*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[adonis]

As much as I want Clinton to step aside, her staying in the race in and of itself isn't a horrible thing. It's the scorched earth tactics that she's using.Though of course you could argue that lenghtening the race just makes those tactics inevitable, and the bad blood that'll make it hard to unite against the GOP.

I think the DNC really needs to look at these proportionate delegate counts going forward. At the very least, they need to eliminate the whole "superdelegate" plan. In any tight race, having so many superdelegates in proportion to total delegates is going to make it very difficult for a candidate to win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. I don't know if winner take all primaries and caucuses is the answer, but it would settle a nominee much earlier and would have prevented a lot of the divisiveness that is now occurring.

It also likely would've prevented Obama from winning.

 

[Punchie]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

When asked if Barack was Muslim, she replied "not as far as I know"

 

[Joe Bryant]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

 

[adonis]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

When asked if Barack was Muslim, she replied "not as far as I know"

From the March 5 edition of NBC's Today: VIEIRA: Let me ask you one last question before I let you go. On 60 Minutes over the weekend, you were asked about Senator Obama and whether you believed he was a Muslim, and you said, and I'm quoting now, "I take him on the basis of what he says. There isn't any reason to doubt that, as far as I know." Why not just say simply, "No"? CLINTON: Well, I went on to say that I've been the subject of a lot of rumors that, you know, have been totally made up, and, you know, this is a scurrilous rumor and it should be, you know, obviously rejected out of hand. I don't know what more Senator Obama or his campaign or any of us can say. You know, it shouldn't be believed. VIEIRA: So, some in his campaign have said that you were feeding the stereotype. Was that your intention or were they -- CLINTON: Of course not. Of course not. You know, this campaign needs to be about what we're going to do for America and it needs to be about the differences between us on the issues that affect the people of this country. VIEIRA: All right, Senator Hillary Clinton, thanks, and once again, congratulations.

 

[Mark Davis]

As much as I want Clinton to step aside, her staying in the race in and of itself isn't a horrible thing. It's the scorched earth tactics that she's using.Though of course you could argue that lenghtening the race just makes those tactics inevitable, and the bad blood that'll make it hard to unite against the GOP.

I think the DNC really needs to look at these proportionate delegate counts going forward. At the very least, they need to eliminate the whole "superdelegate" plan. In any tight race, having so many superdelegates in proportion to total delegates is going to make it very difficult for a candidate to win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. I don't know if winner take all primaries and caucuses is the answer, but it would settle a nominee much earlier and would have prevented a lot of the divisiveness that is now occurring.

It also likely would've prevented Obama from winning.

Take this cycle out of it so that way nobody's personal biases for who they want to win shade their view. Starting with 2012 wouldn't this make more sense for the party? Otherwise, I think what we're seeing now could replay itself out again in the future. My opinion is that a protracted primary season like this only increases the division and hostility between the camps.

 

[ericttspikes]

If the roles had been reversed, Obama would have absolutely stayed in just like Clinton. Absolutley no question about it. And for good reason. As it's turned out, she still has a huge say in how this plays out. Nobody knows what will happen.Because of where she is today is exactly why she didn't throw in the towel back then. The same works for Obama. It would have been absolutely the wrong thing for her to quit back then after Super Tuesday. And it would have been wrong for Obama to quit had the roles been reversed.Honestly, anyone that plays the "Obama would have 'done the right thing and been classy and stepped aside' had the roles been reversed" thing comes off at best as intellectually dishonest. This is big time. Clinton shouldn't have quit back then when she had a real chance at a huge comeback. Obama wouldn't quit either had the roles been reversed.J

I have no idea IF Obama would of quit after losing 11 states in a row, but I do believe the pressure for him to do so would of been greater for him than Clinton. Heck, he's leading now and being asked to take the #2 role on the ticket. Many super delegates had long ago pledged for Clinton before these races even started. A losing streak of 11 states for "some guy with no experience" would started the slide of super delegates to Clinton weeks ago IMO and this thing would be over. "Being classy" would have nothing to do with it. If he lost 11 in a row and had pressure exerted on him to step down and he wanted a career in the Democratic party he'd have a tough decision. Clinton, by who she is, doesn't have to worry about boo. Bill is arguably the most powerful figure in the party right now and he's not going to say anything. She can basically do whatever she wants to without worrying about political consequences. I think the way she is running her campaign proves that.

