The personal attack politics of anything goes

[RunInRed 16,487]

Have we all FINALLY caught on to the Clintons? Hopefully. South Carolina did us all proud, hopefully on Feb 5th, the rest of the country will stand up and follow suit.

A ‘NO’ TO SLIME — BEHIND KENNEDY’S OBAMA ENDORSE

By: Dick Morris

Published in the New York Post on January 29, 2008.

What does Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama really mean?

In addition to seriously boosting Obama’s chances for the Democratic nomination by anointing him as the generational heir to John F. Kennedy, there’s something else that’s just as important for the body politic: Kennedy, Obama and the voters of South Carolina may have tolled the death knell for the Clintons’ reprehensible politics of personal destruction.

It’s about time.

For more than 30 years, no one has been able to stop Bill and Hillary Clinton from routinely acting on their shared base instinct to annihilate anyone who gets in their way, in whatever way it takes, however long it takes, whatever it costs - and then to enjoy watching their targets suffer.

After successfully employing their slash-and-burn tactics for years, they’ve come to truly believe that their reprehensible politics are justified, even necessary.

Remember Hillary’s glee when she announced that the “fun part” of the campaign was about to begin - her attacks on her fellow Democrats? She was serious.

In Washington, Arkansas and recently in South Carolina, the Clintons have used whatever slimy tactics they felt they needed - ruining reputations, invading the privacy of their targets by dispatching private detectives to comb their records, lying about their opponents, blackmailing and threatening women who dared to say “yes” (or even “no”) to Bill.

Remember how the Clintonites released Linda Tripp’s confidential employment files to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker after Clinton hit man Harold Ickes met with Tripp’s boss? Years later, the Defense Department settled a lawsuit with Tripp for over $600,000 for invading her privacy.

Then there were the stories branding Monica Lewinsky as a “stalker” trying to hurt the president: Those were traced back to Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton White House adviser.

This year, Bill Clinton has been Hillary’s hit man, especially in South Carolina, where he was in charge of branding Obama the “black candidate.” Shamelessly seeking to marginalize the first serious African-American candidate for president, Bill worked overtime at stirring dissension. It’s been revolting.

And it seemed that no one could stop them.

Now the voters of South Carolina and the Kennedys have stepped forward and openly challenged the tawdry Clinton politics of personal destruction, their hit job on Obama, their use of the race card, their claims of dynastic privilege.

On Saturday, 55 percent of South Carolina voters said “no” to the Clintons. After listening to the two of them disparage Obama, distort his record, dis his hopes and dreams for America, South Carolina backed Obama and his politics of hope.

And Kennedy, in his lofty endorsement of Obama, served notice on the Clintons that the days of their politics of personal destruction are over.

Apparently Kennedy called the Clintons last week and demanded an immediate end to their transparent racial politics and attempts to destroy Obama. They ignored him.

Now Kennedy has made it clear that the Democratic Party and the voters of America are no longer going to tolerate and ignore the Clintons sordid personal politics. Bravo!

[Tigermike 3,053]

It's a little strange buth this article said basically the same thing. That dims are finally catching on to and seeing the Clinton's for what they are for. Buy you & Al didn't like the article even though it was written by a dim.

You're so funny.

[RunInRed 16,487]

It's a little strange buth this article said basically the same thing. That dims are finally catching on to and seeing the Clinton's for what they are for. Buy you & Al didn't like the article even though it was written by a dim.

You're so funny.

Did you even read my response? Follow your own link....I said "you're looking in the wrong direction if you want a defense of Hillary. The article was dead on."

My quabble with you was that you put forth that article and then followed it with your own commentary of personal attacks calling Obama a socialist and calling Edwards nothing but a pretty face. Just pointing out the hypocrisy in your own words.

[Tigermike 3,053]

It's a little strange buth this article said basically the same thing. That dims are finally catching on to and seeing the Clinton's for what they are for. Buy you & Al didn't like the article even though it was written by a dim.

You're so funny.

Did you even read my response? Follow your own link....I said "you're looking in the wrong direction if you want a defense of Hillary. The article was dead on."

My quabble with you was that you put forth that article and then followed it with your own commentary of personal attacks calling Obama a socialist and calling Edwards nothing but a pretty face. Just pointing out the hypocrisy in your own words.

