Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em" - The Huffington Post
During the Philadelphia debate, Clinton tried to connect Obama again to the "bitter" remarks. While it's easy to say that Clinton was playing politics as usual, it's fair to point out that during Bill Clinton's term in office, she took a stand against working class white in 1995. As reported by The Huffington Post, in January 1995, the then Bill Clinton administration pondered whether to make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? During a debate at a Camp David retreat, the then-first lady abandoned the working class white by pressuring her husband to do the same: "Screw 'em. You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."The statement was included in a book titled, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House," written by Benjamin Barber who witnessed and wrote about it.
Elizabeth Edwards supports Hillary's health plan... and Hillary has received the 2nd greatest amount of money from the health insurance lobby in DC. Yes - even more than most Republicans. (Source = Sicko and some tv). What does that tell you about who and what the Edwards support?The problem is that if the Edwards support the Clintons it's going to turn into a race issue...and legitimize not supporting Barack because of race with some Southern Blue Collar Whites.The bottom line is that WE need to be all over North Carolina Blue Collar Whites with enthusiasm, joy and cookies so that we make sure it's a wipe-out with all races. That way, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton might get the message that slimy politics is no longer the road to succes.
See article from Dick Morris's blog below. Pay special attention to his advice at the end of the article about not denying relationships. Karl Rove (I think it was Karl Rove) used to advise his people that
"if you want to control a person make him deny something".
Denial implies wishy-washy and weakness. This is public perception, even if not reality. However the public votes according to what it perceives not according to what it knows.
......................................................................................................................................
Will the Gospel According to Jeremiah Wright sink the Obama candidacy? Not very likely.
Let’s start with two basic facts:
(a) Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has already won the Democratic nomination. It’s over. Regardless of how the remaining primaries and caucuses go, including Michigan and even Florida, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) can never catch Obama in elected delegates. His current lead of 170 pledged delegates will not be overcome no matter what happens. Even if Clinton beats him by 10 points in each of these primaries, he will still lead among elected delegates by over 100. The superdelegates will not override the will of the voters unless Obama is in jail. They will not let themselves in for a civil war by overruling a black man who is beloved by the young by going over the heads of the electorate and naming the candidate that lost the primaries as the nominee. Regardless of how damaged Obama may be by the Wright tapes, it will not provide sufficient cover or cause for them to do so.
(b) Wright’s rantings are not reflective of Obama’s views on anything. Why did he stay in the church? Because he’s a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top of Chicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. But obviously, he can’t say that. So what should he say?
He needs to get out of this mess with subtlety, the kind Bill Clinton should have used to escape the Monica Lewinsky scandal — but didn’t. As the controversy continues, Americans will gradually realize that Obama stuck by Wright as part of a need to get ahead. They will chalk up to pragmatism why he was so close to such a preacher. As they come to realize that Obama doesn’t agree with Wright but used him to get started, they will be more forgiving.
While he lets this fact sink in, he needs to continue to distance himself from Wright by characterizing that kind of anger and animosity as a thing of a generation past. He needs to compare the progress of which whites are proud in discarding the racism of our forebears with his own pride at being a post-racial candidate. He needs, again and again, to reject what Wright says and emphasize his belief in America and the validity and morality of the American Dream.
As the controversy matures, he can increasingly depict those who fan its flames as trying to live in the past and re-fight the civil wars of race that have divided America.
All these themes were evident and articulately presented in Obama’s Tuesday speech on race.
What Obama needs not to do is to resort to the kind of Clintonian fudging that animated his interview with Keith Olbermann. By saying “I wasn’t there” and “I didn’t know” and “I didn’t hear him say it,” he will invite contempt and derision. If he were to continue in that vein, he would buy himself a controversy akin to that which drowned John Kerry in the facts and allegations of his service in Vietnam. People will surface to say, “I sat next to him, and Wright said such and such,” and Obama will be hostage to everybody’s subjective memory.
But if he handles the situation with subtlety and lets what he cannot say — that it was opportunism that led him to stay in that church — sink in among the electorate, he can and will survive this battle.
And let’s remember one other thing: The Democrats will increasingly realize that he will be their nominee and, in continuing this battle, they are eating their own.
Here is my “tough love” response to the realities of the Jeremiah Wright controversy. It will be unpopular with all sides, but will hopefully fall on some open minds and help us to move on in a positive direction.
First of all, NOBODY is perfect. Barack is imperfect, as are you, me, Jeremiah Wright and, as hard as it is to believe, even Bill O'Reilly. :) None of us is God, a fact that several of the right wing preachers who support the current political regime don’t seem to have figured out. The first commandment is “I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt not put strange gods before me”- (even yourself/myself and your/my money is implied here I think)…..
