The Clintons’ Patronizing Strategy

The media is reprehensible. They are all primadonnas that can not admit when they are wrong. They interrupt their guests, step on worthwhile comments, and act all high and mighty. If the media wants to continue this jibberish, I believe at some point in time the American People will turn them off. I guess the WRITERS STRIKE is really a bad thing. BTW Chris Matthews , I believe, was the first to interject race, when he said after NH primary, that black voters would say one thing to the pollsters (voting for Obama), but when in the privacy of a voting booth they voted for Hillary. Someone should look up his quote on that.

And another thing - What the heck was the relevance of Tim Russert's question at the debate, about what Toni Morrison said about bill Clinton being the first Black President???? What the heck was that .....???if not to stir up the racial issues.
NO ONE CARS what she said, and many people do not even know who she is.

HERE IS ANOTHER REPORTER CREAMING HIS SHORTS OVER OBAMA. This entire article is so SPUN for Obma its nuts. These guys try to SPIN that Obama could never tell a lie. Obama could never distort the facts. The Clintons have to break down this TEFLON COATING that guys just like the guy who wrote the article are so EAGER TO PERPETUATE.

Way to go Newsweek. This is the second so called 'journalist' who is on the Obama payroll.

Like trying to question Obama in ANY WAY that could hurt OBAMA is AGAINST THE RULES somehow.

We keep hearing all of this talk about Hillary using Bill as her "attack dog" just like a presidential candidate uses the VP candidate in the general election. Perhaps this is just a rehearsal. We also hear a lot of talk concerning who would want to be VP in a Hillary White House with the 800-pound gorilla (Bill) always in the room. Perhaps Hill and Bill have already figured out the answer: Hillary will choose Bill as her VP running mate!!!! After all, the XXII Amendment says "No person shall be elected to the Office of President more than twice..." It doesn't prohibit a former President from being elected to the Office of Vice-President. Who but the Clintons would have the audacity to pull that Constitutional stunner? And, what better title for Bill than Vice President?

OBAMA needs to remind Bill CLinton Who he is. This is the problem with the Clintons they are not guided by principles, they make decisions based on what 's best for them politically. They have played the race card, which is against their principles, but yet they went ahead and did it. That means they do not have confidence in their so called substantive plans. Hillary went against her principles and tried to cover up what Bill DID. This is why the Clinton are not entitlied to the WHITE HOUSE. THey have brought a lot of pain to the political process and I am shocked how quick people can sell their soul. If Bill only did it once then it is understandable, but he did it everyday for decades and HIllary knew but kept herself in denial. Obama needs to attack the Clintons with their own words because what they are doing is worrie me>> Here is an example
of How OBAMA can flip the race card back onto the CLINTON"S.
THE Clintons are ambivalent about America'ss role in the world, this was clearly highlighted in the after a September 11, when CLINTON in a speech at Gerogetown suggested that America actually bore some responsibility for the attacks on itself. In November 2001, even as the new Bush administration was launching America's military response, the former president made a speech at Georgetown University in which he admonished citizens who were descended "from various European lineages" that they were "not blameless," and that America's past involvement in slavery should humble them as they confronted their attackers. Characteristically the President took no responsibility for his own failure to protect Americans from the attacks.

OBAMA TAKE MY ADVICE, YOU HAVE TO FIGHT
The same entities run both parties. CLINTON use to be what OBAMA stood for. NOW Hillary and Bill are the establishment and are now using words like slum, and insinuating that OBAMA is black and playing to the white vote. WHITE voters recognize this flip flop, this is why white men have not come out and vote for Hillary.

Bush is the best testimony to prove that at least half of the voters are dumb. Which is only part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the mainstream media's lack of imagination. They, including New York Times' Editorial Board, rather stick with the so-called "experienced" Clinton because they don't have the daring imagination to think out of the box--to envision a young, energetic leader with great intellectual capacity and without any baggage to lead the country move to the 21st century. They should be challenged with their assumption that Clinton???s more experienced. They should ask themselves what that ???experienced??? really means????a failed healthcare reform? being a wife of a politician?

This Internet age has revolutionized many things. One of them is to show us that many of the CEO's of today's leading companies are run by people at their 30s and 40s. Their qualifications are not because they have lived long enough to have more experience.