Yes you did say that but after you said this.

And what are you supposed to look at about the Repubs? Agh I forgot...they are right on all the issues

Obama a socialist and calling Edwards nothing but a pretty face

They aren't? Who knew?

[RunInRed 16,487]

A tongue and cheek response to your attempt to marginalize any one you disagree with and the point that Republicans can do no wrong and have no bad ideas in your opinion - or so it seems. You are far from an objective observer and then you turn around and employ the same tactics you were trying to blast the Clintons for. Again, the hypocrisy is thick.

In my defense of Obama, this is the exact kind of petty politics he is trying to get past.

Again, your opinion.

[otterinbham 0]

To be honest with you, if Obama wins and McCain wins, I think we can actually hope for a civil general election in the fall.

[Tigermike 3,053]

While you are touting praising this article which comes down hard on the Clinton's and their personal attacks, reconcile your opinion here with this.

[RunInRed 16,487]

While you are touting praising this article which comes down hard on the Clinton's and their personal attacks, reconcile your opinion here with this.

Hardly a personal attack, rather a question aimed at bringing attention to the point I made above: There are some committed righties on this board who are so blinded by their ideology that they have no ability to reason or think objectively IMO.

Look exactly what you are doing with Obama...every time he is mentioned you just want to throw out these words like "socialist". Just be honest, he scares you b/c he actually wants to get past this divisiveness that your party relies on.

[jw 4 au 526]

Have we all FINALLY caught on to the Clintons? Hopefully. South Carolina did us all proud, hopefully on Feb 5th, the rest of the country will stand up and follow suit.

A ‘NO’ TO SLIME — BEHIND KENNEDY’S OBAMA ENDORSE

By: Dick Morris

Published in the New York Post on January 29, 2008.

What does Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama really mean?

In addition to seriously boosting Obama’s chances for the Democratic nomination by anointing him as the generational heir to John F. Kennedy, there’s something else that’s just as important for the body politic: Kennedy, Obama and the voters of South Carolina may have tolled the death knell for the Clintons’ reprehensible politics of personal destruction.

It’s about time.

For more than 30 years, no one has been able to stop Bill and Hillary Clinton from routinely acting on their shared base instinct to annihilate anyone who gets in their way, in whatever way it takes, however long it takes, whatever it costs - and then to enjoy watching their targets suffer.

After successfully employing their slash-and-burn tactics for years, they’ve come to truly believe that their reprehensible politics are justified, even necessary.

Remember Hillary’s glee when she announced that the “fun part” of the campaign was about to begin - her attacks on her fellow Democrats? She was serious.

In Washington, Arkansas and recently in South Carolina, the Clintons have used whatever slimy tactics they felt they needed - ruining reputations, invading the privacy of their targets by dispatching private detectives to comb their records, lying about their opponents, blackmailing and threatening women who dared to say “yes” (or even “no”) to Bill.

Remember how the Clintonites released Linda Tripp’s confidential employment files to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker after Clinton hit man Harold Ickes met with Tripp’s boss? Years later, the Defense Department settled a lawsuit with Tripp for over $600,000 for invading her privacy.

Then there were the stories branding Monica Lewinsky as a “stalker” trying to hurt the president: Those were traced back to Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton White House adviser.

This year, Bill Clinton has been Hillary’s hit man, especially in South Carolina, where he was in charge of branding Obama the “black candidate.” Shamelessly seeking to marginalize the first serious African-American candidate for president, Bill worked overtime at stirring dissension. It’s been revolting.

And it seemed that no one could stop them.

Now the voters of South Carolina and the Kennedys have stepped forward and openly challenged the tawdry Clinton politics of personal destruction, their hit job on Obama, their use of the race card, their claims of dynastic privilege.

On Saturday, 55 percent of South Carolina voters said “no” to the Clintons. After listening to the two of them disparage Obama, distort his record, dis his hopes and dreams for America, South Carolina backed Obama and his politics of hope.

And Kennedy, in his lofty endorsement of Obama, served notice on the Clintons that the days of their politics of personal destruction are over.

Apparently Kennedy called the Clintons last week and demanded an immediate end to their transparent racial politics and attempts to destroy Obama. They ignored him.

