Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Clintons Plumb Absurd Depths

By Robert Parry
February 19, 2008

Like the Bushes, the Clintons seem to believe they have some special entitlement to the White House, and thus whatever they do to get there is justified. The two ruling families function with a monarchical air that is unique – or foreign – to the American experience.

George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have enjoyed wearing baseball caps emblazoned with “41” and “43” respectively, signifying their numerical claims on the U.S. presidency. It is still not known what articles of clothing the Clintons might embroider with “42” and “44.”

Read on.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

If he can't take this, how will he handle attacks in the general election?

Anonymous said...

Her recent action – dispatching her spokesmen to attack Obama’s character over trivial issues – does speak volumes. It underscores that the Clintons are prepared to sink to any depth and create bitter divisions within the electorate to secure what they regard as their entitlement, the presidency of the United States.

Mr. Parry -- You demean your record by writing such nonsense -- the Clintons think they are "entitled" to the presidency? The Clintons have created the divisions within the electorate?

Give me a break! You are writing fairy tales! Barack Obama -- and his bitter wife, Michelle -- are the ones who project an image of entitlement. It's now or never.... Hillary's supporters will support me, but my supporters won't support her. Blah blah blah.

Obama believes he is entitled to a free pass on any "vetting" or disagreement because he's the agent of change, hope and soaring (but empty) rhetoric.

If Obama can't take the heat in a primary campaign, just wait until the general election -- if he snares the nomination.

You guys and gals in the media haven't done him any favors by kissing his ass for months like he was The Second Coming. Now, even he believes he is.

Anonymous said...

Oh...and Iforgot to mention that Barack's most divisive surrogate is his bitter, nasty wife Michelle.

Nice. Sinking to that depth, using his wife to tell the world that they won't support anyone but themselves. Nice, using his wife to tell the world they are not proud Americans -- and never have been in their adult lives.

Nice. That rhetoric will help restore the United States' tattered image around the globe. Ya, you betcha.

EvilPoet said...

Maybe it's the edginess and flippy hairdo but Michelle Obama reminds me of Condi Rice.

Anonymous said...

Parry, how about focusing your sites on matters of importance instead of plumbing new depths for your anti-Clinton voluble spiels?

For instance, according to Gwendolyn Mink, co-editor of the two-volume "Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics and Policy" and author of "Welfare's End," Mink said: "Although Obama insists he is the candidate 'for change,' his record on poverty issues does not offer bold new visions for economic justice. Quite the opposite, in fact: Obama's top anti-poverty commitments repeat the well-worn bromides of Clinton-era welfare reform. Obama supports an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit.

Bill Clinton accomplished the first big EITC expansion in the early 1990s. Obama sponsored responsible fatherhood legislation that links poverty reduction to fathers' contributions to families. Hillary Clinton introduced a responsible fatherhood bill several years before Obama, soon after she arrived in the Senate.

    "At least on his website, he exclusively links poverty reduction to labor market reforms, and so neglects larger questions of economic justice for caregiving work performed for one's own dependent family members. Notably, Obama gives little attention to the interaction of inequalities in the lives of the poor, especially racial and gender inequality.

    "The point is not that Obama is worse than Clinton on poverty -- certainly anyone who has engaged struggles against Temporary Assistance for Needy Families reauthorization knows that Clinton is not necessarily the better ally of the poor. The point is that Obama's record on poverty does not bear out the hype that he personifies change."

Anonymous said...

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, said: "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have a strong commitment to reducing poverty compared to most members of Congress, and by any standard are equally progressive on poverty issues.

Both have experience on these issues going back for years -- Hillary's at Children's Defense Fund and the impoverished state of Arkansas, Obama's as a community organizer in Chicago. Both have ideas of how to strengthen our safety net programs.

    "There isn't a substantial difference in their positions on poverty issues, and I doubt that there is a substantial difference in their ability to persuade Republican members of Congress to support their
positions.

Hillary takes the lead, however, on two fronts:
    * proposing that subsidies be available for low-income women to care for their own infants instead of paying others to care for them;
    * understanding how astronomical deficit spending on tax cuts, Iraq, and other expenses drains the Social Security Trust Fund and undermines entitlement programs. Her close-up view of the economic benefits and political costs of balancing the federal budget has apparently taught Hillary the importance of juggling those competing pressures."

Bob Locke said...

"anonymous"'s postings are disappointing. I had expected higher quality analysis from consortiumblog readers and not such fiery and singleminded chauvinism.

That said, the article itself is also disappointing since I had expected the always thorough Robert Parry to give Patrick's original quotes alongside Obama's so-called "plagiarism". I had heard a bit of this controversy--from a Clinton spokesman--on the Ed Schultz show and I hoped to find the exact quotes here.

It IS illuminating that Patrick appears to have given Obama the green light on using the words, but more details of that agreement would also aid in understanding the controversy.

I hope that Robert Parry will do some rewrites on this article with these complaints in mind.

Bob Locke

Anonymous said...

Actions. Yea, right.

