"Get your kids out and put them in front of the TV: The Clinton Era
ended at 9:34 p.m. EST when Edwards paired with Obama
to bury Hillary as a non-agent of change." --Tom Schaller, on the tag team that beat Hillary, Link
Wait, the "Obama landslide" was what, 38%?
That means 62% of Iowa Democrats didn't like Obama, yet Bush's press
whores keep saying, "America has changed, Obama has charmed the white man."
Anybody believe that?
Remember what they did to Harold Ford?
Who thinks America has changed in the last 14 months?
“Charlie Wilson’s War,” which stars Tom Hanks, tells the story of a hard-drinking,
womanizing Texas congressman who nudged Congress and the Reagan administration
to give more arms, especially high-tech Stinger missiles, to shoot down Soviet helicopters
in Afghanistan in the 1980s. - thus creating Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
But the movie distorts or leaves out a number of crucial details, the most glaring omission
is the fateful trade-off accepted by Reagan when he agreed not to complain about Pakistan’s
efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability in exchange for Pakistani cooperation in
helping the Afghan rebels.
On page 463 of his book, Crile characterizes this deal or understanding as “the dirty little
secret of the Afghan war” –- General Zia al-Haq’s ability to extract not only “massive aid”
from Washington but also to secure Reagan’s acquiescence in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons
program via a congressional waiver of U.S. nonproliferation laws in December 1981.
This bargain may have been dirty but it certainly was no secret. Indeed, Washington’s
acquiescence via the congressional waiver was the subject of continuing press coverage
throughout the 1980s.
But this history remains a taboo topic for many within the Washington Establishment,
especially those who look back favorably on the Reagan presidency.
It was a mistake by the Democrats to fawn over what a great president Saint Reagan was.
When Reagan died, Democrats lined up ten deep to gush torrents about his greatness.
We continue paying for that mistake today.
These days, the GOP can't stop talking about Reagan because the GOP presidents
who followed him were, believe it or not, much worse.
Today in an e-mail to its subscribers, the handjob site Human Events announced
that it had named Rush Limbaugh, the heroin-addicted, child-raping, syphilis "victim"
its “2007 Man of the Year,” for his “relentless pursuit of truth”:
"As a result of orchestrated campaigns against him, Limbaugh has endured boycotts
against his advertisers, pressure on his affiliates to drop his program, and even a campaign
to keep him off Armed Forces Radio. Against Limbaugh’s iron will and focus on truth,
these battles fell flat and Limbaugh’s ratings are stronger than ever. Because his ability to
fight mistruths and politically correct lies has only grown stronger, Human Events is
proud to have him as their “Man of the Year.”
The vulgar Pigboy is much, much bigger than "Human Events," whatever that is,
But by making him MotY, they're guaranteed many, many hours of Rush thanking them
'this great honor," so it's nothing but a publicity stunt for an unheard-of website.
If it wasn't for Rush's massive ego, it wouldn't have worked. But if Rush gets a
mention anywhere, he crows about it for days while saying, "I'm so humbled."
Just a quick thought; it occurs to
me that one of Clinton's central problems
might be that she has spent
entirely too much time listening to consultants
and DNC soothsayers and
not enough time listening to voters.
Do you know of any candidate who's not listening to the people they hired?
I would guess her best advisor is the one she gets for free.
Anyone who has traveled the country in recent months, or years, would
the electorate is pissed, big time, and not in the
mood to hear wish-wash, and none
too keen on someone who sides with the
administration or tries to be both the
liberal and conservative great
I disagree - take away the vote that Obama couldn't cast on Iraq (because he
wasn't even in the game when the war started) and what are their differences?
Gene Lyons recently wrote that Obama's voting record is (my memory)
"remarkably similar" to Hillary's so what outrages the Left so much about her?
And again, if Al Qaeda had killed 3,000 Chicagoans in the Sears Tower,
Obama would've led the charge to "fight terror," whatever that means.
If he didn't, he'd be the former senator from Illinois.
I read today that she is taking control of her own campaign.
the question: Then who the hell has been running things?