 

[adonis]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

I try to look into and be fair on what I criticize her for, but if you have any specific requests, I can take a look. This is the first one I've seen that blatantly misrepresents the truth.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

She's claiming the Obama camp is calling her racist.

On Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show last night, an Obama-supporting panelist did use the words "racist" and "racism" to describe Ferraro's statements. I'm not sure how closely connected he was to the Obama campaign, but he was an insider with a pro-Obama bias.

I'm pretty sure commentators across the spectrum have called her statements racist. Even Pat Buchanan said she was "absolutely correct" - just sayin.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And he doesn't have to ensure that rules are changed, or situations are changed, to get his way, because if things stay the same, he'll be the nominee.

How? Neither will have the delagate count necessary under the DNC rules. If things stay the same, the convention will pick the nominee based on criteria above and beyond the simple counted votes of the primary and caucus system.

Right now, he has the delegate lead, the states lead, and the popular vote lead by over half a million. The super delegates, if they had to decide today, would support Obama enough to give him the nomination. That's what I mean.

Delegates is all that matters. Hillary already has you guys using her terms. The "popular vote" and "number of states won" isn't what picks the DNC candidate, the delegates are. And you are assuming that last part and you should know by now that you can't.

While it's true, if the delegate lead is slim, super delegates could go either way.Currently, Obama has 1406 pledged delegates and clinton has 1246. That's a 160 delegate difference. Those are the delegates that represent the will of the people, which the super delegates will not vote en masse against.Counting super delegates, which likely won't be used to make arguments to superdelegates about the will of the people, Obama still has a commanding lead with 1618 to Hillary's 1494. A difference of 124.The popular vote totals are equally convincing, with Obama having a lead of over 700,000 votes with 13,280,770 to Clinton's 12,577,044.Most realistic predictions of how the election will turn out do not predict much of a change in the leads of any of these categories.

Again you are assuming the supers do something you want them to do and are using Hillary's terminology to get there. You are helping to fight her fight by even giving credit to the non delagate count arguments of popular vote and total states.You guys are alowing her to define the race. Why should she drop out?

What? What terminology is that? This is actual election terminology, not hillary terminology. I get my numbers, and terms, from early on in the election, as well as real clear politics. Using the names for the delegates is the proper way to refer to them.This entire race has been about delegates. There's a magic number of delegates to get, just like for republicans. Obama has 1618 total, but only 1406 of them are pledged meaning they cannot be changed (realistically). THe super delegates can be changed. This isn't Clinton terminology, it's been around since day 1 of the race.She can stay in the race, but stop being so divisive, and put all smear tactics and comments about race out of the campaign.

You are saying he has won the most states and has the popular vote. Those are her arguments, used to make the delegate difference not seem so significant or important, and also allow an alternative method of picking the nominee become legitimate. You guys need to stick to the delegate count and nothing more.Problem is, no one has enough of a delegate count, which means that other stuff might matter. It's a circular problem that creates the possibility of her taking the nomination.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

When asked if Barack was Muslim, she replied "not as far as I know"

From the March 5 edition of NBC's Today:

VIEIRA: Let me ask you one last question before I let you go. On 60 Minutes over the weekend, you were asked about Senator Obama and whether you believed he was a Muslim, and you said, and I'm quoting now, "I take him on the basis of what he says. There isn't any reason to doubt that, as far as I know." Why not just say simply, "No"?

CLINTON: Well, I went on to say that I've been the subject of a lot of rumors that, you know, have been totally made up, and, you know, this is a scurrilous rumor and it should be, you know, obviously rejected out of hand. I don't know what more Senator Obama or his campaign or any of us can say. You know, it shouldn't be believed.

VIEIRA: So, some in his campaign have said that you were feeding the stereotype. Was that your intention or were they --

CLINTON: Of course not. Of course not. You know, this campaign needs to be about what we're going to do for America and it needs to be about the differences between us on the issues that affect the people of this country.

VIEIRA: All right, Senator Hillary Clinton, thanks, and once again, congratulations.

It alwsy seems to come down to the bolded doesn't it?

 

[aardball44]

Does anyone else have the nagging feeling that all this hoopla won't matter come November 2008? That all the sturm und drang of the Democratic primaries -- and all the speculations contained in this thread of more than 6,700 posts -- will be meaningless once Bush, Cheney and their boys decide to engage Iran in The Next Big War sometime between early August and early October?



Or am I simply being too fatalistic/pessimistic/ istic?

