Politics Daily More Links
Inside Politics Daily
- John Calvin: Patron Saint of the Recession?
- At G8, Pictures Not Worth a Thousand Words
- Barry and Benedict Meet in the Land of Caesars and Martyrs
GOP 'Senate Doctors' to Cover Health Care Debate- Chinese Riots: Blame the Dame
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg: I Am a Product of Affirmative Action
- Why We Should Listen to the Pope on the Economy
- Mr. McNamara Meets Mr. Maladroit
- Russians Share Michelle Obama's Love of Veggie Gardens
- From Sanford to Jackson: Our Fascination with Brokenness
- Why Running a Newspaper Means Having to Say You're Sorry
- Peter King's Overreaction to America's Mourning for Michael Jackson
Denise WilliamsClinton High-Rollers Threaten Pelosi and DCCC
A mild chastisement or an extortion threat?
A group of well-heeled Hillary Clinton supporters did not take too kindly to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's thoughts on the role of SuperDelegates™ and "so-called pledged delegates."
This past Sunday, Pelosi told ABC News, "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party,". But just ten days earlier, Pelosi told The Hill:
I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility
Armed with this inconsistency and the former statement's appearance of leaning toward Obama, these heavy donors to Clinton and the DCCC fired off this letter, subtly reminding the third-in-line for the presidency where the money comes from:
(via TPM's Election Central)
Dear Madame Speaker,
As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party's candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.
We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.
[...]
Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party's strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election.
We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.
(emphasis mine)
Now let's put aside Clinton's own duality of thought historically on the role of delegates. The apparent new talking point that the Clinton campaign is slipping in the discussion is bolded above. While the donors and Clinton are correct in stating that the pledged delegates are not legally bound in any way to vote for the candidate that their state, county and local meetups picked them for, what other reason would we pick delegates for candidates if they would just leave the reservation based on whim or fancy or whoever is paying them more attention at the time? You have to remember that the pledged delegates are picked for their loyalty by the candidates - not the local Dem machine.
By trying to change the perception of reality regarding pledged delegates, the Clinton camp is looking to muddy the waters of public opinion. The same public who, if they even voted, probably is not engaged enough in the process to
know how it really works.
And how about the balls on this bunch threatening the Speaker of the House? I hope Pelosi comes back and tells them where to donate their cash. My friend GottaLaff has a great rundown on the signer's of this horsehead on the pillow here.
-
PRINT
-
IM
-
E-mail
125 comments
+ add your own
Denise Williams
An unabashed news and political junkie, Denise has been blogging politics with a liberal bent since 2004... more
Comments (125)
lexington
11:28PM Mar 26th 2008
Denise - I would like to point out that your patronizing attitude is really very, very rude to people in general. ". . . The same public who, if they even voted, probably is not engaged enough in the process to know how it really works . . ." emphasizing that people are dumb. How utterly crass and very liberally sounding. How about jumping off your pedestal and joining the human race, if you know what being human means, which I seriously doubt.
2) Pelosi has been a very poor Speaker of the House, and a polarizing figure on the floor and in committee. That is a fact jack. Approval ratings for Congress is an expression of success of the Speaker (House), and with an under 20% or less approval rating, Pelosi is just trying to get attention to punch up her rating. The fact is, Denise, most of the Congressperson think she is a failure except for the Ted Kennedy bunch.
3) Denise, here's an excercise for you to do. Expand your reading other than blogs, CNN, and the comics. Quit thinking your "profound" thoughts that when columnized make you look so very, how do I say it, how about the politically uncorrect way - DUMB. Read a decent book, child, like Diamond Jarred, Lester Thurow, maybe LaFeber. Do you even know what a phoenix is or a black swan?
Lordie, this blog is so juvenile.
Tommy, what is you beef against Jennifer. I think her comments are loyal and thoughtful. Yours is merely a paid for commentary gone out to the highest bidder.
2) Pelosi has been a very poor Speaker of the House, and a polarizing figure on the floor and in committee. That is a fact jack. Approval ratings for Congress is an expression of success of the Speaker (House), and with an under 20% or less approval rating, Pelosi is just trying to get attention to punch up her rating. The fact is, Denise, most of the Congressperson think she is a failure except for the Ted Kennedy bunch.
3) Denise, here's an excercise for you to do. Expand your reading other than blogs, CNN, and the comics. Quit thinking your "profound" thoughts that when columnized make you look so very, how do I say it, how about the politically uncorrect way - DUMB. Read a decent book, child, like Diamond Jarred, Lester Thurow, maybe LaFeber. Do you even know what a phoenix is or a black swan?
Lordie, this blog is so juvenile.
Tommy, what is you beef against Jennifer. I think her comments are loyal and thoughtful. Yours is merely a paid for commentary gone out to the highest bidder.
RATE THIS COMMENT:
(0)
(0) 
lexington
11:34PM Mar 26th 2008
Oh yes, I have noticed that you at Political Machine has dropped significantly in audience participation like the Huffington Post. You use to get thousands, now you are down to hundreds, with appx 80% of them pro Obama comments.
If you were tryng to make a living - I'd say you all would be broke and busted.
However, with Aol supporting you - it is just getting by and having the parent support you.
Perhaps a new set of commentators? Huzzah!
If you were tryng to make a living - I'd say you all would be broke and busted.
However, with Aol supporting you - it is just getting by and having the parent support you.
Perhaps a new set of commentators? Huzzah!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Denise Williams
11:41PM Mar 26th 2008
Lexington, thanks for your comments.
One should not complain of others patronizing when one is doing the same thing.
If reading blogs is such a juvenille pursuit, why are you here?
My hits are actually way up as well as my comment count since the inception of this blog in October.
I can't imagine where you're getting your numbers from. And according to MY math my commenters are about 75% pro-Hillary.
What blog to you write for? I'd like to stop by some time and see your work.
One should not complain of others patronizing when one is doing the same thing.
If reading blogs is such a juvenille pursuit, why are you here?
My hits are actually way up as well as my comment count since the inception of this blog in October.
I can't imagine where you're getting your numbers from. And according to MY math my commenters are about 75% pro-Hillary.
What blog to you write for? I'd like to stop by some time and see your work.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Tommy Christopher
12:02AM Mar 27th 2008
Lex, ease up, buddy. Don't worry, we'll be OK. I'm not sure which one Jennifer was, I'll have to check.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Lin Cruiz
12:06AM Mar 27th 2008
WHAT ELSE IS HE HIDING!!!!
Many Dem. voters in Pa. do not see O'Bama as a "new breeze"
!!!!!...............actually we view him poorly for having stayed in the not so good reverend's church too long and cannot dismiss what Sen. O'Bama defends as just a small number of "stupid comments"!!!!! By Baracks not standing up for America, to the devisivness, hatred and screaming tone of racism in this church, he accepted complacently what was being preached....especially by staying there 20 long years. We feel he might not stand up for America in a national crisis. We see a major character flaw, unworthy of representing our country as Commander in Chief . We also view his speeches as sermons, without any great insight...just that he mimics what we all have been saying the past 8 years with G.W. Bush and people are just agreeing with this ....he has no new ideas or plans as far as we can see and feel he is hiding alot. We will not vote for him !!!! Hillary has been an action oriented public servant for years, has much more experience, more detailed plans,
Many Dem. voters in Pa. do not see O'Bama as a "new breeze"
!!!!!...............actually we view him poorly for having stayed in the not so good reverend's church too long and cannot dismiss what Sen. O'Bama defends as just a small number of "stupid comments"!!!!! By Baracks not standing up for America, to the devisivness, hatred and screaming tone of racism in this church, he accepted complacently what was being preached....especially by staying there 20 long years. We feel he might not stand up for America in a national crisis. We see a major character flaw, unworthy of representing our country as Commander in Chief . We also view his speeches as sermons, without any great insight...just that he mimics what we all have been saying the past 8 years with G.W. Bush and people are just agreeing with this ....he has no new ideas or plans as far as we can see and feel he is hiding alot. We will not vote for him !!!! Hillary has been an action oriented public servant for years, has much more experience, more detailed plans,
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Tommy Christopher
12:10AM Mar 27th 2008
To be fair, the Clinton campaign has not responded to this yet. I will be sure to ask them if there's a call tomorrow. All of you Hillary supporters, please urge your candidate to repudiate this, it will be awful for her if she doesn't.
This is straight up extortion, no two ways about it. I'm just glad my friend, John Graham's name isn't on this.
I don't know what these folks are thinking. Hillary is trying to fight the impression that she's bought and paid for, and her donors are going to twist Nancy Pelosi's arm with campaign cash?
I expect none of you to listen to me, but you gotta email Hillary and tell her to get on the right side of this.
It is one thing to donate to a campaign in hopes of influencing policy, but quite another to pose a direct and blatant quid pro quo. It's madness for them to think Pelosi could ever comply.
Denise, great job.
This is straight up extortion, no two ways about it. I'm just glad my friend, John Graham's name isn't on this.