Not sure what you're saying - every candidate hired a campaign manager.
Perhaps she's getting more "hands on" after Iowa.
Second question; If it took this long to catch on to campaign mistakes,
what if she
were president? How long would it take to see a mistake,
hmm Iraq-- how many years?
Anyway, just a thought.
RLF, frequent consortiumnews.com guest columnist
Iowa was 4 days ago - you call that slow to react?
One thing to remember: She's the only candidate who has to fight the GOP, and the Democrats and the press and the bloggers and that's a lot of fighting.
Bush's press whores couldn't love Obama more if he was for tax cuts for the super-rich
- that is,
until he wins the nomination and THEN it's Obama's turn to fight the whore press.
Thanks for the note, and if you get a chance, could you ask Bob Parry to state
clearly and plainly why he's trying so hard to stop the former Demo front-runner?
Back in 2004, I was a Wes Clark supporter. When it became clear that
going to be our nominee, I predicted that
we had just lost the fall election, and that
the GOP would use
Kerry as a punching bag, then chew him up and spit him out.
exactly what happened.
Despite his decades in the senate, most people didn't know anything about Kerry,
but people who knew him said he was a helluva fighter and a great closer.
This time around Wes Clark supports Hillary, and more than any other
makes me a Hillary supporter as well, though there are
plenty of other reasons.
I'm guessing she'd want Clark for VP.
It looks like we Democrats may be throwing away a lot more this time
we go with Obama. And this time it's not that I think he
can't win, but worse,
we all lose when he does win.
I assume you mean the general election?
Whenever I hear Obama saying we need to bring people together, unite
the country, etc.
I just cringe. This is naive and dangerous, and
it's exactly what Bush said in 2000.
I don't want someone who is
going to reach out to the Republicans, I want someone
who I know will
Young people see Obama as a breath of fresh air, but is that what we need?
really going to bet the future of the planet on a new guy
about whom we know less than Kerry?
Do we really think the Obama and his touchy-feely rhetoric are going
to stand a chance
against the likes of Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott,
Orrin Hatch and all their cohorts?
These people are ruthless. If Obama is so delusional that he thinks he can
and cooperation from the Republicans, then God help us
when it comes time for him to
deal with Putin, Ahmadinijadm or Kim
As usual, we Democrats seem to be sending our best hope to the
Here's hoping we can wake up before it its too late.
Mark in Columbus, Ohio
It's possible Obama could win and be our greatest president ever,
but right now he's a question mark with a laid-back style and a toothy smile.
I wish Obama could do something to signal that he can slay the Slime Dragon.
He's wrong if he thinks the GOP will play fair like the Clintons.
The Bible says, "To everything, there is a season."
Is this the season for a question mark with a laid-back style and a toothy smile?
It was kind of strange. Watching Hillary try to keep a smile with Rudi or Bill
Richardson listening, I think, to Ron Paul. Or Obama giving everyone that kinda
half man hug thing. Kind of weird.
In the end if I had been sitting in the audience I think it would have been interesting
to sit there through the entire period the candidates were together. Those of us watching
on TV only saw a quick snippet of the candidates greeting each other. I would have
liked to have seen the whole thing, I think a lot could be learned.
They continue to screw up these debates.
If I didn't know it was on, how much of America did?
Note: I'm donation just another $5 to you and even though it's not much,
I would NEVER send a penny to the Democratic party who endlessly
asks me for money. You could imagine what I would write to them.
Hillary needs to stop these talking head by winning New Hampshire.
Aren't those independents REALLY independent?
She needs one victory to shut them up...
Bart, tell me we'll get the strongest leader possible.
Tell me the extremists (on both sides) won't win the day as they did in Iowa?
We need to take back our country from the extremists.
E, Hillary hasn't lost anything yet.
If she won the first few primaries, the Democrats and the whore press would ask, "Are we really going to let
the corporatist Cheney-clone hijack our party?"
which is OK because lying is part of this business.