 

[adonis]

Problem is, no one has enough of a delegate count, which means that other stuff might matter. It's a circular problem that creates the possibility of her taking the nomination.

Fair enough and I agree. The lead isn't big enough to preclude her from getting it close enough to be a push. That's what I'm really afraid of.Some superdelegates have put that number at a margin of less than 100 delegates difference. I'd assume it'd be below 50. But regardless, his lead of 160+, while good for the moment, has to hold up over large states that he might not do well in and be sustained in smaller states he's expected to do well in.It's still up in the air. Clinton has every right to stay in it, but again, I'm just asking that she do her best to keep the distinctions between herself and Obama non-divisive, and on topic. Distance herself immediately from negative campaign tactics, discuss the issues, and discuss why she'd be better for the job, not why Obama isn't qualified at all for the job...that does the democratic party no good and only helps herself and the republicans.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Problem is, no one has enough of a delegate count, which means that other stuff might matter. It's a circular problem that creates the possibility of her taking the nomination.

Fair enough and I agree. The lead isn't big enough to preclude her from getting it close enough to be a push. That's what I'm really afraid of.Some superdelegates have put that number at a margin of less than 100 delegates difference. I'd assume it'd be below 50. But regardless, his lead of 160+, while good for the moment, has to hold up over large states that he might not do well in and be sustained in smaller states he's expected to do well in.It's still up in the air. Clinton has every right to stay in it, but again, I'm just asking that she do her best to keep the distinctions between herself and Obama non-divisive, and on topic. Distance herself immediately from negative campaign tactics, discuss the issues, and discuss why she'd be better for the job, not why Obama isn't qualified at all for the job...that does the democratic party no good and only helps herself and the republicans.

Then you are asking her to play a game that no one has ever played in American politics. "Negative" campaigning is the backbone of politcking in this country and always has been. IF you think Obama isn't doing it, you are wrong. To his credit, or benefit, though, is that he doesn't need to pound on her negatives all the time because we all know them. She frankly has nowhere to go but down.

 

[adonis]

Problem is, no one has enough of a delegate count, which means that other stuff might matter. It's a circular problem that creates the possibility of her taking the nomination.

Fair enough and I agree. The lead isn't big enough to preclude her from getting it close enough to be a push. That's what I'm really afraid of.Some superdelegates have put that number at a margin of less than 100 delegates difference. I'd assume it'd be below 50. But regardless, his lead of 160+, while good for the moment, has to hold up over large states that he might not do well in and be sustained in smaller states he's expected to do well in.It's still up in the air. Clinton has every right to stay in it, but again, I'm just asking that she do her best to keep the distinctions between herself and Obama non-divisive, and on topic. Distance herself immediately from negative campaign tactics, discuss the issues, and discuss why she'd be better for the job, not why Obama isn't qualified at all for the job...that does the democratic party no good and only helps herself and the republicans.

Then you are asking her to play a game that no one has ever played in American politics. "Negative" campaigning is the backbone of politcking in this country and always has been. IF you think Obama isn't doing it, you are wrong. To his credit, or benefit, though, is that he doesn't need to pound on her negatives all the time because we all know them. She frankly has nowhere to go but down.

Then I'm asking her to do something that hasn't been done before. I believe Obama is doing the best job of it I've ever seen. I also think Clinton is restraining herself somewhat as well. I want to see more. Part of Obama's appeal is ushering in a new climate, apart from just having things done "the way american politics has always been played". He's doing his best to keep it on the issues, and to keep upbeat. I respect and appreciate that and would like for Clinton to do the same. What's wrong, apart from the unlikelihood of it happening, for people to want a departure from politics as usual with all of its associated negativity?

 

[Joe Bryant]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm sure this has been proposed, but does anyone think that Hillary knows she can't win, and is just extending the race to wreck Obama's chances, so she can run again in 2012?

I think that's a real possibility. I'm not a mind-reader so I don't know exactly what Hillary's thinking, but I wouldn't put something like that past her. At all.

 

[adonis]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

All of the other ones are right, with the slight exception of the Bill Clinton comment about jessie jackson, and the last one that starts "allegedly".The Bill Clinton comments may have not been a political calculation, but there's certainly enough reason to believe it's true, but it's not a slam dunk. The 6th point about alleged release by camp clinton of pictures of obama in questionable garb, that's a bit more distant from actual reason. I'd leave it off if you want to stick closely to facts.But the others are certainly true.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

I don't think it's wrong. It's like Keith Olbermann mentioned last night. none of the things she's done are outright racist or fearmongering, but they're borderline. An dwhen you get enough borderline things piling up, it looks worse and worse.