I don't know what these folks are thinking. Hillary is trying to fight the impression that she's bought and paid for, and her donors are going to twist Nancy Pelosi's arm with campaign cash?
I expect none of you to listen to me, but you gotta email Hillary and tell her to get on the right side of this.
It is one thing to donate to a campaign in hopes of influencing policy, but quite another to pose a direct and blatant quid pro quo. It's madness for them to think Pelosi could ever comply.
Denise, great job.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) TJ
12:25AM Mar 27th 2008
I POSTED IT ON THIS VERY POLITICAL MACHINE, WEEKS AGO THAT NANCY
PELOSI IS JEALOUS OF HILLARY CLINTON. HOW COULD A PERSON WHO KNOWS
THE RULES OF THE POLITICAL PARTY BE OUT THERE MAKING POLARIZING STATEMENTS WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME, BLAMING HILLARY CLINTON FOR POLARIZING THE DEMO PARTY.
YOU WANNA MEET THE DEMO PARTY STOOGES? SO-CALLED "ELDERS"?
TED KENNEDY- THE FAT BUFFOON WHO THINKS HE CAN BUY THE PRESIDENCY FOR OBAMA- TIRED DYNASTY GASPING FOR AIR. THIS FOOL STARTED ALL THIS BY CALLING THE CLINTONS RACISTS.
HOWARD DEAN: MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, LIKE A FAT COW.
THE BILL RICHARDSONS: BACKSTABBING, GOSSIPY IDIOTS. NANCY PELOSI: JEALOUS OF HILLARY AND CAN NEVER ENDURE WHAT HILLARY HAD TO ENDURE TO CHANGE LIVES.
THESE ARE THE ONES DESTROYING THE PARTY WHILE SCREAMING THE, "CLINTONS DID IT."
ALL THE MALES ARE JEALOUS OF CLINTON LEGACY.
EVEN IF BILL CLINTON HAD 10 MONIKAS HANGING OUT HIS MOUTH-HE IS STILL THE MOST EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT LAST FEW DECADES. THESE MEN CANT BEAT THAT-THEY WILL NEVER BE BILL CLINTON. HILLARY WILL BE EVEN BETTER
THAT IS THE DILEMMA OF THE DEMO PARTY IN A NUTSHELL!!
THE CLINTONS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO FIGHT FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
OBAMA AND HILLARY ARE TIED, THE DIFFERENCE ISNT MUCH- STILL GOT MANY STATES LEFT. HOW DARE THEY TELL HER TO QUIT??? HOW DARE THEY? WE ARE STILL SENDING HER MONEY.
THE SUPERDELEGATES SHOULD VOTE WHO HAS A CHANCE TO WIN. HISTORICAL FUNCTION. GET RID OF THEM AFTER ELECTIONS,NOT BEFORE. THEN AGAIN ,
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN RICHARDSON AND NM ??
THE STOOGES--MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, LIKE COWS.
IF YOU GIVE THIS TO OBAMA WITHOUT MI & FL AND INCOMPLETE VOTING, IT IS CALLED "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION."
PELOSI IS JEALOUS OF HILLARY CLINTON. HOW COULD A PERSON WHO KNOWS
THE RULES OF THE POLITICAL PARTY BE OUT THERE MAKING POLARIZING STATEMENTS WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME, BLAMING HILLARY CLINTON FOR POLARIZING THE DEMO PARTY.
YOU WANNA MEET THE DEMO PARTY STOOGES? SO-CALLED "ELDERS"?
TED KENNEDY- THE FAT BUFFOON WHO THINKS HE CAN BUY THE PRESIDENCY FOR OBAMA- TIRED DYNASTY GASPING FOR AIR. THIS FOOL STARTED ALL THIS BY CALLING THE CLINTONS RACISTS.
HOWARD DEAN: MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, LIKE A FAT COW.
THE BILL RICHARDSONS: BACKSTABBING, GOSSIPY IDIOTS. NANCY PELOSI: JEALOUS OF HILLARY AND CAN NEVER ENDURE WHAT HILLARY HAD TO ENDURE TO CHANGE LIVES.
THESE ARE THE ONES DESTROYING THE PARTY WHILE SCREAMING THE, "CLINTONS DID IT."
ALL THE MALES ARE JEALOUS OF CLINTON LEGACY.
EVEN IF BILL CLINTON HAD 10 MONIKAS HANGING OUT HIS MOUTH-HE IS STILL THE MOST EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT LAST FEW DECADES. THESE MEN CANT BEAT THAT-THEY WILL NEVER BE BILL CLINTON. HILLARY WILL BE EVEN BETTER
THAT IS THE DILEMMA OF THE DEMO PARTY IN A NUTSHELL!!
THE CLINTONS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO FIGHT FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
OBAMA AND HILLARY ARE TIED, THE DIFFERENCE ISNT MUCH- STILL GOT MANY STATES LEFT. HOW DARE THEY TELL HER TO QUIT??? HOW DARE THEY? WE ARE STILL SENDING HER MONEY.
THE SUPERDELEGATES SHOULD VOTE WHO HAS A CHANCE TO WIN. HISTORICAL FUNCTION. GET RID OF THEM AFTER ELECTIONS,NOT BEFORE. THEN AGAIN ,
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN RICHARDSON AND NM ??
THE STOOGES--MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, LIKE COWS.
IF YOU GIVE THIS TO OBAMA WITHOUT MI & FL AND INCOMPLETE VOTING, IT IS CALLED "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION."
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Tommy Christopher
12:39AM Mar 27th 2008
On the subject of Pelosi urging the Supes to go with their states, the Clinton campaign has been pushing a distorted interpretation of the Party rules. The pledged delegates have flexibility so that candidates who have dropped out or fallen short can throw their delegates behind someone else at the convention. The supes are there to settle things when there's no clear majority. Under the letter of the rules, they can overturn the popular or delegate lead, but they never, ever will. It would be beyond foolish, and to ignore that fact is to ignore reality. If Hillary can manage to take the popular vote lead, with a result from Fl and Mi that is recognized as legitimate by the party, then she has a case to make.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) TJ
12:51AM Mar 27th 2008
TOMMY XTOPHER, THAT'S PRECISELY WHY HILLARY'S SUPPORTERS ARE MAD
A) WHY HAVE RULES YOU CANT APPLY
B) WHY EVEN ATTEMPT TO END THE RUN WITH SO MANY STATES STILL IN PLAY??
C) NOBODY EXPECTED THE RACE TO GET TO THIS POINT, SO NOW FIND A WAY TO MAKE FL AND MI COUNT.
IT WAS NOT THE FAULT OF VOTERS OR HILLARY OR EVEN THE DEMO PARTY. IT WAS A DECISION OF A REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT.
RATHER THAN FIX PROBLEMS, THEY HEAVE ALL THE BLAME ON CLINTONS AND THE FACT THEY GOT A "CLINTON FATIGUE". MILLIONS OF US SUPPORT HILLARY AND WE DONT HAVE "CLINTON FATIGUE"
A) WHY HAVE RULES YOU CANT APPLY
B) WHY EVEN ATTEMPT TO END THE RUN WITH SO MANY STATES STILL IN PLAY??
C) NOBODY EXPECTED THE RACE TO GET TO THIS POINT, SO NOW FIND A WAY TO MAKE FL AND MI COUNT.
IT WAS NOT THE FAULT OF VOTERS OR HILLARY OR EVEN THE DEMO PARTY. IT WAS A DECISION OF A REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT.
RATHER THAN FIX PROBLEMS, THEY HEAVE ALL THE BLAME ON CLINTONS AND THE FACT THEY GOT A "CLINTON FATIGUE". MILLIONS OF US SUPPORT HILLARY AND WE DONT HAVE "CLINTON FATIGUE"
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Tommy Christopher
12:53AM Mar 27th 2008
Lex,
Jennifer called me a "Obama supporting moron." How do I have a beef against her? Or was the point of that to get in a dig about how I have the nerve to get paid to write? Listen, I can't speak for Denise, but being a writer is a lifelong dream for me. I feel incredibly fortunate to be able to do something I love. As such, I am grateful to every one of our readers. I strive to be fair and honest, and I stand by and can support everything I have written. I would rather you read and enjoyed mine and Denise's work, but failing that, is it necessary to insult us? Can't you argue the substance of what we're saying? I'm happy to do that, and I don't get paid for that part.
Jennifer called me a "Obama supporting moron." How do I have a beef against her? Or was the point of that to get in a dig about how I have the nerve to get paid to write? Listen, I can't speak for Denise, but being a writer is a lifelong dream for me. I feel incredibly fortunate to be able to do something I love. As such, I am grateful to every one of our readers. I strive to be fair and honest, and I stand by and can support everything I have written. I would rather you read and enjoyed mine and Denise's work, but failing that, is it necessary to insult us? Can't you argue the substance of what we're saying? I'm happy to do that, and I don't get paid for that part.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) adria2677
1:00AM Mar 27th 2008
Posted By: VotersIssues (March 26, 2008 at 5:25 PM)
This is HOW BARACK WON THE TEXAS CAUCUS
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=5950809
Report Abuse
Posted By: VotersIssues (March 26, 2008 at 5:21 PM)
There will be more and more secerts that will surface in reference to
Obama's honesty.