Now Kennedy has made it clear that the Democratic Party and the voters of America are no longer going to tolerate and ignore the Clintons sordid personal politics. Bravo!

The support of Ted Kennedy should be a joke! How quickly Dems forget that this is an adulterating, alcoholic, spineless murderer (or manslaughterer, however you want to look at it). The things money can buy!!! Am I the only one that feels this way?

I would think the lesser of two evils showing support would be Bill Clinton, he has only proved to be an adulterer.

[Tiger Al 0]

It's a little strange buth this article said basically the same thing. That dims are finally catching on to and seeing the Clinton's for what they are for. Buy you & Al didn't like the article even though it was written by a dim.

You're so funny.

Neither of us commented on the article, mastermind. In fact, NOBODY commented on it except you.

There are some committed righties on this board who are so blinded by their ideology that they have no ability to reason or think objectively IMO.

You've figured it out, RIR.

[Ranger12 46]

There are some committed righties lefties on this board who are so blinded by their ideology that they have no ability to reason or think objectively IMO.

That works both ways bud. However, just because they don't agree with you does not mean they are blind. I edited your post just to show that maybe you are the one that is blind, but can't see past your own ideology to notice it.

I can tell you one thing, you are in for a long political season on this board the way you go about debating. I suggest you watch and learn from your liberal compatriots TigerAl and TexasTiger on how they go about it.

I probably will not be as active in this forum as I was during the last election. With Duncan Hunter out of it now, I can't see myself being strongly behind a particular candidate this year. The GOP candidates are not that great, but I surely can't vote for Clinton or Obama either. Obama is a liar because at the democratic convention, he spoke of working together, yet he either voted the party line or he just did not vote at all. Plus, he is running an ad saying he was "against the Iraq War from the start". Problem is, since he did not become a U.S. Senator until 2005, I want to know where he went on record with that. As a matter of fact, he said in an interview with Tim Russert back in 2004 that he did not know how he would have voted since he was not privy to the intel then. That does not sound like I man that was against the war from the start folks.

Heck, I think John Edwards is a better person then either one of them, but I don't think John Edwards could run this country.

I like Huckabees values, but I am not sure he could run this country either. I am pretty sure Romney can't do the job. McCain probably could do the job, but he is not as conservative as I would like in a candidate that I would vote for.

I will say that I think bragging about having the support of Ted Kennedy is not something I would proud of. As it was pointed out, Teddy is a drunk and despicable person that used his name to keep from being tried on at least manslaughter charges.

[RunInRed 16,487]

There are some committed righties lefties on this board who are so blinded by their ideology that they have no ability to reason or think objectively IMO.

That works both ways bud. However, just because they don't agree with you does not mean they are blind. I edited your post just to show that maybe you are the one that is blind, but can't see past your own ideology to notice it.

I can tell you one thing, you are in for a long political season on this board the way you go about debating. I suggest you watch and learn from your liberal compatriots TigerAl and TexasTiger on how they go about it.

I probably will not be as active in this forum as I was during the last election. With Duncan Hunter out of it now, I can't see myself being strongly behind a particular candidate this year. The GOP candidates are not that great, but I surely can't vote for Clinton or Obama either. Obama is a liar because at the democratic convention, he spoke of working together, yet he either voted the party line or he just did not vote at all. Plus, he is running an ad saying he was "against the Iraq War from the start". Problem is, since he did not become a U.S. Senator until 2005, I want to know where he went on record with that. Heck, I think John Edwards is a better person then either one of them, but I don't think John Edwards could run this country.

I like Huckabees values, but I am not sure he could run this country either. I am pretty sure Romney can't do the job. McCain probably could do the job, but he is not as conservative as I would like in a candidate that I would vote for.

I will say that I think bragging about having the support of Ted Kennedy is not something I would proud of. As it was pointed out, Teddy is a drunk and despicable person that used his name to keep from being tried on at least manslaughter charges.

First off, I have no engrained ideology. As I've stated numerous times, I am open to all honest view points on issues. I do have some positions where I take "liberal" views, I have some position where I tend to take more "conservative" stances and then some issues where I just don't give a damn. So for you to call me "liberal" is just factual inaccurate and a distortion of the truth. I would advise you to avoid that name calling and labeling "style" others have made so acceptable on this board. I'm an American and want what is best for this country.