 

[NCCommish]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Problem is, no one has enough of a delegate count, which means that other stuff might matter. It's a circular problem that creates the possibility of her taking the nomination.

Fair enough and I agree. The lead isn't big enough to preclude her from getting it close enough to be a push. That's what I'm really afraid of.Some superdelegates have put that number at a margin of less than 100 delegates difference. I'd assume it'd be below 50. But regardless, his lead of 160+, while good for the moment, has to hold up over large states that he might not do well in and be sustained in smaller states he's expected to do well in.It's still up in the air. Clinton has every right to stay in it, but again, I'm just asking that she do her best to keep the distinctions between herself and Obama non-divisive, and on topic. Distance herself immediately from negative campaign tactics, discuss the issues, and discuss why she'd be better for the job, not why Obama isn't qualified at all for the job...that does the democratic party no good and only helps herself and the republicans.

Then you are asking her to play a game that no one has ever played in American politics. "Negative" campaigning is the backbone of politcking in this country and always has been. IF you think Obama isn't doing it, you are wrong. To his credit, or benefit, though, is that he doesn't need to pound on her negatives all the time because we all know them. She frankly has nowhere to go but down.

Then I'm asking her to do something that hasn't been done before. I believe Obama is doing the best job of it I've ever seen. I also think Clinton is restraining herself somewhat as well. I want to see more. Part of Obama's appeal is ushering in a new climate, apart from just having things done "the way american politics has always been played". He's doing his best to keep it on the issues, and to keep upbeat. I respect and appreciate that and would like for Clinton to do the same. What's wrong, apart from the unlikelihood of it happening, for people to want a departure from politics as usual with all of its associated negativity?

Becasue they really don't want it. They never have and never will. It sounds good to say it to a pollster or at a family function or office party, but the truth is that negative campaigning and attacks and news stories about past money lenders turned federal criminals shape voting decisions in this country and always will.Alexander Hamilton wrote a pamphlete calling John Adams a mental patient when Hamilton wasn't even in the government or running for anything, and Thomas Jefferson openly contemplated the senility of George Washington. None of these guys, Barack included, hold a candle to those men, yet you expect all them today, when information is even faster to the public and easier to release, to honestly hold back and change? After over 200 years just in this country alone?The people that are calling for hope and change and a different way of doing it now are some of the same people that acll George Bush a nazi, stupid or worse, and Karl Rove the antichrist. NEgativity is part of the human societal condition. Unless you believe Barack to be the second coming, he isn't changing it.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Does anyone else have the nagging feeling that all this hoopla won't matter come November 2008? That all the sturm und drang of the Democratic primaries -- and all the speculations contained in this thread of more than 6,700 posts -- will be meaningless once Bush, Cheney and their boys decide to engage Iran in The Next Big War sometime between early August and early October?



Or am I simply being too fatalistic/pessimistic/ istic?

My fatalism/pessimism centers around Obama and that he's compared to Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. And what happened to them.

 

[bigbottom]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

She's claiming the Obama camp is calling her racist.

Sorry. I asked the question incorrectly. Has anyone from the Obama campaign called her a racist?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

So what? Does anybody in America seriously believe that Jesse Jackson would be a national figure if he were white? She was right when she was talking about Jackson. She's wrong when she's talking about Obama because he brings lots of strong political skills to the table that would be the envy of most candidates, but she's just mistaken, not racist. Ferraro is making an empirical statement that's either true when applied to a particular politician (Jackson) or false (Obama).

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

If by "the muslim thing was wrong" you meant that there was more to the story? Yes.If you meant it wasn't a qualified response, then it was absolutely accurate.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On the other hand, I don't really want to try to hard to defend Geraldine Ferraro. Her subsequent "They're only attacking me because I'm white" argument is beyond ludicrous.

 

[NCCommish]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

So what? Does anybody in America seriously believe that Jesse Jackson would be a national figure if he were white? She was right when she was talking about Jackson. She's wrong when she's talking about Obama because he brings lots of strong political skills to the table that would be the envy of most candidates, but she's just mistaken, not racist. Ferraro is making an empirical statement that's either true when applied to a particular politician (Jackson) or false (Obama).

I don't know if he would or not. There are white leaders of the civil rights movement that did pretty well for themselves fame and position wise.

