news flash about Clinton staffers, panicked as they trail in the delegate count and the polls in Texas and Ohio, circulating a photo of Senator Obama during a 2006 visit to Kenya.



"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.



Well, I recall the fall out when she kissed Soha Arafat in 1999 and only reactively distanced herself from Mrs Arafat's conspiracy theories that Israelis were poisoning Palestinian children. In a book published during her race for the senate, she also was quoted calling her husband's former campaign manager a "fucking Jew bastard" following a failed run for Congress in 1974. In an attempt at damage control, Mrs Clinton appeared with Jewish supporters including Congresswoman Nita Lowey and said, "I have spent a lifetime devoted to increasing tolerance. This never happened."

The same article linked previously quotes Bill Clinton as saying, "My wife has never, ever uttered an ethnic or racial slur against anybody, ever."

Now her campaign has. During her debate appearance here last week, Senator Clinton spoke in almost resigned tone and conciliation that she was honored to share the platform with Senator Obama. Maybe she should act like it for the rest of the campaign and make sure her surrogates and staffers do as well.

Comments:

See below...

comment by ekyprogressive on Feb 26, 2008 5:37 AM ()

I will have to get back to you on this, gotta work and crap, but the differences with the 2 parties and a 3ed party candidate are brought up in political science 101 classes. Will find it for ya. Back later...

reply by ekyprogressive on Feb 27, 2008 3:11 PM ()

I disagree with you on all counts. Especially the Electoral College. I disagree it's any more difficult for a third party candidate than anyone else. Third party candidates play by the same rules. The rules don't need to change to give them what amounts to preferential treatment by allowing them ballot access without meeting the same criteria as other parties, by reducing the floor for qualifying for matching funds, etc. If anything, we should get public money out of politics altogether. Somehow, though, I have a hunch you want socialized campaigns for all candidates even if they attract only a fraction of a percent of the aggregate vote. Boo! Don't force me to subsidize any candidate and violate my rights to support the candidates I feel are worthy.

Why were you a Republican if you opposed NAFTA, gays in the military (their opposition to "don't ask" wasn't because it was discriminatroy but because it wasn't discriminatory ENOUGH), or telecom deregulation (since the GOP were squarely in favor of it and led the Congress to pass it)?

reply by vladimir on Feb 27, 2008 7:02 AM ()

Nafta- Against (you should know that about me by now..LOL)
Don't ask- against, its still discriminatory, people just need to get over it...
Campaign finance laws- favor 2 party system. 3ed parties have to do much more work and self funding...
Electoral college allows others to pick for us. If we are going to continue that, then just take us back to dictatorship...oh wait, we are just about that now. Seriously though, not all those in the electoral college have to vote with the people of the state. The last two elections had all 3 of the electoral votes in Ky going to Bush, Before the polls had even closed in the western half of the state that is in a different time zone. Some argue candidates would only focus on population dense areas, and that brings us to the issue that makes many vote republican in the first place. The Me/we society problem. If we cared about our own like we should, we wouldn't let that happen.

reply by ekyprogressive on Feb 26, 2008 4:31 PM ()

Trying to understand if you were for or against NAFTA (it was bipartisan, but more GOP than Dem -- I remember the '92 debates and Clinton triangulating between Perot, who opposed NAFTA, and Bush, who negotiated it), for or against "don't ask don't tell" (Clinton policy which was bitterly objected to by GOP), and your position on deregulation (Congress was in GOP control in '96). Anyway, we're not going to abandon the Electoral College and go to national popular vote. I think a third party candidate can win with the EC, but it won't be some kook like Perot or Ron Paul or some extremist like Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader.

reply by vladimir on Feb 26, 2008 4:11 PM ()

I'm starting to believe things about Hillary that I never did...I seen her tonight and it was bad...she's a bit angry about her past support of NAFTA...desperate people do desperate things...it's ugly

How to tell if a politician is lying? His/her mouth is open.

It's politics as usual and will get worse as the conventions get closer and then when it is decided who will run against who it will get more outrageous.

As Will Rogers once said, "We've got the best congress that money can buy." I think that can be extended to all politicians. They will say and do anything that will get them elected. And they want to be elected just to wield power and garner dollars.Sometimes I think that my friend Steve (looserobes) is correct; the best political statement to make this year may be to abstain from voting. Sad, Huh?

comment by hayduke on Feb 25, 2008 9:41 AM ()

Ron Paul does not fall into that description, at all.

reply by whereabouts on Feb 25, 2008 7:24 PM ()

Ralph Nader is a jerk.read jonjude blog on this.
He is a suck ass and someone is paying him to be the spoiler.
He did that with Al Gore.

comment by fredo on Feb 25, 2008 9:26 AM ()

I'm voting for McCain ... I like the idea of forced compromise ... and, sure we could use a good third party ... the rules should be changed so that we create a public campaign finance system ... I'm sure Vladimir will find some reason to attack me like he did on the old Blogster, but I will ignore his insecure behavior and refrain from referring to him as the Impaler Dude ...

reply by amerigobard on Feb 27, 2008 11:28 AM ()

Thanks for the tip! I've been trying to get some god info on him.

reply by whereabouts on Feb 25, 2008 7:20 PM ()

INteresting don't you think that Nader chose right now to get in the game. I don't listen to the negatives about Obama. I think he's fresh and new and someone who hasn't been over "Washington'd." If you know what I mean.

Ah, but now enter Ralphie Nader..

comment by looserobes on Feb 25, 2008 8:29 AM ()

Vlad... With the system as it currently is, with campaign finance laws, electoral college, ect, No third party stands a chance. I have made this arguement all along, until the system is reformed, they are all spoilers. Hey, I was a registered republican in the Clinton years FYI. Not over Monica (who cares...) but because of NAFTA, don't ask don't tell, and the telecommunications deregulation act of 1996. Believe me I don't Idolize the Clinton's, they are responsible for the disinformation we see today by centralizing media in the hands of 6 mega-Corporations.

All candidates in this system, as is, are spoilers. Their "message" decides which side they want to steal votes from...

reply by ekyprogressive on Feb 26, 2008 5:36 AM ()

eky: If Ross Perot hadn't gotten into the race in '92, Clinton probably wouldn't have won. Why is it that "democrats" object to more choice in campaigns? Oh wait, only when it affects them adversely.

reply by vladimir on Feb 25, 2008 5:15 PM ()

Whenever it is "close" a spoiler always seems to step up to bat. Had he not been around in 2000, we wouldn't have had Bush to deal with.

reply by ekyprogressive on Feb 25, 2008 1:57 PM ()

Don't be surprised.... The Clinton Machine does not plan on losing and will pull out all the stops. I fear it hasn't even gotten ugly yet.

I am so at a loss about who the best candidate is this time around...

Ross Perot would call it "that sucking sound," as we hear the slurp, slurp that issues from all those Clinton supporters showing up at our Obama rallies and reaching deep into their wallets.