But if Obama wins the first few primaries, people might wonder if Obama
is the guy we want in charge when the world starts going nuclear-crazy.
Robert Perry is a big disappointment to me.
I don’t understand the hatred from some Democrats
for the Clinton's.
From what I gather (I can't get to Parry to ask him) he wants Hillary to lose
because Bill failed to go after Poppy back in 1993. But I'll bet
that President Obama doesn't turn HIS presidency into a "Get Dubya"
so what's the difference between the two?
One difference is President Obama would have the luxury of looking backwards,
knowing for a FACT that Bush should be held accountable for his crimes.
angry with Bill for not knowing he'd be impeached in reurn for his Obama-like
forgo partisan fighting and working for the American people?
If Parry declines my invitation to gamble, then what could be his reasoning
for wanting to punish Hillary for the "crimes" of her husband?
I guess they think that the republican will play nice with Obama because he
is a fresh face? Will Obama be able to handle the slime you know that its coming.
Anyway Chris Matthews is happy Clinton come in 3rd.
Mike in Mesa Az
Mike, you're 100% right that Matthews is happy that Hillary lost.
So is Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, FOX News, Bush's whore press and the GOP.
"Dear God, please don't let Hillary win.
Instead, let us run against some newbie black guy named Hussein."
They turned John (Purple Heart, War Hero, shrapnel in his ass) Kerry
medal-stealing, scumbag coward who hated the soldiers.
Excerpt: A new poll shows Obama surging to a 10 point lead 39 percent to 29 percent.
If this is
accurate, the Democratic race could be over on Tuesday. Donna Brazile,
Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000, didn't agree; she said the race was
and would go until February 5th." Brazile did say the results in Iowa
felt good and
acknowledged Obama has the "momentum"; but she told Truthout
even if Obama
wins the first three races, she expects the race to continue until super Tuesday.
Others aren't as cautious; the buzz is an Obama win here sets him up so well in
South Carolina this momentum would be very hard to stop. In another development,
Obama picked up a key endorsement: Bill Bradley, the dribbler.
Now that Obama is the "front-runner" is it OK to aim a little criticism his way?
I wouldn't want to appear to be picking on him.
As far as I'm concerned he has been getting pretty much of a free pass.
For example, if he has some dark areas in his past he better come clean NOW!
There will be no forgiveness if he is hiding something the Repukes can latch
onto and cost us another election.
What exactly is his "change" campaign all about anyway? It sounds more like
"Can't we all just get along" all over again. I don't want to get along with those
sonsabitches. No way, no how.
His supporters are major posters on HuffPost and they use the most vile forms
of Republican shit from the 90's against the Clintons. After 7 years of saying
how great the Clinton years were, these dirtbags are now throwing shit at them
with both hands. Something you expect from the Right - but from Democrats?
Feel free to take him on, bro. I'm all for it.
He reminds me of Nader, he wants to go from zero to president.
Since he's still wet behind his big ears, let him put in his time first.
What legislation has he written? What has he done in the Senate
except run for president...zip that's what.
I'm reminded of the really old Popeye cartoon where somebody
convinced Popeye he'd be better off without his spinach.
Popeye threw the can away - it landed on the back of a truck
the truck pulled away, the spinach can called out to Popeye, "You'll be sorry!"
I want a knife fighter to go against the Republican Slime Machine.
But it seems like the Democrats want a pony called "Change," instead.
"We will be regaled with long tales of madrassas and Obama's first name will
become Hussein. Obama is getting a free ride at the moment because of the intense,
nutty, and 15 year old hate for the Clagina (in all honesty, I was a hater up until a
few years ago when I realized cold and calculating competence is better than willful
dishonesty and feckless incompetence). But if and when the queen is vanquished,
all that venom will need a target, and that target will be Obama."
-- John Cole, Link
I'm sure you have read Robert Parry today, who is sticking to
his appraisal of the following Bill Clinton remark.
“She intends to do is to send me and former President Bush around the world
to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again.”
This was in today's mail, but I see nothing about this on Parry's page today.
That was one helluva statement! What were we supposed to make of it?