While Obama was working as a grass roots community organizer, the Senator was sitting on the board of directors of WalMart. Prior to that she was a partner at the Rose law firm knocking down 350K a year in Arkansas, the first female to achieve partnership in the firms history, coincidentally I am sure, in the exact same year that her husband became Governor of the state. Yea, actions. Mrs Clinton should be careful, lest she truly find out the power of words. They have a tendency to come back and haunt the disingenuous.

Robert Parry is right-on in his perception of the Clintons' apparent sense of entitlement. Why else would Bill Clinton display obvious frustration and outbursts of temper while on the stump for his wife unless he feels that he (they) should suffer no resistance.

The American Evita, besides believing the American public will swallow the "Bill's experience is my experience" con, evidently, as she constantly harps on the "35 years experience" theme, the Senator from New York, who had never won an election-besides the presidency of the Young Republicans at Wellsley College-prior to being married to a very recent President of the United States, also believes that certain of her "actions" ought not to count, actions such as voting for a disastrous war, subsequently supporting a disastrous war until quite recently, supporting aggressive, provocative measures in regard to Iran that might risk another war, getting caught earmarking one million taxpayer dollars for a Woodstock Museum, devising a healthcare plan that deals in all the usual corporate suspects (as First Lady and now again as presidential aspirant, or successor if you prefer). And since her experience as wife of POTUS is part of her claim, what about TravelGate, WaterGate (she looked a lot shadier than Bill), InsuranceGate, and FileGate?

Ever notice the Senator doesn't seem to ever admit mistakes? Vast Right-Wing conspiracy, the President tricked me (Bush, not Bill-this time), everybody's pickin' on me, my campaign people did it, not me. It seems to me we've had one like that just recently who had a hard time recognizinig his own grievous errors, any of them, and those errors will be our sufferance for a long time after this latest entitled one, who likely still is firm in the belief he could have gotten elected even if he hadn't been the son of a former President, leaves the scene.

Roland Poche
New Orleans

Anonymous said...

Robert Parry is right-on in his perception of the Clintons' apparent sense of entitlement. Why else would Bill Clinton display obvious frustration and outbursts of temper while on the stump for his wife unless he feels that he (they) should suffer no resistance.

Well, it could very well be that he has suffered some mental deficit from his heart surgery from being on the heart-lung bypass machine.

Many people, even long term after, have some judgment decline as a consequence of the procedure. There is little research on the subject because the sugery, itself, is often deemed life-saving, so the mental deficits are ignored, which is a shame since many people are unfairly judged because "they show emotion or ill-temper" following their heart surgery.

And, as far as anonymous posts...who knows if you're using your real name? Furthermore, who cares? Do you think because you sign your name, it gives your post greater authority or credibility?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Parry, I congratulate you. Your article has drawn comments from every right wing Clinton lover in the neighborhood. I am especially amused by the comments on Whitewater et al, which try to resuscitate every lie that the American Spectator originated. I have been shocked by the Clinton's use of Rovian tactics in this election, but I have been pleasantly surprised by the public's rejection of the media's attempted coronation of St. Hillary. The outpouring of support for Obama tells me that the public has finally learned to discount the right wing talking points and size up the situation for themselves. A vote for Obama may be a gamble, but I am willing to take a chance on a man as accomplished as Barack Obama. The right wingers are exposing their irrelevance with every comment they post. After reading this thread, I have but one question: Do all the anonymous posters have the same IP?

You are entirely correct, sir, and thanks for writing.

Ann C. Davidson said...

Michelle Obama is already being attacked by the McCain campaign, with devastating effect, for saying that she is proud to be an American for the first time in her life, a much more egregious, and stupid, remark than anything Hillary ever said. (Remember the "bake cookies" comment of 1992?)

Oh, and to the poster who brought up the Rose law firm? Get your facts straight, friend. The most Hillary ever made in one year was $160 K, a ridiculously low sum for a firm partner even by Arkansas standards. As the wife of the governor, she was precluded by her partnership agreement from participating in any state-related bond work, which by the way the Rose firm had been doing for years before Bill Clinton became governor. During her tenure at the firm, she spent most of her time working on behalf of the poor as first a board member, and later as chair, of the Legal Services Corporation. Shame on all you Obama supporters for regurgitating all the garbage thrown at Hillary by the right-wing attack machine. And you call yourselves progressives?

EvilPoet said...

Ann C. Davidson said...
Michelle Obama is already being attacked by the McCain campaign, with devastating effect, for saying that she is proud to be an American for the first time in her life, a much more egregious, and stupid, remark than anything Hillary ever said. (Remember the "bake cookies" comment of 1992?)


Yup! Have you seen this yet?

Swift Boat Kids for Truth

I do hope the Obama campaign knows what they are in for. If they are not careful they will get buried. Just my $.02

Anonymous said...

"...she sends her surrogates out to attack Barack Obama over trivial matters, like whether he adopted a rhetorical argument that his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, once used."

So according to Obama, words do matter but it doesn't matter that the words he was speaking weren't his? Well, attribution is words and they matter too, Bunky.
Have you gone completely daft? Will you take ANY absurd position to defend him? Millions and millions and millions of us love the Clintons, Bob, and we will not be marginalized by your fucking endless vendetta against them.