Let me address your "points" - this classy form of posting you call debating the issues - of calling Obama a liar. If you would do some research, you would see how uneducated you are appearing by making these types of claims:

- Obama has worked with Republicans and across the aisle much more than you would think:

In 2005, he co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[56] He later added three amendments to the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act", which passed the Senate in May 2006

In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the Mexico–United States border.[58] President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."[59]

Partnering first with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[60] The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for a web site, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[61]

In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[62]

Later in 2007, Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accountability Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs.[71] He sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry,[72] and joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.

As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[33] He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for child care.[34] Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.[34]

So to portray Obama as nothing but a "liberal" idealogue who will not work with Republicans and those with opposing points of view is just factually inaccurate

On Iraq:

As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.

In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;

In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;

In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;

In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

So again, if you would do a little research, you might be surprised. There is plenty of evidence out there where he went on the record against the war in Iraq, as early as 2002. I believe there is even a video of his speech on youtube documenting this.

So in summary, I will say to you that your attempt to chide me is laughable for all of the reasons I just pointed out. I will continue to engage in meaningful, truthful debate about any issue with anyone who is capable of having a civilized conversation.

[Tigermike 3,053]

It's a little strange buth this article said basically the same thing. That dims are finally catching on to and seeing the Clinton's for what they are for. Buy you & Al didn't like the article even though it was written by a dim.

You're so funny.

Neither of us commented on the article, mastermind. In fact, NOBODY commented on it except you.

Maybe you should go back and take a look. But then I am sure you didn't mean what you were saying exactly the way it was said.

There are some committed righties on this board who are so blinded by their ideology that they have no ability to reason or think objectively IMO.

You've figured it out, RIR.

And the leftist ideologue speaks up.

[Tigermike 3,053]

While you are touting praising this article which comes down hard on the Clinton's and their personal attacks, reconcile your opinion here with this.

Hardly a personal attack, rather a question aimed at bringing attention to the point I made above: There are some committed righties on this board who are so blinded by their ideology that they have no ability to reason or think objectively IMO.

Look exactly what you are doing with Obama...every time he is mentioned you just want to throw out these words like "socialist". Just be honest, he scares you b/c he actually wants to get past this divisiveness that your party relies on.

Rationalization runs deep with you doesn't it.

[Tiger Al 0]

It's a little strange buth this article said basically the same thing. That dims are finally catching on to and seeing the Clinton's for what they are for. Buy you & Al didn't like the article even though it was written by a dim.

You're so funny.

Neither of us commented on the article, mastermind. In fact, NOBODY commented on it except you.

Maybe you should go back and take a look. But then I am sure you didn't mean what you were saying exactly the way it was said.

I'll say it again: Neither of us commented on the article, mastermind.

There are some committed righties on this board who are so blinded by their ideology that they have no ability to reason or think objectively IMO.

You've figured it out, RIR.

And the leftist ideologue speaks up.

And there is the breadth and depth of your ability to discuss.

[AURaptor 1,126]

There are some committed righties Lefties on this board who are so blinded by their ideology that they have no ability to reason or think objectively IMO.

You've figured it out, RIR.

I fixed it for ya. You're welcome.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Huckabee?

[AFTiger 282]

While you are touting praising this article which comes down hard on the Clinton's and their personal attacks, reconcile your opinion here with this.

Hardly a personal attack, rather a question aimed at bringing attention to the point I made above: There are some committed righties on this board who are so blinded by their ideology that they have no ability to reason or think objectively IMO.

Look exactly what you are doing with Obama...every time he is mentioned you just want to throw out these words like "socialist". Just be honest, he scares you b/c he actually wants to get past this divisiveness that your party relies on.

I think TigerMike may have something

Is Obama the most liberal senator?

Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:20 PM by Mark Murray

Filed Under: 2008, Obama

From NBC's Mark Murray

National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.

But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

National Journal's vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the "most liberal senator" -- even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

As National Journal's editor wrote back then, "[O]ur magazine -- or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition -- has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that's been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong."

Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.

Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now -- just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won't come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: "Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season."

As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn't vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59."

And like with Obama's overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain's social rating....

Full disclosure: This reporter worked and wrote for National Journal from 1997 to 2003.