What do YOU make of it? It can't just hang out there all by itself, sans explication.
Questions abound pertaining to the assumptions that must lie behind such a stunning revelation of strategy.
Stunning revelation of strategy? Friday I said I thought this was a Bill gaffe,
and Poppy's instant rejection of the idea would seem to back that up.
Parry was right today when he said: "Clinton’s boast about his cozy relationship with
the senior Bush was like fingernails across a chalkboard. The last thing that many Democrats
wanted to hear about was more collegiality between the Clintons and the Bushes."
That was exactly how the statement struck me. I was like, "WTF!"
(I have to be nice - he sent me an agave donation :)
I'm not sure you (or the Lefty dems) are making sense.
Lefty Dems condemn the Clinton s for being "too cozy" with the Bushes,
yet they love
Obama because he's "above" all that and wants to reach out
and work with the other side.
Parry is pounding on the Clintons daily (he missed them today) for "being nice"
Obama is showered with accolades from the Left for "being nice."
Why are the Clintons in trouble for doing what we love Obama for doing?
So I have been thinking a lot about this issue, and I have to admit that Robert Parry's
assessment of the situation sounds pretty accurate to me. I agree with him.
Dude, I'm not sure you agree with yourself. You said it was a gaffe, and I agreed
with you, but Parry says it was a "signal" that
the Clintons would ignore Bush's
- wherever the hell he got that, I don't know.
I have been following your lawyerly evisceration of his thesis, i.e.,
"Parry has become
a mind-reader, now."
If Parry was just some handjob going after the Clintons it wouldn't matter.
But it's sad to see a guy go nuts after decades of great work.
And so on. But this is all guesswork, man. That's all it can be.
Clinton made a really rash statement (I consider it a gaff). Without any more than the
statement itself to go on we are left with only our mind-reading talents to figure out
what Bill (and possibly Hillary) are thinking.
And I happen to think Parry's got it right.
But Parry says it was NOT a gaffe.
Dude, pick a side so I can argue with you :)
Your job, as I see it, Bart, is to come up with your own mind-reading concerning
what that statement means. You can't just let it sit out there. It's too important.
I recommend you re-read Friday's issue
and thanks for the Cabo Wabo Anejo.
Excerpt: Iran's Foreign Ministry said Monday that a confrontation between Iranian boats
and U.S. Navy ships over the weekend was "something normal" and was resolved.
It suggested the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels.
The Pentagon said that in the Sunday incident, five small Iranian boats repeatedly
"charged" U.S. warships in the Gulf's Hormuz Strait and dropped boxes in the water.
The boats warned the U.S. ships that they would set up "explosions," a Bushie said.
The U.S. craft were on the verge of opening fire when the Iranian boats fled,
the official said, calling the incidident "the most serious provocation of its sort"
in the Gulf. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to speak on the record because Bush wants war so bad he can taste it.
Bush sent those ships to the Gulf to intimidate Iran into a battle.
The bully wants to be nearby in case "an incident" breaks out.
Wouldn't it be a shame if Iran wanted to start some shit and
was days away, on the outside of the Gulf? Our Macho Monkey needs more
war so the braindead Americans will rally around him like after 9-11.
Obama would make a great V.P. for Hillary.
After 8 years of that he'll
be ready to take the con.
That would've been the best plan, but somebody didn't want to wait for his turn.
Seems that a newbie running with 2 year's experience would be laughed
the race, but one can never underestimate the Left's hatred for the Clintons.
But now that bridge is burned.
Obama could never run with "that corporatist Cheney clone."
Bartcop, after issuing your January 04 challenge to Obama supporters asking
what he had to say against the war _before_ it all went wrong (before it started, in fact),
you’re going to be snowed under with this…. But I’ll send you a copy anyway.
Here is Barak Obama’s speech, delivered in Chicago October 26, 2002, during the
buildup to the vote that originally authorized the Iraq war. It's worth reading.
Yep, it was as milquetoast as I thought it would be.
That speech had all the passion of "Take Riverside, no, take the highway."