 

[Mark Davis]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

This is what I don't get. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, just like those who disagree with her are entitled to theirs. To label her a racist, is there something from her past voting record or political action that would justify this? She gave her opinion, and some of the politically correct crowd didn't agree. I admit I'm no expert on her voting record from the past, so evidence may be there. But from everything I've read of her past and her stances on issues she was a supporter of civil rights and had no record of anything that could be construed as racist.

 

[adonis]

Becasue they really don't want it. They never have and never will. It sounds good to say it to a pollster or at a family function or office party, but the truth is that negative campaigning and attacks and news stories about past money lenders turned federal criminals shape voting decisions in this country and always will.Alexander Hamilton wrote a pamphlete calling John Adams a mental patient when Hamilton wasn't even in the government or running for anything, and Thomas Jefferson openly contemplated the senility of George Washington. None of these guys, Barack included, hold a candle to those men, yet you expect all them today, when information is even faster to the public and easier to release, to honestly hold back and change? After over 200 years just in this country alone?The people that are calling for hope and change and a different way of doing it now are some of the same people that acll George Bush a nazi, stupid or worse, and Karl Rove the antichrist. NEgativity is part of the human societal condition. Unless you believe Barack to be the second coming, he isn't changing it.

There was slavery around when Hamilton wrote what he did, women couldn't vote, there was no car, and no airplanes. Things have changed, thoughts have changed, public awareness has changed, many things have changed, yet we still can't get the ridiculous out of politics. Surely there were many who said blacks would never have equal rights with whites. Surely there were many who said women would never vote because they never had since the beginning of our country. But what kind of argument is that? Just because things have been the same don't mean they have to continue to be the same.If you think there is no desire in america for a different type of politics, I believe you're mistaken. Obama is tapping into that feeling, and he's feeding us who pay attention a fresher type of politics. I believe McCain represents a higher standard of politics as well than what we're used to seeing.Racism has been around forever, and while it's not gone, it's shamed out of the public limelight. So is bigotry. Those are pretty basic parts of humanity as well. If we as a culture can get sick enough with the way politics has been done, maybe we can shame out negative campaigning.In debates, Clinton made some particularly bad comments and was booed for it. People don't "need" negative campaigns, the press does. Why condone a baseness of our nature and say we can never change? It's like embracing backwardness.Let me ask you this: Do you think the public dialogue would be improved, that we would have better public servants, that people would be able to make better decisions on who to support if negative campaigning was greatly reduced? Can you find any benefit at all to a reduction in negativity in our political landscape?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

If the roles had been reversed, Obama would have absolutely stayed in just like Clinton. Absolutley no question about it. And for good reason. As it's turned out, she still has a huge say in how this plays out. Nobody knows what will happen.Because of where she is today is exactly why she didn't throw in the towel back then. The same works for Obama. It would have been absolutely the wrong thing for her to quit back then after Super Tuesday. And it would have been wrong for Obama to quit had the roles been reversed.Honestly, anyone that plays the "Obama would have 'done the right thing and been classy and stepped aside' had the roles been reversed" thing comes off at best as intellectually dishonest. This is big time. Clinton shouldn't have quit back then when she had a real chance at a huge comeback. Obama wouldn't quit either had the roles been reversed.J

I agree to a point, but also think that the pressure on him to get out after 11 losses in a row would have been far greater than what she has had to endure. She was the frontrunner coming into this thing whose "time" it was to be the Dem nominee. I feel she is staying in only because she feels entitled to the position.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

This is what I don't get. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, just like those who disagree with her are entitled to theirs. To label her a racist, is there something from her past voting record or political action that would justify this? She gave her opinion, and some of the politically correct crowd didn't agree. I admit I'm no expert on her voting record from the past, so evidence may be there. But from everything I've read of her past and her stances on issues she was a supporter of civil rights and had no record of anything that could be construed as racist.

That's why no one from the campaign is saying she's racist. Stupid, yes. Racially insensitive, yes. But no one from the campaign (that I know of) is calling her a racist.Commentators can call her anything they want.

 

[bigbottom]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

Here's the clip.By the way, I listed those as the negative attacks people have been citing. Frankly, this particular exchange doesn't bother me in the least. But some have viewed the after-pause qualification "as far as I know" and her accompanying tone and facial expression as an intentional effort to leave the door cracked on the Muslim rumors.

 

[adonis]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

She's claiming the Obama camp is calling her racist.

Sorry. I asked the question incorrectly. Has anyone from the Obama campaign called her a racist?