No wonder the old forms of mainstream media--newspapers, magazines, TVs--are on the path of becoming obsolete, because the very people who run these organizations are not forward thinking enough to envision a country being led by a new kind of leader. Plus, in this fast moving Internet age, who want to have those whose experience are deeply shaped by the 20th century, such as Clinton and McCain.

Do you know that the Arabs have the Clinton's in their pockets. This is where Obama can gain ground on the Clintons. REmember the Clinton's sold the Lincoln Bedroom to the Chinese. We are in debt and we are dealing with it in the wrong way. Bush/Clinton are run by the same financial entities. What is good for George Sorros is good for George Bush. Obama is the only candidate can bring factions together in order to implement an economic plan that is in the best interest of the United States, NOT INDIA, NOT CHINA AND NOT SAUDI ARABIA"S best interest, AMERICA"S BEST INTEREST.

Heard at the Clinton breakfast table:

Hillary: Gadzooks! That darn Drudge and his photo of us with Rezko makes me look like a hypocrite.

And I already made my excuse on this Rezko mess and the press isn't buying it.

Bill: Whaddidusay hun?

Hillary: I told them that I did not know who Rezko is.

Bill: Well, you could tell them now it depends what the meaning of "is" is.

He!he!he!

Worked for me.

(Sic semper Dogpatch)

I read everything I can about every candidate. Boy was this article slanted. There is probably an element of truth that every canditate truly believes in and stands for. The rest is simply to win votes and get into office. As far as the Clintons' trying to get the "dumb American" votes (if indeed they are - but there are no facts here to support that claim), that shouldn't be too hard. Look at all the people duped by the current President's war actions. I think there are quite a few sheep that want to follow. The question is, are they dumb Americans or just lazy? I think the latter.

If Americans really want "change" consider this. The Clintons, especially Bill, are engaging in "politics as usual". Isn't it time that we change that? I hope Obama continues to call out the Clintons on there smear campaign and does not sucumb to it

As Romney said, with Bill Clinton going back to White House and nothing to do is scary.

I think that it is wrong that a statesman, an ex-President of the United States should participate in negative campaigning for the benefit of this wife. They are acting like Hillary deserves the nomination and how dare Obama run against her. So why not pull out all the stops! I will never vote for Hillary, she it too divisive. To me, Obama (if only the Clintons would let him BE Obama) is the future of the Democaratic party.

I'm going to vote for anyone who runs against Hillary. Do we really want Monika Lewinsky's ex boyfriend's wife to be our president?

From Chicago Sun-Times (and NOT from Clintons or anyone else anti-Obama) back in JUNE 2007.

During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.

Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his "best estimate" was that Rezko raised "between $50,000 and $60,000" during Obama's political career.

The Clintons smear attacks and distortions is going to come back to them
either as we now see a gathering momentum coming from all over. There is now a
slow but continuous drip on their dysfunctional persona that will become a
tsunami and swept them out to oblivion. NBC just showed a picture of Rezko
posing between the Clintons and she has the audacity to call him a slumlord
supporter of Barack. This is a very powerful image that can be use with HIll's
own word to attack her. No amount of dismissal can clean up their dirty
reputation when all their shady supporters are lined up posing with the
Clintons. Adding a YouTube video of the wagging finger and his own words
spliced together "I did not have sex with that woman ... Hillary" would be a
big hit that will be repeated over late night shows. The Clintons may survived
it, but would make any restoration futile as voters are reminded of how divided
we've become as a result of them !
On Hill's attack of Barack's Reagan's era comment, she is actually telling
the world that she is a stupid woman herself for actually praising Reagan
herself. Hill has the tendency to grab airtime from rivals and future host of
debates should have a switch to shut off offending party's microphone. That
should be a lesson that can be captured and posted on YouTube ! She is so power
hungry that will resort to grabbing anything, including hays !

It's up to the voters to decide if Obama's "Present" votes are an issue. Anything and everything about a candidate's professional record is fair game in an election. Hillary and Bill are not making up lies about Obama. Since when is it dirty campaigning to expose your opponent's record, and to hold him accountable for his statements? This is the real world, not Obamaland.

If Obama had based his campaign on the issues instead of on personality, and the notion of being "pure" and "untouched" by ordinary politics, he would be able to handle these criticisms better. He set himself up so that if he fights back, he looks like just another typical politician, which he is anyway. So instead he's decided to whine about dirty campaigning, even though there isn't any. That way, he can still look "pure." When you base a campaign on personality, instead of on issues, it's like building a house on sand.