Now that Iraq has turned into the shitstorm of our generation,
Obama is acting like, "I told you so," but I didn't see that in this speech.
He said lots of things like, "I don't oppose all wars, I oppose dumb wars,"
but where was his passion then? He has positioned himself as the man who
tried his damndest to stop this, but nobody would listen to his reasonableness.
Why didn't he say something like, "We must stop - right now - and use
- we must
avoid this war at all costs because the Middle
and we could be stuck over
endless war for years with hundreds or thousands of
and, as of right now, there's NO PROOF that we
need to go to war so I call on the president and this congress
to stop and think about the potential for disaster here."
If your kid was about to walk into traffic, would you scream, "Stop this instant!"
would you say to your child, "I don't oppose crossing the street, I just oppose
dumbly crossing the street" as your child marched towards certain doom?
Obama may have been as opposed to the war as he wants us to believe,
but do we have anything besides his word that he tried to stop it?
Your main argument all these months for supporting Hillary was that
was supposedly the only Demo that could beat the big, bad Repugs.
I think that's obvious.
Our side has two nice guys with big smiles and a knife-fighter.
Guess who I want in the foxhole with me?
You knew that those premature polls meant nothing; only that people knew
who she was. It is the Dems to lose this year. Hillary is no better at not losing
than any of the other candidates.
This nation sorely needs a progressive president; Hillary is not progressive.
She is corporate, bought and paid for. None of her plans are for the little guy.
So, you want a pony?
Maybe we can get you a
cute Pinto Pony like Little Joe Cartwright rode on Bonanza.
Would you like that?
With luck, the average Joe might do okay as he did under Bill, but how
about we get a president who actually is for the average Joe or Jane?
Maybe we could get you a Gucci outfit like Sheriff Bart had in Blazing Saddles.
Virtually all of the other Demo candidates left are more for the average
Joe than Hillary is. So let's start supporting a candidate who is for us
and not Lockheed-Martin. Okay Bart?
Guy in deep south Texas, heck, almost Mexico
I watched some MSNBC Iowa results returns. Tim Russert looked like
where he's done up with clown makeup, except he wasn't
done up with clown makeup
- he was just Tim Russert.
They did a painfully endless breakdown of all sorts of different vote sub-categories
in which Obama kicked Hillary's ass (Obama beat Hillary 51% to 20% among
left-handed hermaphroditic plumbers etc.).
During an on the spot cast from where Hillary was about to give her concession speech,
Andrea Mitchell rolled her eyes and said "well, this is really a manufactured event here."
Didn't hear that about any of the other candidates' manufactured events.
Ken, I saw that, too.
I threw my yellow referees flag at the TV and screamed, "Bitch, Reagan invented the phoney photo op, so why go after Hillary?"
But then I remembered it's the job of the whore press to hammer the Democrat
who has the best chance to bring some sanity back to Bush's Amerikkka.
"Everyone just thought she was going to win -- I mean, how could she not?
How could a freshman senator no one had heard of until a couple of years ago,
whose name no one could pronounce, come out of nowhere and beat a woman
married to the 'first black president'?"
--Keli Goff, an African American blogger and former Democratic strategist, Link
It's times like these that make me appreciate your blog more.
You are unapologetic
and consistent - the anti-weathervane that the "no spin zone"
to be but is not - by a long shot. You don't ask everyone to
agree with you, only to
plainly state what
beefs they have and defend them.
Straight Up. That and give you
a chance to give as well as you get.
Along the way you consistently manage to be entertaining and relevant.
That must be why for the last several years I keep coming back several times
for more. Keep swinging' the hammer bro. For every guy or gal that
takes the time
to show appreciation, there are a thousand that feel it and should show it.
You can quote me on that last bit.
Glen, thanks for that, but my mail tells me I'm just Hillary's whore.
If that's true, Hillary is one cheap mother because I haven't seen a dime.
She's been giving her advertising dollars to Kos, where she's f-ing hated.