Let me tell the country, I was involved in the “ TEXAS TWO-STEP
PHONY CAUCUS”. I got there in the 11am hour to stand out-side with
my candidates sign. There was a young man already there holding a
portrait size poster of Obama. Before letting him know, whom I was
there for, he began to talk. And talk he did they were instructed to
call in numbers every hour, they were also instructed to disrupt the
event until there were enough Obama supporters at the event. Sure
enough as I was checking voters INDENTIFACTION , they were going up
and down the line outside telling people that were Hillary supporters
that they were in the wrong line and polling area and a lot of older
voters that wanted to attend left out of FEAR. They also had Black
radio stations saying “ OBAMA IS LOSING IN THE POLLS ALL BLACK’S
THAT HAVE A TEXAS IDENTIFACTION SHOW UP AT THE CAUCAUS” THEY
CAN’T STOP YOU “ THEY STOMPED GRAVES,
There were several Obama supporters threatening violence and even
older Obama supporters were Feared away. He was later reported that
the Obama Camp had thugs come from New York and pretend to be CAUCUS
Chairman at several PRECINTS. Voters were told that one sign in sheet
was for Obama and the other for Hillary, NOT TRUE IT DID NOT MATTER
Which sheet, but in those districts the HILLARY SIGN IN SHEETS
DISAPPEARED. This sound just like what happened to our Super Delegate
Black Leaders, GREAT PEOPLE , this mob, thug like action. OBAMA SHOULD
BE ASHAMED actions such as this is a SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE GREAT,
GREAT DR.KING
Report Abuse
WE CANNOT ALLOW BARACK TO PARTICIPATE ONE WAY AND ACT ANOTHER MEANWHILE MAKE A SPEECH AND ALL IS FORGOTTEN!! HE IS AN IN THE CLOSET RACIST WHO IS GREAT AT BLIND SIDING THE YOUNG WITH HIS
SPEECHES. GET EDUCATED AND VOTE SMART!
This is HOW BARACK WON THE TEXAS CAUCUS
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=5950809
Report Abuse
Posted By: VotersIssues (March 26, 2008 at 5:21 PM)
There will be more and more secerts that will surface in reference to
Obama's honesty.
Let me tell the country, I was involved in the “ TEXAS TWO-STEP
PHONY CAUCUS”. I got there in the 11am hour to stand out-side with
my candidates sign. There was a young man already there holding a
portrait size poster of Obama. Before letting him know, whom I was
there for, he began to talk. And talk he did they were instructed to
call in numbers every hour, they were also instructed to disrupt the
event until there were enough Obama supporters at the event. Sure
enough as I was checking voters INDENTIFACTION , they were going up
and down the line outside telling people that were Hillary supporters
that they were in the wrong line and polling area and a lot of older
voters that wanted to attend left out of FEAR. They also had Black
radio stations saying “ OBAMA IS LOSING IN THE POLLS ALL BLACK’S
THAT HAVE A TEXAS IDENTIFACTION SHOW UP AT THE CAUCAUS” THEY
CAN’T STOP YOU “ THEY STOMPED GRAVES,
There were several Obama supporters threatening violence and even
older Obama supporters were Feared away. He was later reported that
the Obama Camp had thugs come from New York and pretend to be CAUCUS
Chairman at several PRECINTS. Voters were told that one sign in sheet
was for Obama and the other for Hillary, NOT TRUE IT DID NOT MATTER
Which sheet, but in those districts the HILLARY SIGN IN SHEETS
DISAPPEARED. This sound just like what happened to our Super Delegate
Black Leaders, GREAT PEOPLE , this mob, thug like action. OBAMA SHOULD
BE ASHAMED actions such as this is a SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE GREAT,
GREAT DR.KING
Report Abuse
WE CANNOT ALLOW BARACK TO PARTICIPATE ONE WAY AND ACT ANOTHER MEANWHILE MAKE A SPEECH AND ALL IS FORGOTTEN!! HE IS AN IN THE CLOSET RACIST WHO IS GREAT AT BLIND SIDING THE YOUNG WITH HIS
SPEECHES. GET EDUCATED AND VOTE SMART!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) TJ
1:00AM Mar 27th 2008
THE RULE IS 2025-UNLESS OBAMA HAS 2025, THE RACE IS TIED. I DONT CARE HOW BLOODIED THEY ARE, COME NOVEMBER- PROVE YOURSELF IF YOU WANNA BE PRESIDENT.
IF OBAMA CANT STAND THE HEAT, HE SHOULD OUT!.
THIS IS POLITICS, MEN -NOT CHILD'S PLAY!!!!
IF OBAMA CANT STAND THE HEAT, HE SHOULD OUT!.
THIS IS POLITICS, MEN -NOT CHILD'S PLAY!!!!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Adrianna
1:06AM Mar 27th 2008
Posted By: VotersIssues (March 26, 2008 at 5:25 PM)
This is HOW BARACK WON THE TEXAS CAUCUS
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=5950809
Report Abuse
Posted By: VotersIssues (March 26, 2008 at 5:21 PM)
There will be more and more secerts that will surface in reference to
Obama's honesty.
Let me tell the country, I was involved in the “ TEXAS TWO-STEP
PHONY CAUCUS”. I got there in the 11am hour to stand out-side with
my candidates sign. There was a young man already there holding a
portrait size poster of Obama. Before letting him know, whom I was
there for, he began to talk. And talk he did they were instructed to
call in numbers every hour, they were also instructed to disrupt the
event until there were enough Obama supporters at the event. Sure
enough as I was checking voters INDENTIFACTION , they were going up
and down the line outside telling people that were Hillary supporters
that they were in the wrong line and polling area and a lot of older
voters that wanted to attend left out of FEAR. They also had Black
radio stations saying “ OBAMA IS LOSING IN THE POLLS ALL BLACK’S
THAT HAVE A TEXAS IDENTIFACTION SHOW UP AT THE CAUCAUS” THEY
CAN’T STOP YOU “ THEY STOMPED GRAVES,
There were several Obama supporters threatening violence and even
older Obama supporters were Feared away. He was later reported that
the Obama Camp had thugs come from New York and pretend to be CAUCUS
Chairman at several PRECINTS. Voters were told that one sign in sheet
was for Obama and the other for Hillary, NOT TRUE IT DID NOT MATTER
Which sheet, but in those districts the HILLARY SIGN IN SHEETS
DISAPPEARED. This sound just like what happened to our Super Delegate
Black Leaders, GREAT PEOPLE , this mob, thug like action. OBAMA SHOULD
BE ASHAMED actions such as this is a SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE GREAT,
GREAT DR.KING
Report Abuse
WE CANNOT ALLOW BARACK TO PARTICIPATE ONE WAY AND ACT ANOTHER MEANWHILE MAKE A SPEECH AND ALL IS FORGOTTEN!! HE IS AN IN THE CLOSET RACIST WHO IS GREAT AT BLIND SIDING THE YOUNG WITH HIS
SPEECHES. GET EDUCATED AND VOTE SMART! VOTERS CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT LET THE DNC DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT WHEN THIS IS WHAT IS GOING ON!!!!
This is HOW BARACK WON THE TEXAS CAUCUS
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=5950809
Report Abuse
Posted By: VotersIssues (March 26, 2008 at 5:21 PM)
There will be more and more secerts that will surface in reference to
Obama's honesty.
Let me tell the country, I was involved in the “ TEXAS TWO-STEP
PHONY CAUCUS”. I got there in the 11am hour to stand out-side with
my candidates sign. There was a young man already there holding a
portrait size poster of Obama. Before letting him know, whom I was
there for, he began to talk. And talk he did they were instructed to
call in numbers every hour, they were also instructed to disrupt the
event until there were enough Obama supporters at the event. Sure
enough as I was checking voters INDENTIFACTION , they were going up
and down the line outside telling people that were Hillary supporters
that they were in the wrong line and polling area and a lot of older
voters that wanted to attend left out of FEAR. They also had Black
radio stations saying “ OBAMA IS LOSING IN THE POLLS ALL BLACK’S
THAT HAVE A TEXAS IDENTIFACTION SHOW UP AT THE CAUCAUS” THEY
CAN’T STOP YOU “ THEY STOMPED GRAVES,
There were several Obama supporters threatening violence and even
older Obama supporters were Feared away. He was later reported that
the Obama Camp had thugs come from New York and pretend to be CAUCUS
Chairman at several PRECINTS. Voters were told that one sign in sheet
was for Obama and the other for Hillary, NOT TRUE IT DID NOT MATTER
Which sheet, but in those districts the HILLARY SIGN IN SHEETS
DISAPPEARED. This sound just like what happened to our Super Delegate
Black Leaders, GREAT PEOPLE , this mob, thug like action. OBAMA SHOULD
BE ASHAMED actions such as this is a SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE GREAT,
GREAT DR.KING
Report Abuse
WE CANNOT ALLOW BARACK TO PARTICIPATE ONE WAY AND ACT ANOTHER MEANWHILE MAKE A SPEECH AND ALL IS FORGOTTEN!! HE IS AN IN THE CLOSET RACIST WHO IS GREAT AT BLIND SIDING THE YOUNG WITH HIS
SPEECHES. GET EDUCATED AND VOTE SMART! VOTERS CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT LET THE DNC DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT WHEN THIS IS WHAT IS GOING ON!!!!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) tzada
1:16AM Mar 27th 2008
To Denise Williams11:41PMMar 26th 2008
I think if you read lexington's very well written post you will see he/she was talking about YOU and TOMMY and DAVID KNOWLES and 2 or 3 others. The Political Machine is very much over balanced in favor of Obama.