Obama himself chose not to use the word racist, but instead used the word "wrongheaded" and proceeded to explain why.If anyone under him used the word racist, it should be trumped by his own claim, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has been said.

 

[aardball44]

Does anyone else have the nagging feeling that all this hoopla won't matter come November 2008? That all the sturm und drang of the Democratic primaries -- and all the speculations contained in this thread of more than 6,700 posts -- will be meaningless once Bush, Cheney and their boys decide to engage Iran in The Next Big War sometime between early August and early October?

:(

Or am I simply being too fatalistic/pessimistic/ istic?

My fatalism/pessimism centers around Obama and that he's compared to Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. And what happened to them.

Word. Something like that would cripple this nation every bit as much as -- strike that, more than -- an economic downturn, an expensive war or a systematic weakening of our civil liberties would.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

On the other hand, I don't really want to try to hard to defend Geraldine Ferraro. Her subsequent "They're only attacking me because I'm white" argument is beyond ludicrous.

This defense is exactly why I think it was orchestrated from the Clinton campaign. It follows exactly how they've executed the various smears followed by a retreat to the victim card.Regardless of the subject, it plays out the same the same way: Get the topic out there and if you're called out for dirty tactics then compain about being "attacked".

 

[bigbottom]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

It wasn't wrong. "As far as I know" is a qualification. Now whether the qualification reveals intent to keep the rumors going is debatable. Frankly, I don't really think much about it. But you should check out the video I linked. I think it's the way she delivers the qualification that has raised suspicions for some.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

This is what I don't get. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, just like those who disagree with her are entitled to theirs. To label her a racist, is there something from her past voting record or political action that would justify this? She gave her opinion, and some of the politically correct crowd didn't agree. I admit I'm no expert on her voting record from the past, so evidence may be there. But from everything I've read of her past and her stances on issues she was a supporter of civil rights and had no record of anything that could be construed as racist.

Do you think advisors who "give their opinion" that Clinton is a monster should be removed?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

And he doesn't have to ensure that rules are changed, or situations are changed, to get his way, because if things stay the same, he'll be the nominee.

How? Neither will have the delagate count necessary under the DNC rules. If things stay the same, the convention will pick the nominee based on criteria above and beyond the simple counted votes of the primary and caucus system.

Right now, he has the delegate lead, the states lead, and the popular vote lead by over half a million. The super delegates, if they had to decide today, would support Obama enough to give him the nomination. That's what I mean.

Delegates is all that matters. Hillary already has you guys using her terms. The "popular vote" and "number of states won" isn't what picks the DNC candidate, the delegates are. And you are assuming that last part and you should know by now that you can't.

While it's true, if the delegate lead is slim, super delegates could go either way.Currently, Obama has 1406 pledged delegates and clinton has 1246. That's a 160 delegate difference. Those are the delegates that represent the will of the people, which the super delegates will not vote en masse against.Counting super delegates, which likely won't be used to make arguments to superdelegates about the will of the people, Obama still has a commanding lead with 1618 to Hillary's 1494. A difference of 124.The popular vote totals are equally convincing, with Obama having a lead of over 700,000 votes with 13,280,770 to Clinton's 12,577,044.Most realistic predictions of how the election will turn out do not predict much of a change in the leads of any of these categories.

Again you are assuming the supers do something you want them to do and are using Hillary's terminology to get there. You are helping to fight her fight by even giving credit to the non delagate count arguments of popular vote and total states.You guys are alowing her to define the race. Why should she drop out?

I don't really see that happening here. The Clinton camp keeps trying to move the bar for what winning means, and all we are doing is pointing out that all of her previous attempts are falling short. The Obama campaign has been very consistent about saying this is about delegates, that for more than a month there has been virtually no chance that Clinton can catch up in the pledged delegate count, and that the superdelegates shouldn't vote against the pledged delegates. You haven't heard as much about the popular vote coming out of the Clinton camp recently because I'm sure they are looking at the same numbers we are and realize that they aren't likely to catch up there, or if they do it would essentially just be drawing even. Now they are trying to make the case that somehow all delegates and states aren't equal, ironically while also complaining about the "disenfranchising" of voters in FL and MI.For the most part we are just

 

[bigbottom]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

I try to look into and be fair on what I criticize her for, but if you have any specific requests, I can take a look. This is the first one I've seen that blatantly misrepresents the truth.