Or, consider sending a check bartcop.com PO Box 54466 Tulsa, OK 74155
"By sending forth Hussein Osama out of Iowa, Democrats have unwittingly
weakened their general election prospects. Hussein's exotic mixture of radical
liberalism, Kwanzaa Socialism, antipathy towards the unborn, and weakness
against his jihadi brethren will all come back to destroy him against almost any
Republican opponent. We should all come together tonight and agree on a
common strategy that will keep the White House from becoming a madrassa."
-- nwrep at Freeperville, Link
It's going to be like that from Feb 6th until the Republican is sworn in.
You're not the only one who is mindful of the glee
with which the prospect of
an Obama candidacy is being
taken by the Republicans. I am beginning to have my
suspicions about the sudden popularity of this fresh,
young face -- good chance that
this is being
manipulated and inflated. It is an old strategy to
elevate the man you know
you can beat and brainwash
the sheep into rejecting the one they can't beat.
In spite of the uninterrupted 7 year disaster since
the Bush seizure of the Presidency,
no one, least of all the party leadership and the base (the "But I Have
to Have My Pony!"
funsters) -- has learned a thing.
They are refusing to win yet again.
The media, pink-tutus and Pony Whiners have decided
that this placid, pleasant,
untroubled man with the
intensity of Bing Crosby is going to carry the ticket
for the Democrats and miraculously defeat the
determined, warlike Republicans.
This light-weight is going to be eaten alive.
The best we Americans can hope for at this point is
that the Republican who will
be elected will not be as
evil as Monkeyboy and Unka Dick. Perhaps he will
be incompetent -- what a relief that will be.
Actually, my friend, it is a coincidence. The stock market crapped its pants
over the jobs report which always comes out on the first Friday of the month.
The caucus just happenned to be on a Thursday instead of the traditional Tuesday.
Carl my good friend, I disagree.
It's my opinion nobody on the planet can say why the market went up or down.
This kind of thing is as predictable as the tides. The last year of a two-termer
lame-duck Presidency always chows ass economically. This way, they can
set up trouble for the next guy to inherit - small trouble that his successor can
"heroically" correct if the sincumbant's party looks good to retain the White House,
or a recessionary shitstorm of bungling if the political tide has turned against the incumbent's party.
With this historical trend in mind and Bunnypants's mile-wide streak of
vindictiveness well in hand, be glad if you still have underpants to put on
under your barrel at this time next year.
Self-Appointed Bartcop Akron Bureau Chief
(You could use an economics correspondent. Let me know if you're interested - I may know a guy ;-})o
Carl, you've got the job!
One thing, your mailbox has been rejecting my thank you e-mails for at least a year.
The only way I can reach you in here on the page.
In the former Soviet republic of Georgia, citizens go to the polls today for the first time
since the widely celebrated Rose Revolution of 2003. Then, Georgia was hailed by
Western governments as a beacon of democracy in a region beset by authoritarianism.
Yet, there is mounting evidence that Georgia is sliding back toward authoritarianism.
The ICG report, “Georgia: Sliding Towards Authoritarianism?,” was prompted by that
violent crackdown in November. Disproportionate force was
used against peaceful
demonstrators, and a private television station was violently shut down, the ICG wrote.
In response to these troubling developments, the ICG called on Western friends of
Georgia and especially Washington to pressure the Georgian government to correct
its “increasingly authoritarian course.”
The United States “in particular” needs to “make clear it supports democratic principles”
in Georgia and not a particular regime, the ICG said.
But America can't do that under Der Schipanse because he's into torture, murder,
human rights abuses, pre-emptive invasions, oil snatching, rape and kidnappings
so how can he tell anyone else to stop being a dictator?
Bush has no higher moral authority than other addicted-to-power dictators.
Under Bush, America has no soul.
Our motto for this year is - "No Anti-Bush Site Left Behind". So - if you have an anti-bush site and you are choking on hosting fees or dealing with threats - let us know and we'll help keep you online.
We also have that strongest server side spam filtering on the planet.
Check out Marx Mail for info on how you can have a Spam Free Email Account.