You are correct that the posters for other candidates far out number Obama supporters. But lexington is correct the number of people reading Political Machine Posts is well down. Wish we could tell whose post it was before we opened it.
I think if you read lexington's very well written post you will see he/she was talking about YOU and TOMMY and DAVID KNOWLES and 2 or 3 others. The Political Machine is very much over balanced in favor of Obama.
You are correct that the posters for other candidates far out number Obama supporters. But lexington is correct the number of people reading Political Machine Posts is well down. Wish we could tell whose post it was before we opened it.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) tom
1:33AM Mar 27th 2008
The democrats will lose if Hillary is nominated
there is so much crap associated with her
the replicans will have a field day
They know they can't win against Obama
we are sick of their lies
In Illinois there is no replublican party
the same will happen nationally
almost all I have read that is bad about obama
is either a lie
or is a fault of someone else
we are not electing someone else
Clinton has a violent temper
she once called Bills manager
"You F*****g Jew bastard"
she is connected with the muslioms
to the tune of millions of dollars
she is connected to Monsanto
google monsanto clinton india farmer suicides rose
And I guess there is one big fault he has
he knows how to talk
imagie if he pulls that on congress
and the rest of the wotld
Oh yeah
his farts stink
there is so much crap associated with her
the replicans will have a field day
They know they can't win against Obama
we are sick of their lies
In Illinois there is no replublican party
the same will happen nationally
almost all I have read that is bad about obama
is either a lie
or is a fault of someone else
we are not electing someone else
Clinton has a violent temper
she once called Bills manager
"You F*****g Jew bastard"
she is connected with the muslioms
to the tune of millions of dollars
she is connected to Monsanto
google monsanto clinton india farmer suicides rose
And I guess there is one big fault he has
he knows how to talk
imagie if he pulls that on congress
and the rest of the wotld
Oh yeah
his farts stink
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) lexington
1:57AM Mar 27th 2008
Denise wrote: Lexington, thanks for your comments.
One should not complain of others patronizing when one is doing the same thing. If reading blogs is such a juvenille pursuit, why are you here?
My hits are actually way up as well as my comment count since the inception of this blog in October.
I can't imagine where you're getting your numbers from. And according to MY math my commenters are about 75% pro-Hillary.What blog to you write for? I'd like to stop by some time and see your work."
Lexington writes: Denise, bless your heart, but you do patronize, and so does Tommy, especially the both of you patronize African American. However, this comment of yours "I would like to point out that your patronizing attitude is really very, very rude to people in general. ". . . The same public who, if they even voted, probably is not engaged enough in the process to know how it really works . . .(Denise Williams)" does emphasizing that people are dumb. How utterly crass and very liberally sounding. How about jumping off your pedestal and joining the human race, if you know what being human means, which I seriously doubt.
I don't write blogs, I write books (non-fiction)and do research. What I am doing on this dismal blog is collecting research for a book I intend to publish after the election. Trust me to say you won't be in it (nor Tommy) - I am only collecting intelligent comments from bloggers and their audience. Did you not think that the intelligencia would pass this opportunity up on a historic political race?
Interesting data to date: on this blog, the Clinton respondents are far more polite and debate more with facts.
The Obama respondents are rude and threatening in their language use and debate more with rumor and innuendo.
The McCain supporters are like the Clinton respondents.
that's the fact, Denise. Can't help the distribution - its all binomial. However, I don't expect humans to act objectively. We aren't robots, we are psycho-logical - a blend between objectivity and emotion. I would respectfully argue that you and Tommy are too emotional, darlin'. You preach too much and generate a form of mild hysteria and a lot of dissonance.
My personal comment: Perhaps, Denise and Tommy, if your blog were more precise and factual instead of laden with innuendo and presumptions, you might frame your argument better with a better audience response. How much they paying you for this sophmoric rhetoric and pretensions to political savvy.
And do you know what a phoenix is or a black swan?
One should not complain of others patronizing when one is doing the same thing. If reading blogs is such a juvenille pursuit, why are you here?
My hits are actually way up as well as my comment count since the inception of this blog in October.
I can't imagine where you're getting your numbers from. And according to MY math my commenters are about 75% pro-Hillary.What blog to you write for? I'd like to stop by some time and see your work."
Lexington writes: Denise, bless your heart, but you do patronize, and so does Tommy, especially the both of you patronize African American. However, this comment of yours "I would like to point out that your patronizing attitude is really very, very rude to people in general. ". . . The same public who, if they even voted, probably is not engaged enough in the process to know how it really works . . .(Denise Williams)" does emphasizing that people are dumb. How utterly crass and very liberally sounding. How about jumping off your pedestal and joining the human race, if you know what being human means, which I seriously doubt.
I don't write blogs, I write books (non-fiction)and do research. What I am doing on this dismal blog is collecting research for a book I intend to publish after the election. Trust me to say you won't be in it (nor Tommy) - I am only collecting intelligent comments from bloggers and their audience. Did you not think that the intelligencia would pass this opportunity up on a historic political race?
Interesting data to date: on this blog, the Clinton respondents are far more polite and debate more with facts.
The Obama respondents are rude and threatening in their language use and debate more with rumor and innuendo.
The McCain supporters are like the Clinton respondents.
that's the fact, Denise. Can't help the distribution - its all binomial. However, I don't expect humans to act objectively. We aren't robots, we are psycho-logical - a blend between objectivity and emotion. I would respectfully argue that you and Tommy are too emotional, darlin'. You preach too much and generate a form of mild hysteria and a lot of dissonance.
My personal comment: Perhaps, Denise and Tommy, if your blog were more precise and factual instead of laden with innuendo and presumptions, you might frame your argument better with a better audience response. How much they paying you for this sophmoric rhetoric and pretensions to political savvy.
And do you know what a phoenix is or a black swan?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) MOJOJOJO
2:03AM Mar 27th 2008
Hillary Clinton’s Spiritual Adivsor Doug Coe And His Curious Admiration For Nazis And Communist Killings
VIDEO INCLUDED IN LINK
http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/03/25/hillary-clintons-spiritual-adivsor-doug-coe-and-his-curious-admiration-for-nazis-and-communist-killings
WONDER HOW WELL IT WILL GO OVER WITH CATHOLIC PENNSYLVANIANS ON HILLARY'S PRO-CHOICE! DEPENDING WHO HILLARY IS TALKING TO SHE WILL EITHER BE PRO-ABORTION OR ANTI-ABORTION! FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP! POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS DECIDED BY THE MAJORITY!
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-4.html
Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics
News: For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive
religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is
she triangulating—or living her faith?
By Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet
Illustration by: Andy Friedman
September 1, 2007
TOOLS
EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article
Digg
del.icio.us
Reddit
Yahoo MyWeb
BACKTALK
E-mail the editor
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Netscape
Google Google
RELATED ARTICLES
* Harpy, Hero, Heretic: Why Hillary Clinton Stokes Our Deepest
Fears and Darkest Hatreds
* The Men Who Would Beat Hillary
MoJo Blog
U.S. Spies Have Serious Job Gripes, Survey Finds
"John McCain's Slacks Don't Reach His Ankles"
McCain's Free Ride (in the MSM) on Rod Parsley
HRC Says Wright Would Not Be Her Pastor; So Who Would Be?
Astroturf Axelrod?
Wall Street Welfare
John McCain Plagiarizes Himself
Clinton: Sleeping with the Enemy To Mess Up Obama's Bed?
Stuff Some Money In Your Mattress, Just In Case
One Superdelegate Who Gets It
It was an elegant example of the Clinton style, a rhetorical maneuver
subtle, bold, and banal all at once. During a Democratic candidate
forum in June, hosted by the liberal evangelical group Sojourners,
Hillary Clinton fielded a softball query about Bill's infidelity: How
had her faith gotten her through the Lewinsky scandal?
After a glancing shot at Republican "pharisees," Clinton explained
that, of course, her "very serious" grounding in faith had helped her
weather the affair. But she had also relied on the "extended faith
family" that came to her aid, "people whom I knew who were literally
praying for me in prayer chains, who were prayer warriors for me."
