The Clintons’ Patronizing Strategy

We are in a very interesting and exciting time in U.S. politics. Age has made the Clintons shrewd politicians. After Iowa it was apparent Obama can trascend race and court white voters. His oratory skills and fresh approach has certainly made him more appealing then the rest of the dems. It seems the Clintons played the race card and lured Obama to the black civil rights activists and let him dwell in South Carolina. This seemed to have brought a form of phobia to white voters who ultimately form the bulk of the electorate. The Clintons by having Bill in South Carolina and thus allowing Hillary to court voters in super tuesday states is a very clever move because it makes Obama less appealling to white voters. Experience here has made the Clintons get the better of Obama. It shows that to be politically astute requires the tactful display of the art in minipulation. The Clintons have scored big time.....

Here is the testimny of the man who claims had gay sex and CRACK Cocaine with Obama. Curiously Obama has NOT disputed Mr. Sinclair testimony.

OBAMA PROBABLY DOESN'T WANT TO BE TESTED FOR COCAINE SO HE LIES LOW FOR NOW. AND HOPES THIS SCANDAL WILL GO AWAY.


Obama is accused and up against the wall.
The Obama camp is silent which is suspicious since if untrue they would be suing Sinclair right now.
Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Hillary Supporters: "The media is BIASED for decrying our candidate's lies and half-truths! Instead of pointing out the lies and distortions from our candidate, you should be writing about Obama non-issues like 'present' votes! Yeah! Those evil 'present' votes!!! Rezko Rezko Rezko! Who cares if those allegations have been shown to be false or non-issues? Newsweek, you are biased!"

With these kind of supporters, who needs the rest of the party, eh?

Alterman should spend time reading the text of of Obama's words. You don't have to be Derrida or Levi-Strauss to be able to Deconstruct the meaning of his statements. Read Obama's own words about why people voted for Reagan and you would see that the Clinton's are not wrong in their charachterization, from the perspective of naturally partisan Democrats like myself.

He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

The excesses and growth of the government were what the Democrats did. It was The Great Society, the environmental movement, Medicare, Civil Rights, Progressive taxation, Government Regulation of Corporations. Calling them excesses is Republican language. Most Democrats didn't think they went far enough. And the "clarity" was against the honest soul searching that Americans had after Vietnam and Watergate of our place in the world.

Alterman should spend time reading the text of of Obama's words. You don't have to be Derrida or Levi-Strauss to be able to Deconstruct the meaning of his statements. Read Obama's own words about why people voted for Reagan and you would see that the Clinton's are not wrong in their charachterization, from the perspective of naturally partisan Democrats like myself.

He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

The excesses and growth of the government were what the Democrats did. It was The Great Society, the environmental movement, Medicare, Civil Rights, Progressive taxation, Government Regulation of Corporations. Calling them excesses is Republican language. Most Democrats didn't think they went far enough. And the "clarity" was against the honest soul searching that Americans had after Vietnam and Watergate of our place in the world.

I have lost a great deal of respect and loyalty for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Why must they continue to voice all of these lies against Obama. It's obvious that the Clintons would rather insult the American people's intelligence by making these continous false accusations in hopes that we can't see through their plot. I was beside myself when IHillary admitted during the last debate that she had actually took time to read Obama's transcript from a Nevada interview. I really hope the Clinton's get a life, stop the destortion of Obama's character and discuss the important issues facing the American people.. It's so unprofessional for the two of them to continue to behave in this inappropriate manner, as if they were hired to be "Chief" and Assistant Chief Crooked Cop..

If you people want to re-elect Bill Clinton via Hillary - you are as dumb as they think you are....and you will prove them right.

No more of Clinton or Bush as President - pick someone else - Dem or Rep - just someone else.

Reading Comprehension....

Jonathan Alter was not criticizing less-educated voters... He was criticizing the Clintons for assuming less educated voters are dumb and the Clintons' shameless pandering to ignorance.

Read the friggin article next time, this time with your eyes open.

Jonathan Alter thinks the American public is stupid. We can read for ourselves what Obama said about Reagan and the "excesses of the 60s and 70s." We know that Reagan was selling a return to the so-called good old days before civil rights and feminism. Well, Obama, without those excesses of the 60s and 70s, you would not be running for President.

Obama gave this interview to a conservative newsppaper in Nevada, in an attempt to appeal to conservative voters. Thank God Bill Clinton is out there exposing these issues because the media sure won't do it.

Jim Clyburn today stated that it was NOT Hillary or Obama who brought the issue of race into the South Carolina primary but rather Mike Huckabee with his comments on the Confederate flag. The voters AND the media should listen to what he is saying.

I really liked the clintons for a long time even through the scandals of the 90's because at the end of the day bill was a good guy and a good president, but recently i'm forced to reconsider my support of the clinton camp once they started attacking a young open minded positive thinking democrat like barack obama, i think they have been arguing with republicans for so long they now see anyone that disagrees with them as an angry republican when obama more than any of the democrats represents what the party used to be all about, namely change for a better healthier america.

I think you may have missed the point of what the Clintons are doing. By raising the issues of gender and race, they succeeded in making Obama the "black" candidate. It is no coincidence that the Clintons primary constituency, less educated white voters, are moving away from Obama, even in South Carolina. This is classic Bill Clinton, divide and conquer politics. If you win, you can clean up the mess later. By the way your comment that the impeachment trial was a witch hunt is factually inaccurate. He did commit perjury and he did misuse his office (even he admits this). I think Bill Clinton did some great things, but he also fumbled some important issues, such as national health care (with Hillary's help). She suffers from the same problem he had in regard to public opinion, abivilance. Her negative poll numbers have not budged in two years. Independents are put off by her and conservatives will rally against her. She is the Republicans dream candidate. McCain will beat her easily because the hill for him to climb is so small, nearly half the electorate has already rejected her. Remember that even in the 90's the best Bill could do was 46% of the vote in 1996. Were it not for Ross Perot, he would never have been elected president in the first place.

So when will Bill, oops Hillary, Clinton be sworn in? Oh, and Jeb Bush is waiting in the wings to retake the White House and, as before, The Clinton 2.0 White House will make sure that it talks about and implements policies that will insure that the Republicans retake Congress in 2010 (paving the way for Jeb). You know, "Another Contract with America" and since most of Bill's, darn it, Hillary's supporters are suffering from "withdrawal" as a result of not having enough of Rush Limburger et al, well here's their opportunity to get their "fix".

Hey, it's like "deja vu all over again". I just can't wait, can you?

However, if you're not exactly thrilled about that, then perhaps you should ignore the attacks and look for change. We need someone to infuse unity. We need someone that will bring a new perspective. Yes, The NY Times endorsed Hillary, but did they really or was it Bill that they were endorsing? Ask yourself?

IF The Clintons retake the presidency and the republicans retake congress the ones that will suffer is us, the american people. We will be in a "quagmire" and I'm NOT referring to Iraq either. Oh, by the way, I'm consider to be an "Independent", whatever that means.

What I find patronizing is the media's assertion that Democratic primary voters haven't already figured all of this out on their own. God forbid they choose someone not over race and gender, but over experience and substance over inexperience and style. And God forbid the voters actually will get a chance to vote rather than have one candidate coronated by the media after one state caucus. The media is hell bent on making this primary about race and gender instead of actual issues. That I find insulting and yes, patronizing.