Are you saying I've blatantly misrepresented the truth? She qualified her statement that there was nothing on which to base the rumor that Obama is a muslim. The qualified statement is fact. Personally, I don't read anything into the qualification, but some do. Now you can conclude that there was no insidious intent behind the qualification and that people are overreacting or reaching an unfair or unjustified conclusion. But my statement doesn't misrepresent the truth.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

It wasn't wrong. "As far as I know" is a qualification. Now whether the qualification reveals intent to keep the rumors going is debatable. Frankly, I don't really think much about it. But you should check out the video I linked. I think it's the way she delivers the qualification that has raised suspicions for some.

Your list left out the ad where they darkened Obama. It's easy to seem to nitpick if it's one incident, but it's part of a pattern with her and her supporters. Still, interesting that you could some up with so many examples off the top of your head. Each one could be met with "What? Honest mistake! Nothing to see here" type of attitude but it's clearly a patern.

 

[Mark Davis]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

This is what I don't get. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, just like those who disagree with her are entitled to theirs. To label her a racist, is there something from her past voting record or political action that would justify this? She gave her opinion, and some of the politically correct crowd didn't agree. I admit I'm no expert on her voting record from the past, so evidence may be there. But from everything I've read of her past and her stances on issues she was a supporter of civil rights and had no record of anything that could be construed as racist.

Do you think advisors who "give their opinion" that Clinton is a monster should be removed?

No I don't, it's merely their opinion. If the campaign chose freely to remove them so be it. I believe the same thing about Ferraro. If the Clinton campaign chose to remove her, that's their right. I think it's ridiculous that everyone is so sensitive about Ferraro's comments or the "monster" comments about Clinton.

 

[adonis]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

I try to look into and be fair on what I criticize her for, but if you have any specific requests, I can take a look. This is the first one I've seen that blatantly misrepresents the truth.

Are you saying I've blatantly misrepresented the truth? She qualified her statement that there was nothing on which to base the rumor that Obama is a muslim. The qualified statement is fact. Personally, I don't read anything into the qualification, but some do. Now you can conclude that there was no insidious intent behind the qualification and that people are overreacting or reaching an unfair or unjustified conclusion. But my statement doesn't misrepresent the truth.

I wasn't saying that you blatantly misrepresnted the truth, but that the claim itself and its implication blatantly misrepresents the truth. While it's a qualified statement, in context it's obvious that she did not mean it to be open ended. She said earlier that she gave him the benefit of the doubt and that she didn't believe he was a muslim, pressed further, she said she still held that position as there was no reason to believe otherwise, as far as she knew. Then she said she feels for him because stuff like that happens to her all the time.I don't understand how anyone can read the quote in context and come away convinced that she meant him harm by it. She further clarified in another comment that said basically the same thing, that I posted above.I know all you were trying to do was list claims commonly made against clinton, and you rightly posted that one, but I was saying that the claim itself is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, which in that case was that clinton pretty confidently said that she dind't believe Obama was a muslim...yet it's being portrayed like she denied answering confidently, and tagged on "as far as i know" to leave room for doubt. In proper context, it's hard to come to that conclusion.

 

[NCCommish]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

This is what I don't get. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, just like those who disagree with her are entitled to theirs. To label her a racist, is there something from her past voting record or political action that would justify this? She gave her opinion, and some of the politically correct crowd didn't agree. I admit I'm no expert on her voting record from the past, so evidence may be there. But from everything I've read of her past and her stances on issues she was a supporter of civil rights and had no record of anything that could be construed as racist.

Do you think advisors who "give their opinion" that Clinton is a monster should be removed?

No I don't, it's merely their opinion. If the campaign chose freely to remove them so be it. I believe the same thing about Ferraro. If the Clinton campaign chose to remove her, that's their right. I think it's ridiculous that everyone is so sensitive about Ferraro's comments or the "monster" comments about Clinton.

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

It wasn't wrong. "As far as I know" is a qualification. Now whether the qualification reveals intent to keep the rumors going is debatable. Frankly, I don't really think much about it. But you should check out the video I linked. I think it's the way she delivers the qualification that has raised suspicions for some.

There is no question; if you watch the actual interview it plays much differently than reading the transcript. I'd be willing to cut her more benefit of the doubt that it was just an ill timed figure of speech if not for the fact that her staffers were linked to circulating the "Obama is a Muslim" e-mail and sending the picture to Drudge. Individually, all of those could be played off as mistakes but together they start to look like a pattern.

 

[bigbottom]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.

Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"

Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."

Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."

Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."

Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"

Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?