Such references to spiritual warfare—prayer as battle against
Satan, evil, and sin—might seem like heavy evangelical rhetoric for
the senator from New York, but they went over well with the Sojourners
audience, as did her call to "inject faith into policy." It was
language that recalled Clinton's Jesus moment a year earlier, when
she'd summoned the Bible to decry a Republican anti-immigrant
initiative that she said would "criminalize the good Samaritan...and
even Jesus himself." Liberal Christians crowed ("Hillary Clinton
Shows the Way Democrats Can Use the Bible," declared a blogger at
TPMCafe) while conservative pundits cried foul, accusing Clinton of
scoring points with a faith not really her own.
In fact, Clinton's God talk is more complicated—and more deeply
rooted—than either fans or foes would have it, a revelation not
just of her determination to out-Jesus the gop, but of the powerful
religious strand in her own politics. Over the past year, we've
interviewed dozens of Clinton's friends, mentors, and pastors about
her faith, her politics, and how each shapes the other. And while
media reports tend to characterize Clinton's subtle recalibration of
tone and style as part of the Democrats' broader move to recapture
the terrain of "moral values," those who know her say there's far
more to it than that.
Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active
participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are
part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her
collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback
(R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from
that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just
cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader
of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers
to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good
that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open
Bibles, and prayer."
Clinton's faith is grounded in the Methodist beliefs she grew up with
in Park Ridge, Illinois, a conservative Chicago suburb where she was
active in her church's altar guild, Sunday school, and youth group.
It was there, in 1961, that she met the Reverend Don Jones, a
30-year-old youth pastor; Jones, a friend of Clinton's to this day,
told us he knows "more about Hillary Clinton's faith than anybody
outside her family."
Because Jones introduced Clinton and her teenage peers to the civil
rights movement and modern poetry and art, Clinton biographers often
cast him as a proto-'60s liberal who sowed seeds of radicalism
throughout Park Ridge. Jones, though, describes his theology as
neoorthodox, guided by the belief that social change should come
about slowly and without radical action. It emerged, he says, as a
third way, a reaction against both separatist fundamentalism and the
New Deal's labor-based liberalism.
Under Jones' mentorship, Clinton learned about Reinhold Niebuhr and
Paul Tillich—thinkers whom liberals consider their own, but whom
young Hillary Rodham encountered as theological conservatives. The
Niebuhr she studied was a cold warrior, dismissive of the progressive
politics of his earlier writing. "He'd thought that once we were
unionized, the kingdom of God would be ushered in," Jones explains.
"But the effect of those two world wars and the violence that they
produced shook his faith in liberal theology. He came to believe that
the achievement of justice meant a clear understanding of the
limitations of the human condition." Tillich, whose sermon on grace
Clinton turned to during the Lewinsky scandal, today enjoys a
following among conservatives for revising the social gospel—the
notion that Christians are to improve humanity's lot here on earth by
fighting poverty, inequality, and exploitation—to emphasize
individual redemption instead of activism.
Niebuhr and Tillich's combination of aggressiveness in foreign
affairs and limited domestic ambition naturally led Clinton toward
the gop. She was a Goldwater Girl who, under the tutelage of her high
school history teacher Paul Carlson (whom Jones describes as "to the
right of the John Birchers"), attended biweekly anticommunist
meetings and later served as president of Wellesley's Young
Republicans chapter. Out of step with the era's radicalism, Clinton
wrote Jones from college, lamenting that her fellow students didn't
believe that one could be "a mind conservative and a heart liberal."
To Jones, this question indicated that Clinton shared Niebuhr's
notion of Christians needing to have "a dark enough view of life that
they can be realistic about what's possible."
Two decades later, while Bill was campaigning for president, Clinton
picked up that theme once more, displaying a theological depth that
conservative believers could appreciate. In an interview with the
United Methodist Reporter, she expressed regret that her church had
focused too much on social gospel concerns in the '60s, '70s, and
'80s, "to the exclusion of personal faith and growth." The spirit,
believe theological conservatives, matters more than the flesh.
Clinton added that she was happy to see her liberal denomination
becoming more salvation centered in the '90s.
When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps
was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she
regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan
Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of
conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a
leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace
Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida
Democrat.
Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"),
a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and
military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ,
many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the
annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the
group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican
Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the
elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes.
Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's
plan.
Clinton declined our requests for an interview about her faith, but
in Living History, she describes her first encounter with Fellowship
leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars,
the Fellowship's majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, "is
a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor
and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to
deepen his or her relationship with God."
The Fellowship's ideas are essentially a blend of Calvinism and
Norman Vincent Peale, the 1960s preacher of positive thinking. It's a
cheery faith in the "elect" chosen by a single voter—God—and a
devotion to Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers....The powers that be are ordained of God." Or, as Coe has put
it, "we work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."
When Time put together a list of the nation's 25 most powerful
evangelicals in 2005, the heading for Coe's entry was "The Stealth
Persuader." "You know what I think of when I think of Doug Coe?" the
Reverend Schenck (a Coe admirer) asked us. "I think literally of the
guy in the smoky back room that you can't even see his face. He sits
in the corner, and you see the cigar, and you see the flame, and you
hear his voice—but you never see his face. He's that shadowy
figure."
Coe has been an intimate of every president since Ford, but he rarely
imposes on chief executives, who see him as a slightly mystical but
apolitical figure. Rather, Coe uses his access to the Oval Office as
currency with lesser leaders. "If Doug Coe can get you some face time
with the President of the United States," one official told the author
of a Princeton study of the National Prayer Breakfast last year, "then
you will take his call and seek his friendship. That's power."
"If you're going to do religion in public life," concurs Schenck, a
Jewish convert to fundamentalist Christianity who's retained his
sense of irony, Coe's friendship is a kind of "kosher...seal of
approval."
Coe's friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts
(R-Pa.). Under Coe's guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer
breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts
rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an
off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of
Congress created by Tom DeLay. The corresponding Senate Values Action
Team is guided by another Coe protégé, Brownback, who also claims to
have recruited King Abdullah of Jordan into a regular study of Jesus'
teachings.
The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God—leaders
of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the
spirit." According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in
the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the
Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The
Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of
Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez
Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to
Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other
generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular
visitor to Coe's Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent
where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing
and spiritual guidance.
We contacted all of Clinton's Fellowship cell mates, but only one
agreed to speak—though she stressed that there's much she's not "at
liberty" to reveal. Grace Nelson used to be the organizer of the
Florida Governor's Prayer Breakfast, which makes her a piety broker
in Florida politics—she would decide who could share the head table
with Jeb Bush. Clinton's prayer cell was tight-knit, according to
Nelson, who recalled that one of her conservative prayer partners was
at first loath to pray for the first lady, but learned to "love
Hillary as much as any of us love Hillary." Cells like these, Nelson
added, exist in "parliaments all over the world," with all welcome so
long as they submit to "the person of Jesus" as the source of their
power.
Throughout her time at the White House, Clinton writes in Living
History, she took solace from "daily scriptures" sent to her by her
Fellowship prayer cell, along with Coe's assurances that she was
right where God wanted her. (Clinton's sense of divine guidance has
been noted by others: Bishop Richard Wilke, who presided over the
United Methodist Church of Arkansas during her years in Little Rock,
told us, "If I asked Hillary, 'What does the Lord want you to do?'
she would say, 'I think I'm called by the Lord to be in public
service at whatever level he wants me.'")
Coe counsels that Fellowship cells shouldn't engage in direct
evangelical activism, but rather allow Christian causes to benefit
from the bonds that develop within the cells. Former Nixon counsel
Chuck Colson provides a rare illustration of the process in his 1976
Watergate memoir, Born Again. Facing prosecution in 1973, Colson
allowed Coe to ensconce him in a Fellowship cell with a Nixon foe,
Senator Harold Hughes. Hughes became the Nixon hatchet man's
staunchest defender, voting in favor of a possible pardon for Colson
and later supporting Colson as he built Prison Fellowship, now one of
the most powerful organizations of the Christian right.
That's how it works: The Fellowship isn't out to turn liberals into
conservatives; rather, it convinces politicians they can transcend
left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics.
Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move
rightward.
This is in line with the Christian right's long-term strategy.
Francis Schaeffer, late guru of the movement, coined the term
"cobelligerency" to describe the alliances evangelicals must forge
with conservative Catholics. Colson, his most influential disciple,
has refined the concept of cobelligerency to deal with less-than-pure
politicians. In this application, conservatives sit pretty and wait
for liberals looking for common ground to come to them. Clinton,
Colson told us, "has a lot of history" to overcome, but he sees her
making the right moves.
These days, Clinton has graduated from the political wives' group
into what may be Coe's most elite cell, the weekly Senate Prayer
Breakfast. Though weighted Republican, the breakfast—regularly
attended by about 40 members—is a bipartisan opportunity for
politicians to burnish their reputations, giving Clinton the chance
to profess her faith with men such as Brownback as well as the twin
terrors of Oklahoma, James Inhofe and Tom Coburn, and, until
recently, former Senator George Allen (R-Va.). Democrats in the group
include Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, who told us that the separation
of church and state has gone too far; Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is also
a regular.
Unlikely partnerships have become a Clinton trademark. Some are
symbolic, such as her support for a ban on flag burning with Senator
Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and funding for research on the dangers of video
games with Brownback and Santorum. But Clinton has also joined the gop
on legislation that redefines social justice issues in terms of
conservative morality, such as an anti-human-trafficking law that
withheld funding from groups working on the sex trade if they didn't
condemn prostitution in the proper terms. With Santorum, Clinton
co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act; she didn't back off
even after Republican senators such as Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter
pulled their names from the bill citing concerns that the measure
would protect those refusing to perform key aspects of their
jobs—say, pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions,
or police officers who won't guard abortion clinics.
Clinton has championed federal funding of faith-based social
services, which she embraced years before George W. Bush did; Marci
Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, says that the Clintons'
approach to faith-based initiatives "set the stage for Bush." Clinton
has also long supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that
has become a purity test for any candidate wishing to avoid war with
the Christian right.
Liberal rabbi Michael Lerner, whose "politics of meaning" Clinton
made famous in a speech early in her White House tenure, sees the
senator's ambivalence as both more and less than calculated
opportunism. He believes she has genuine sympathy for liberal
causes—rights for women, gays, immigrants—but often will not
follow through. "There is something in her that pushes her toward
caring about others, as long as there's no price to pay. But in
politics, there is a price to pay."
In politics, those who pay tribute to the powerful also reap rewards.
When Ed Klein's attack bio, The Truth About Hillary, came out in 2005,
some of her most prominent defenders were Christian conservatives,
among them Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert
Mohler. "Christians," he declared, "should repudiate this book and
determine to take no pleasure in it."
Senator Brownback understood the temptation. He used to hate Clinton
so much, he told us, that the hate hurt. Then came the Clintons' 1994
National Prayer Breakfast appearance with Mother Teresa, who upbraided
the couple for their pro-choice views. Bill made no attempt to conceal
his anger, but Hillary took it and smiled. Brownback remembers
thinking, "Now, there's gotta be a great lesson here." He didn't know
what it was until Clinton got to the Senate and joined him in
supporting DeLay's Day of Reconciliation resolution following the
2000 election, a proposal described by its backers as a call to "pray
for our leaders." Now, Brownback considers Clinton "a beautiful child
of the living God."
Clinton, for her part, turned Mother Teresa's sucker punch into
political opportunity. She met with the nun after the prayer
breakfast, visited her orphanage in India, helped her set up another
one in Washington (which has since become an apparently inoperative
branch of Mother Teresa's conservative Vatican order, the
Missionaries of Charity), and generally built a highly visible
friendship with a figure whose moral bona fides also came with an
anti-abortion imprimatur that couldn't but help Clinton on the right.
Of course, no matter how much Clinton speaks of common ground, she
doesn't stand a chance of winning votes among pro-lifers. As Tom
McClusky of the Family Research Council, command central for
Washington's Christian right, told us, movement conservatives
consider legislation like Clinton's Putting Prevention First Act,
which supports greater access to birth control and sex ed, "just
another condom giveaway."
But the senator's project isn't the conversion of her adversaries;
it's tempering their opposition so she can court a new generation of
Clinton Republicans, values voters who have grown estranged from the
Christian right. And while such crossover conservatives may never
agree with her on the old litmus-test issues, there is an important,
and broader, common ground—the kind of faith-based politics that,
under the right circumstances, will permit majority morality to trump
individual rights. The libertarian Cato Institute recently observed
that Clinton is "adding the paternalistic agenda of the religious
right to her old-fashioned liberal paternalism." Clinton suggests as
much herself in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village, where she writes
approvingly of religious groups' access to schools, lessons in
Scripture, and "virtue" making a return to the classroom.
Then, as now, Clinton confounded secularists who recognize public
faith only when it comes wrapped in a cornpone accent. Clinton speaks
instead the language of nondenominationalism—a sober, eloquent
appreciation of "values," the importance of prayer, and "heart"
convictions—which liberals, unfamiliar with the history of
evangelical coalition building, mistake for a tidy, apolitical
accommodation, a personal separation of church and state. Nor do
skeptical voters looking for political opportunism recognize that,
when Clinton seeks guidance among prayer partners such as Coe and
Brownback, she is not so much triangulating—much as that may have
become second nature—as honoring her convictions. In her own way,
she is a true believer.
WHITE MAN'S BURDEN = ALL AMERICAN'S BURDEN = JUSTIFICATION FOR
IMPERIALISM
FEAR IS A GHOST OF THE IMAGE FROM OUR OWN HEARTS AND ONLY LIVES ONCE!
IT CONTROLS THE SOUL IF THE SOUL ALLOWS!
LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN AND THE TRUTH SHALL BE SAID AND WE SHALL BE
LAIN SAFE IN OUR BEDS
VOTE FOR NO PRESIDENT
(REJECT AND DENOUNCE) HILLARY GOLDEN COW CLINTON! A STORY
THAT WILL BE ONCE TOLD AND THAN FORGOTTEN! STRICKEN FROM THE HISTORY
BOOKS!!
VIDEO INCLUDED IN LINK
http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/03/25/hillary-clintons-spiritual-adivsor-doug-coe-and-his-curious-admiration-for-nazis-and-communist-killings
WONDER HOW WELL IT WILL GO OVER WITH CATHOLIC PENNSYLVANIANS ON HILLARY'S PRO-CHOICE! DEPENDING WHO HILLARY IS TALKING TO SHE WILL EITHER BE PRO-ABORTION OR ANTI-ABORTION! FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP! POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS DECIDED BY THE MAJORITY!
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-4.html
Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics
News: For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive
religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is
she triangulating—or living her faith?
By Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet
Illustration by: Andy Friedman
September 1, 2007
TOOLS
EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article
Digg
del.icio.us
Yahoo MyWeb
BACKTALK
E-mail the editor
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Netscape
Google Google
RELATED ARTICLES
* Harpy, Hero, Heretic: Why Hillary Clinton Stokes Our Deepest
Fears and Darkest Hatreds
* The Men Who Would Beat Hillary
MoJo Blog
U.S. Spies Have Serious Job Gripes, Survey Finds
"John McCain's Slacks Don't Reach His Ankles"
McCain's Free Ride (in the MSM) on Rod Parsley
HRC Says Wright Would Not Be Her Pastor; So Who Would Be?
Astroturf Axelrod?
Wall Street Welfare
John McCain Plagiarizes Himself
Clinton: Sleeping with the Enemy To Mess Up Obama's Bed?
Stuff Some Money In Your Mattress, Just In Case
One Superdelegate Who Gets It
It was an elegant example of the Clinton style, a rhetorical maneuver
subtle, bold, and banal all at once. During a Democratic candidate
forum in June, hosted by the liberal evangelical group Sojourners,
Hillary Clinton fielded a softball query about Bill's infidelity: How
had her faith gotten her through the Lewinsky scandal?
After a glancing shot at Republican "pharisees," Clinton explained
that, of course, her "very serious" grounding in faith had helped her
weather the affair. But she had also relied on the "extended faith
family" that came to her aid, "people whom I knew who were literally
praying for me in prayer chains, who were prayer warriors for me."
Such references to spiritual warfare—prayer as battle against
Satan, evil, and sin—might seem like heavy evangelical rhetoric for
the senator from New York, but they went over well with the Sojourners
audience, as did her call to "inject faith into policy." It was
language that recalled Clinton's Jesus moment a year earlier, when
she'd summoned the Bible to decry a Republican anti-immigrant
initiative that she said would "criminalize the good Samaritan...and
even Jesus himself." Liberal Christians crowed ("Hillary Clinton
Shows the Way Democrats Can Use the Bible," declared a blogger at
TPMCafe) while conservative pundits cried foul, accusing Clinton of
scoring points with a faith not really her own.
In fact, Clinton's God talk is more complicated—and more deeply
rooted—than either fans or foes would have it, a revelation not
just of her determination to out-Jesus the gop, but of the powerful
religious strand in her own politics. Over the past year, we've
interviewed dozens of Clinton's friends, mentors, and pastors about
her faith, her politics, and how each shapes the other. And while
media reports tend to characterize Clinton's subtle recalibration of
tone and style as part of the Democrats' broader move to recapture
the terrain of "moral values," those who know her say there's far
more to it than that.
Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active
participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are
part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her
collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback
(R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from
that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just
cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader
of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers
to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good
that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open
Bibles, and prayer."
Clinton's faith is grounded in the Methodist beliefs she grew up with
in Park Ridge, Illinois, a conservative Chicago suburb where she was
active in her church's altar guild, Sunday school, and youth group.
It was there, in 1961, that she met the Reverend Don Jones, a
30-year-old youth pastor; Jones, a friend of Clinton's to this day,
told us he knows "more about Hillary Clinton's faith than anybody
outside her family."