J

I try to look into and be fair on what I criticize her for, but if you have any specific requests, I can take a look. This is the first one I've seen that blatantly misrepresents the truth.

Are you saying I've blatantly misrepresented the truth? She qualified her statement that there was nothing on which to base the rumor that Obama is a muslim. The qualified statement is fact. Personally, I don't read anything into the qualification, but some do. Now you can conclude that there was no insidious intent behind the qualification and that people are overreacting or reaching an unfair or unjustified conclusion. But my statement doesn't misrepresent the truth.

I wasn't saying that you blatantly misrepresnted the truth, but that the claim itself and its implication blatantly misrepresents the truth. While it's a qualified statement, in context it's obvious that she did not mean it to be open ended. She said earlier that she gave him the benefit of the doubt and that she didn't believe he was a muslim, pressed further, she said she still held that position as there was no reason to believe otherwise, as far as she knew. Then she said she feels for him because stuff like that happens to her all the time.I don't understand how anyone can read the quote in context and come away convinced that she meant him harm by it. She further clarified in another comment that said basically the same thing, that I posted above.

I know all you were trying to do was list claims commonly made against clinton, and you rightly posted that one, but I was saying that the claim itself is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, which in that case was that clinton pretty confidently said that she dind't believe Obama was a muslim...yet it's being portrayed like she denied answering confidently, and tagged on "as far as i know" to leave room for doubt. In proper context, it's hard to come to that conclusion.

Have you seen the video? Again, I don't really buy the hype on this one, but it's really the way she delivers the "as far as I know" line that raised some eyebrows. Michelle Malkin (my most favoritest person in the world) discusses this in the clip I linked.

 

[Joe Bryant]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

If by "the muslim thing was wrong" you meant that there was more to the story? Yes.If you meant it wasn't a qualified response, then it was absolutely accurate.

I mean by "wrong" in that it's one of the things people are citing as this no holds barred / scorched earth strategy but when you ask even the most devoted Obama supporters like Adonis, he is honest enough to say it wasn't really anything.I just asked the question of I wondered how much more like that was out there. Frankly, it makes one wonder which side is doing more spinning.J

 

[Sammy3469]

So the new FL/MI "solution" being floated is splitting the MI delegates and halfing the FL delegates and allowing all superdelegates to be seated. That's more or less "fair", right?

 

[shining path]

On the other hand, I don't really want to try to hard to defend Geraldine Ferraro. Her subsequent "They're only attacking me because I'm white" argument is beyond ludicrous.

I don't understand how a politically successful woman, who has probably been staunchly pro-civil rights her entire life, could even think about making such a stupid comment like that. It was literally jaw-dropping. How the hell is the Democratic party supposed to stand on the moral high ground on topics like these when high-ranking democrats are making public statements that would make the most intransigent good ol' boy GOP candidate from Oklahoma blush. What. The. Hell.We're just a little more than a month past Super Tuesday, and things are getting all Lord of the Flies-y already. Come on people. Keep it together.

 

[bigbottom]

So the new FL/MI "solution" being floated is splitting the MI delegates and halfing the FL delegates and allowing all superdelegates to be seated. That's more or less "fair", right?

Can you please explain what you mean by "splitting" and "halfing"?

 

[Mark Davis]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

This is what I don't get. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, just like those who disagree with her are entitled to theirs. To label her a racist, is there something from her past voting record or political action that would justify this? She gave her opinion, and some of the politically correct crowd didn't agree. I admit I'm no expert on her voting record from the past, so evidence may be there. But from everything I've read of her past and her stances on issues she was a supporter of civil rights and had no record of anything that could be construed as racist.

Do you think advisors who "give their opinion" that Clinton is a monster should be removed?

No I don't, it's merely their opinion. If the campaign chose freely to remove them so be it. I believe the same thing about Ferraro. If the Clinton campaign chose to remove her, that's their right. I think it's ridiculous that everyone is so sensitive about Ferraro's comments or the "monster" comments about Clinton.

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

I didn't say I agreed with her opinion so don't try and paint me into that corner. I do believe she has the right to her opinion. Not that it matters at all, but as far as my beliefs, I believe if he wasn't black he wouldn't be carrying the black vote by the margins he is. However, I also believe if he were white he would be doing much better among whites. I'm not sure what the net of the two is so it's my opinion that she's wrong in her assumption. That's only an opinion though and just like her's I don't see what it matters to anyone else what people's individual opinions are about why he is where he is.