Because Jones introduced Clinton and her teenage peers to the civil
rights movement and modern poetry and art, Clinton biographers often
cast him as a proto-'60s liberal who sowed seeds of radicalism
throughout Park Ridge. Jones, though, describes his theology as
neoorthodox, guided by the belief that social change should come
about slowly and without radical action. It emerged, he says, as a
third way, a reaction against both separatist fundamentalism and the
New Deal's labor-based liberalism.
Under Jones' mentorship, Clinton learned about Reinhold Niebuhr and
Paul Tillich—thinkers whom liberals consider their own, but whom
young Hillary Rodham encountered as theological conservatives. The
Niebuhr she studied was a cold warrior, dismissive of the progressive
politics of his earlier writing. "He'd thought that once we were
unionized, the kingdom of God would be ushered in," Jones explains.
"But the effect of those two world wars and the violence that they
produced shook his faith in liberal theology. He came to believe that
the achievement of justice meant a clear understanding of the
limitations of the human condition." Tillich, whose sermon on grace
Clinton turned to during the Lewinsky scandal, today enjoys a
following among conservatives for revising the social gospel—the
notion that Christians are to improve humanity's lot here on earth by
fighting poverty, inequality, and exploitation—to emphasize
individual redemption instead of activism.
Niebuhr and Tillich's combination of aggressiveness in foreign
affairs and limited domestic ambition naturally led Clinton toward
the gop. She was a Goldwater Girl who, under the tutelage of her high
school history teacher Paul Carlson (whom Jones describes as "to the
right of the John Birchers"), attended biweekly anticommunist
meetings and later served as president of Wellesley's Young
Republicans chapter. Out of step with the era's radicalism, Clinton
wrote Jones from college, lamenting that her fellow students didn't
believe that one could be "a mind conservative and a heart liberal."
To Jones, this question indicated that Clinton shared Niebuhr's
notion of Christians needing to have "a dark enough view of life that
they can be realistic about what's possible."
Two decades later, while Bill was campaigning for president, Clinton
picked up that theme once more, displaying a theological depth that
conservative believers could appreciate. In an interview with the
United Methodist Reporter, she expressed regret that her church had
focused too much on social gospel concerns in the '60s, '70s, and
'80s, "to the exclusion of personal faith and growth." The spirit,
believe theological conservatives, matters more than the flesh.
Clinton added that she was happy to see her liberal denomination
becoming more salvation centered in the '90s.
When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps
was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she
regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan
Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of
conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a
leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace
Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida
Democrat.
Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"),
a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and
military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ,
many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the
annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the
group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican
Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the
elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes.
Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's
plan.
Clinton declined our requests for an interview about her faith, but
in Living History, she describes her first encounter with Fellowship
leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars,
the Fellowship's majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, "is
a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor
and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to
deepen his or her relationship with God."
The Fellowship's ideas are essentially a blend of Calvinism and
Norman Vincent Peale, the 1960s preacher of positive thinking. It's a
cheery faith in the "elect" chosen by a single voter—God—and a
devotion to Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers....The powers that be are ordained of God." Or, as Coe has put
it, "we work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."
When Time put together a list of the nation's 25 most powerful
evangelicals in 2005, the heading for Coe's entry was "The Stealth
Persuader." "You know what I think of when I think of Doug Coe?" the
Reverend Schenck (a Coe admirer) asked us. "I think literally of the
guy in the smoky back room that you can't even see his face. He sits
in the corner, and you see the cigar, and you see the flame, and you
hear his voice—but you never see his face. He's that shadowy
figure."
Coe has been an intimate of every president since Ford, but he rarely
imposes on chief executives, who see him as a slightly mystical but
apolitical figure. Rather, Coe uses his access to the Oval Office as
currency with lesser leaders. "If Doug Coe can get you some face time
with the President of the United States," one official told the author
of a Princeton study of the National Prayer Breakfast last year, "then
you will take his call and seek his friendship. That's power."
"If you're going to do religion in public life," concurs Schenck, a
Jewish convert to fundamentalist Christianity who's retained his
sense of irony, Coe's friendship is a kind of "kosher...seal of
approval."
Coe's friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts
(R-Pa.). Under Coe's guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer
breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts
rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an
off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of
Congress created by Tom DeLay. The corresponding Senate Values Action
Team is guided by another Coe protégé, Brownback, who also claims to
have recruited King Abdullah of Jordan into a regular study of Jesus'
teachings.
The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God—leaders
of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the
spirit." According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in
the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the
Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The
Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of
Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez
Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to
Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other
generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular
visitor to Coe's Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent
where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing
and spiritual guidance.
We contacted all of Clinton's Fellowship cell mates, but only one
agreed to speak—though she stressed that there's much she's not "at
liberty" to reveal. Grace Nelson used to be the organizer of the
Florida Governor's Prayer Breakfast, which makes her a piety broker
in Florida politics—she would decide who could share the head table
with Jeb Bush. Clinton's prayer cell was tight-knit, according to
Nelson, who recalled that one of her conservative prayer partners was
at first loath to pray for the first lady, but learned to "love
Hillary as much as any of us love Hillary." Cells like these, Nelson
added, exist in "parliaments all over the world," with all welcome so
long as they submit to "the person of Jesus" as the source of their
power.
Throughout her time at the White House, Clinton writes in Living
History, she took solace from "daily scriptures" sent to her by her
Fellowship prayer cell, along with Coe's assurances that she was
right where God wanted her. (Clinton's sense of divine guidance has
been noted by others: Bishop Richard Wilke, who presided over the
United Methodist Church of Arkansas during her years in Little Rock,
told us, "If I asked Hillary, 'What does the Lord want you to do?'
she would say, 'I think I'm called by the Lord to be in public
service at whatever level he wants me.'")
Coe counsels that Fellowship cells shouldn't engage in direct
evangelical activism, but rather allow Christian causes to benefit
from the bonds that develop within the cells. Former Nixon counsel
Chuck Colson provides a rare illustration of the process in his 1976
Watergate memoir, Born Again. Facing prosecution in 1973, Colson
allowed Coe to ensconce him in a Fellowship cell with a Nixon foe,
Senator Harold Hughes. Hughes became the Nixon hatchet man's
staunchest defender, voting in favor of a possible pardon for Colson
and later supporting Colson as he built Prison Fellowship, now one of
the most powerful organizations of the Christian right.
That's how it works: The Fellowship isn't out to turn liberals into
conservatives; rather, it convinces politicians they can transcend
left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics.
Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move
rightward.
This is in line with the Christian right's long-term strategy.
Francis Schaeffer, late guru of the movement, coined the term
"cobelligerency" to describe the alliances evangelicals must forge
with conservative Catholics. Colson, his most influential disciple,
has refined the concept of cobelligerency to deal with less-than-pure
politicians. In this application, conservatives sit pretty and wait
for liberals looking for common ground to come to them. Clinton,
Colson told us, "has a lot of history" to overcome, but he sees her
making the right moves.
These days, Clinton has graduated from the political wives' group
into what may be Coe's most elite cell, the weekly Senate Prayer
Breakfast. Though weighted Republican, the breakfast—regularly
attended by about 40 members—is a bipartisan opportunity for
politicians to burnish their reputations, giving Clinton the chance
to profess her faith with men such as Brownback as well as the twin
terrors of Oklahoma, James Inhofe and Tom Coburn, and, until
recently, former Senator George Allen (R-Va.). Democrats in the group
include Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, who told us that the separation
of church and state has gone too far; Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is also
a regular.
Unlikely partnerships have become a Clinton trademark. Some are
symbolic, such as her support for a ban on flag burning with Senator
Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and funding for research on the dangers of video
games with Brownback and Santorum. But Clinton has also joined the gop
on legislation that redefines social justice issues in terms of
conservative morality, such as an anti-human-trafficking law that
withheld funding from groups working on the sex trade if they didn't
condemn prostitution in the proper terms. With Santorum, Clinton
co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act; she didn't back off
even after Republican senators such as Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter
pulled their names from the bill citing concerns that the measure
would protect those refusing to perform key aspects of their
jobs—say, pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions,
or police officers who won't guard abortion clinics.
Clinton has championed federal funding of faith-based social
services, which she embraced years before George W. Bush did; Marci
Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, says that the Clintons'
approach to faith-based initiatives "set the stage for Bush." Clinton
has also long supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that
has become a purity test for any candidate wishing to avoid war with
the Christian right.
Liberal rabbi Michael Lerner, whose "politics of meaning" Clinton
made famous in a speech early in her White House tenure, sees the
senator's ambivalence as both more and less than calculated
opportunism. He believes she has genuine sympathy for liberal
causes—rights for women, gays, immigrants—but often will not
follow through. "There is something in her that pushes her toward
caring about others, as long as there's no price to pay. But in
politics, there is a price to pay."
In politics, those who pay tribute to the powerful also reap rewards.
When Ed Klein's attack bio, The Truth About Hillary, came out in 2005,
some of her most prominent defenders were Christian conservatives,
among them Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert
Mohler. "Christians," he declared, "should repudiate this book and
determine to take no pleasure in it."
Senator Brownback understood the temptation. He used to hate Clinton
so much, he told us, that the hate hurt. Then came the Clintons' 1994
National Prayer Breakfast appearance with Mother Teresa, who upbraided
the couple for their pro-choice views. Bill made no attempt to conceal
his anger, but Hillary took it and smiled. Brownback remembers
thinking, "Now, there's gotta be a great lesson here." He didn't know
what it was until Clinton got to the Senate and joined him in
supporting DeLay's Day of Reconciliation resolution following the
2000 election, a proposal described by its backers as a call to "pray
for our leaders." Now, Brownback considers Clinton "a beautiful child
of the living God."
Clinton, for her part, turned Mother Teresa's sucker punch into
political opportunity. She met with the nun after the prayer
breakfast, visited her orphanage in India, helped her set up another
one in Washington (which has since become an apparently inoperative
branch of Mother Teresa's conservative Vatican order, the
Missionaries of Charity), and generally built a highly visible
friendship with a figure whose moral bona fides also came with an
anti-abortion imprimatur that couldn't but help Clinton on the right.
Of course, no matter how much Clinton speaks of common ground, she
doesn't stand a chance of winning votes among pro-lifers. As Tom
McClusky of the Family Research Council, command central for
Washington's Christian right, told us, movement conservatives
consider legislation like Clinton's Putting Prevention First Act,
which supports greater access to birth control and sex ed, "just
another condom giveaway."
But the senator's project isn't the conversion of her adversaries;
it's tempering their opposition so she can court a new generation of
Clinton Republicans, values voters who have grown estranged from the
Christian right. And while such crossover conservatives may never
agree with her on the old litmus-test issues, there is an important,
and broader, common ground—the kind of faith-based politics that,
under the right circumstances, will permit majority morality to trump
individual rights. The libertarian Cato Institute recently observed
that Clinton is "adding the paternalistic agenda of the religious
right to her old-fashioned liberal paternalism." Clinton suggests as
much herself in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village, where she writes
approvingly of religious groups' access to schools, lessons in
Scripture, and "virtue" making a return to the classroom.
Then, as now, Clinton confounded secularists who recognize public
faith only when it comes wrapped in a cornpone accent. Clinton speaks
instead the language of nondenominationalism—a sober, eloquent
appreciation of "values," the importance of prayer, and "heart"
convictions—which liberals, unfamiliar with the history of
evangelical coalition building, mistake for a tidy, apolitical
accommodation, a personal separation of church and state. Nor do
skeptical voters looking for political opportunism recognize that,
when Clinton seeks guidance among prayer partners such as Coe and
Brownback, she is not so much triangulating—much as that may have
become second nature—as honoring her convictions. In her own way,
she is a true believer.
WHITE MAN'S BURDEN = ALL AMERICAN'S BURDEN = JUSTIFICATION FOR
IMPERIALISM
FEAR IS A GHOST OF THE IMAGE FROM OUR OWN HEARTS AND ONLY LIVES ONCE!
IT CONTROLS THE SOUL IF THE SOUL ALLOWS!
LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN AND THE TRUTH SHALL BE SAID AND WE SHALL BE
LAIN SAFE IN OUR BEDS
VOTE FOR NO PRESIDENT
(REJECT AND DENOUNCE) HILLARY GOLDEN COW CLINTON! A STORY
THAT WILL BE ONCE TOLD AND THAN FORGOTTEN! STRICKEN FROM THE HISTORY
BOOKS!!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) lexington
2:20AM Mar 27th 2008
Yes, Denise, calling you "darlin'" is patronizing. How'd it feel? Well, that is how a minority feels when you gush all over them and pretend equality - which you all do.
A real life story for you: A colleague of mine has problems with her right hand due to an accident back in 1971. On the steps of NIU in Illinois, a group of blacks and a group of white males were in a racial uproar. A knife flashed and the crowd, observing this contretemps of racial disquality coming from both groups, protested. Well, this little young lady came marching between the two, reached out and grabbed the knife by the blade and threw it on the ground. At the same time, she proceeded to yell at the leader of the black contingent, then at the whites - giving them what for in a very blunt manner - ending that "this is NOT how to create a better world". Trust me to say she was not patronizing - she had the conviction and principle to tell it like it is - not wrap it all up in pretty language and marketing a brand politician. Ah well, you most likely don't get it.
Just a final comment, I do fact check your data. David, Tommy and you should stick more closely to the facts. Opinions are just that, and as the old collogial goes, "talks cheap but it takes money to buy whiskey". Maybe shore up your creds. Just a suggestion.
Glad you write, Tommy. Keep it up - but maybe fiction would be a better pursuit. Just a suggestion.
A real life story for you: A colleague of mine has problems with her right hand due to an accident back in 1971. On the steps of NIU in Illinois, a group of blacks and a group of white males were in a racial uproar. A knife flashed and the crowd, observing this contretemps of racial disquality coming from both groups, protested. Well, this little young lady came marching between the two, reached out and grabbed the knife by the blade and threw it on the ground. At the same time, she proceeded to yell at the leader of the black contingent, then at the whites - giving them what for in a very blunt manner - ending that "this is NOT how to create a better world". Trust me to say she was not patronizing - she had the conviction and principle to tell it like it is - not wrap it all up in pretty language and marketing a brand politician. Ah well, you most likely don't get it.
Just a final comment, I do fact check your data. David, Tommy and you should stick more closely to the facts. Opinions are just that, and as the old collogial goes, "talks cheap but it takes money to buy whiskey". Maybe shore up your creds. Just a suggestion.
Glad you write, Tommy. Keep it up - but maybe fiction would be a better pursuit. Just a suggestion.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Denise Williams
2:28AM Mar 27th 2008
Do stop back when book is done.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) lexington
2:28AM Mar 27th 2008
Yes, Denise, calling you "darlin'" is patronizing. How'd it feel? Well, that is how a minority feels when you gush all over them and pretend equality - which you all do.
A real life story for you: A colleague of mine has problems with her right hand due to an accident back in 1971. On the steps of NIU in Illinois, a group of blacks and a group of white males were in a racial uproar. A knife flashed and the crowd, observing this contretemps of racial disquality coming from both groups, protested. Well, this little young lady came marching between the two, reached out and grabbed the knife by the blade and threw it on the ground. At the same time, she proceeded to yell at the leader of the black contingent, then at the whites - giving them what for in a very blunt manner - ending that "this is NOT how to create a better world". Trust me to say she was not patronizing - she had the conviction and principle to tell it like it is - not wrap it all up in pretty language and marketing a brand politician. Ah well, you most likely don't get it.
Just a final comment, I do fact check your data. David, Tommy and you should stick more closely to the facts. Opinions are just that, and as the old collogial goes, "talks cheap but it takes money to buy whiskey". Maybe shore up your creds. Just a suggestion.
Glad you write, Tommy. Keep it up - but maybe fiction would be a better pursuit. Just a suggestion.
Now, Denise, my final comment to Tommy sound just like you all write.
And it is very patronizing. God Bless and Good Night.
A real life story for you: A colleague of mine has problems with her right hand due to an accident back in 1971. On the steps of NIU in Illinois, a group of blacks and a group of white males were in a racial uproar. A knife flashed and the crowd, observing this contretemps of racial disquality coming from both groups, protested. Well, this little young lady came marching between the two, reached out and grabbed the knife by the blade and threw it on the ground. At the same time, she proceeded to yell at the leader of the black contingent, then at the whites - giving them what for in a very blunt manner - ending that "this is NOT how to create a better world". Trust me to say she was not patronizing - she had the conviction and principle to tell it like it is - not wrap it all up in pretty language and marketing a brand politician. Ah well, you most likely don't get it.
Just a final comment, I do fact check your data. David, Tommy and you should stick more closely to the facts. Opinions are just that, and as the old collogial goes, "talks cheap but it takes money to buy whiskey". Maybe shore up your creds. Just a suggestion.
Glad you write, Tommy. Keep it up - but maybe fiction would be a better pursuit. Just a suggestion.
Now, Denise, my final comment to Tommy sound just like you all write.
And it is very patronizing. God Bless and Good Night.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
(0) Add your comments
DAILY QUOTE
DAILY LINK
Now Commenting
- grnber on:
Sotomayor Tougher on Crime Than Any of Her Colleagues - gai65 on:
Pope Benedict's Meeting with Obama a Setback for Conservative Catholics - Max Jonas on:
Sotomayor Tougher on Crime Than Any of Her Colleagues - cme777cleveland on:
Sotomayor Tougher on Crime Than Any of Her Colleagues - paul on:
Pope Benedict's Meeting with Obama a Setback for Conservative Catholics - uhlerrobertj on:
Sotomayor Tougher on Crime Than Any of Her Colleagues
Submit Your Favorite Links
No.
Props
Props
- 85
- 44
- 54
- 45
- 41
- 28
News From Trusted Politics Daily Partners
- GOP: Sotomayor approval not guaranteed
- Obama and pope meet for first time
- Geithner wants clampdown on derivatives
- World leaders: Obama doing 'everything right' so far
- Obama gives Iran deadline on nuclear program