I also think that we can reframe Wright's sermon in context to our advantage if we just stand back from it and stop reacting like the MSM ourselves.
Let us pause to :
Let us also wake up to the fact that:
HOWEVER:
I have a serious question and a comment on all this:
Finally, given the previous points, it is clear that the lack of judgment by the government and by Pastor Wright, however well-intentioned, is exactly why we need to have somebody like Barack in power. He has a cooler head and a better track record when it comes to good judgment.
As far as the rest of us are concerned, I think we would do well to face reality, forgive the words and deeds of all parties, and concentrate on doing what we can to elect a different type of candidate for President – ie Barack.
For Barack I implore the following:
Personal Note: I know this sounds overassertive, but I suspect it is what many, many people are thinking and would like to say. It’s really simple stuff to write, but very hard to put into practice. I try to practice it and I can assure you that it’s a constant struggle. We’re all very imperfect people.
I'm tired of reading the "downside of Obama strategy"-type stories (Weisman/Murray in RCP and the Washington Post). While I don't vilify this particular story, (which simply happens to be the most recent one I've looked at), the idea that we have to "win over" all the dieard Dems to be more electable is flawed.
It's FAR more important to win over Independents and liberal-leaning Republicans than to carry the diehard Democratic bastions in PA and OH.
The diehard Democrats will always vote for the Democratic candidate. It's independents and crossover Republicans that are likely to get us to the Preisdency. Case in point: look at the last election where John Kerry, who although I respect him enormously, was not appealing to swing candidates....
Obama would have aced that election.
Martin Luther King said that by remaining silent we remain complicit.
Nelson Mandela was head of MK, the armed resistance wing of the ANC which targeted things rather than people, but nonetheless hurt those who ran/owned these targets.
Both men won the Nobel Peace Prize and suffered incredibly for their courage and outstanding leadership.
Starting with our leader, Senator Obama, and followed by his senior campaign staff, we have a duty to help the voters in this primary make informed decisions.
There are many things that the public has a right to know about opposition canadidates and all we hear about are vaguely potential scandals about Barack. Why? What are we going to do about this?
We, starting with our leader, have to be willing to start address these thorny issues without feeling dirty. It's part of the job.
We continue to enable the worst part of the establishment by being silent about it or by trying to protect it in one way or another. Changing dirty diapers is part of bringing up a healthy child.
See the article below for some practical advice from Dick Morris and Eileen McGann:
*******************************************************************************
Hi Folks, Following is a breakdown of the TX results sent to me by Thomas Brooks in Houston this morning. The last part of the post is the same as the one Sam posted yesterday, but the results breakdown is new.
Source: Texas Democratic PartyLinkEstimated Calculations below (percentages rounded, and not including uncommitted, so < 100%)District 1: 2665 delegates. Obama: 58%. Clinton: 40%. Total dels: Obama: 1577. Clinton: 1088District 2: 2781 delegates. Obama: 64%. Clinton: 35%. Total dels: Obama: 1798. Clinton: 983District 3: 2650 delegates. Obama: 55%. Clinton: 44%. Total dels: Obama: 1472. Clinton: 1178District 4: 2466 delegates. Obama: 56%. Clinton: 43%. Total dels: Obama: 1395. Clinton: 1071District 5: 3098 delegates. Obama: 59%. Clinton: 40%. Total dels: Obama: 1846. Clinton: 1252District 6: 1778 delegates. Obama: 48%. Clinton: 51%. Total dels: Obama: 862. Clinton: 916District 7: 2196 delegates. Obama: 61%. Clinton: 38%. Total dels: Obama: 1353. Clinton: 843District 8: 3020 delegates. Obama: 63%. Clinton: 36%. Total dels: Obama: 1922. Clinton: 1098District 9: 2216 delegates. Obama: 68%. Clinton: 31%. Total dels: Obama: 1522. Clinton: 694District 10: 3804 delegates. Obama: 62%. Clinton: 37%. Total dels: Obama: 2382. Clinton: 1422District 11: 2650 delegates. Obama: 55%. Clinton: 44%. Total dels: Obama: 1472. Clinton: 1178District 12: 2875 delegates. Obama: 54%. Clinton: 45%. Total dels: Obama: 1568. Clinton: 1307District 13: 4624 delegates. Obama: 80%. Clinton: 19%. Total dels: Obama: 3737. Clinton: 887District 14: 5466 delegates. Obama: 67%. Clinton: 32%. Total dels: Obama: 3699. Clinton: 1767District 15: 2735 delegates. Obama: 64%. Clinton: 35%. Total dels: Obama: 1768. Clinton: 967District 16: 3066 delegates. Obama: 59%. Clinton: 40%. Total dels: Obama: 1827. Clinton: 1239District 17: 3033 delegates. Obama: 61%. Clinton: 38%. Total dels: Obama: 1869. Clinton: 1164District 18: 3078 delegates. Obama: 56%. Clinton: 43%. Total dels: Obama: 1741. Clinton: 1337District 19: 2733 delegates. Obama: 31%. Clinton: 68%. Total dels: Obama: 856. Clinton: 1877District 20: 2438 delegates. Obama: 21%. Clinton: 77%. Total dels: Obama: 522. Clinton: 1916District 21: 2722 delegates. Obama: 21%. Clinton: 78%. Total dels: Obama: 577. Clinton: 2145District 22: 2631 delegates. Obama: 48%. Clinton: 51%. Total dels: Obama: 1276. Clinton: 1355District 23: 4487 delegates. Obama: 79%. Clinton: 20%. Total dels: Obama: 3581. Clinton: 906District 24: 2175 delegates. Obama: 51%. Clinton: 47%. Total dels: Obama: 1132. Clinton: 1043District 25: 4190 delegates. Obama: 57%. Clinton: 42%. Total dels: Obama: 2412. Clinton: 1778District 26: 2533 delegates. Obama: 35%. Clinton: 64%. Total dels: Obama: 896. Clinton: 1637District 27: 1748 delegates. Obama: 18%. Clinton: 81%. Total dels: Obama: 318. Clinton: 1430District 28: 2152 delegates. Obama: 37%. Clinton: 61%. Total dels: Obama: 812. Clinton: 1340District 29: 2111 delegates. Obama: 24%. Clinton: 75%. Total dels: Obama: 512. Clinton: 1599District 30: 2426 delegates. Obama: 39%. Clinton: 59%. Total dels: Obama: 965. Clinton: 1461District 31: 1323 delegates. Obama: 39%. Clinton: 59%. Total dels: Obama: 527. Clinton: 797Total: 87870 precinct delegates. Obama: 48197. Clinton :39673Estimate of precinct delegates. Obama: 37. Clinton :30 AUSTIN -- Obama Texas State Director Adrian Saenz issued a statement on the projected primary and caucus results that show Senator Obama won more Texas delegates than Senator Clinton. “By fighting the primary to a near-draw and earning a resounding victory in the caucus, the people of Texas have moved Barack Obama one step closer to claiming the Democratic nomination for president,” said Adrian Saenz. “Texans in both parties and of all ages sent a clear message that the American people are ready for the kind of change that Barack Obama will bring to Washington, DC as our 44th President." Because of the close finish, Senator Clinton will likely net only two delegates up-for-grabs in the Texas Primary. Based on a large sample of caucus results in all 31 state senate districts, Senator Obama is projected to post a substantial victory in the Texas caucus and, thereby, net at least seven delegates. This means that Senator Obama will win at least five more pledged delegates from Texas than Senator Clinton.
Fear of this getting out should be motivation for Hillary not to play dirty tricks on Barack. Dick Morris, who wrote this doesn't like Billary, but he's usually pretty good with facts, (not as much with opinion). Imagine the field-day the Republicans would have with this in the general election.... .
FOLLOW HILLARY CLINTON’S MONEY!
Published on FOXNews.com on February 8, 2008.
Hillary Clinton’s decision to lend her presidential campaign $5 million raises a key question: Where did the money come from?
Hillary says it’s all her money. But, is it?
The Clintons had a negative net worth when they left the White House. They had lucrative book deals for their memoirs. Together, they pocketed an estimated $20 million in advances and royalties during the past seven years, before federal and New York state taxes. But, they’ve also spent a lot of it: they’ve purchased two homes valued at over $5 million, commissioned an addition of over $1 million to the D.C. mansion that Hillary shares with her mother, paid over $4 million in legal fees, and, in addition to taxes, presumably paid normal living expenses.
According to Hillary’s financial statements, the remainder of their income, apart from her Senate salary of $162,500, comes from Bill’s speeches (many to foreign audiences and corporations doing business with foreign countries), $3.3 million from InfoUSA (a company reportedly under investigation for providing lists of vulnerable elderly to criminal con artists), and a reported $10 million a year from a partnership with supermarket magnate Ron Burkle and the Emir of Dubai to manage the Sheikh’s investments.
Their substantial income from foreign sources makes it appropriate to ask if the funds now flowing into the Clinton campaign from their joint personal finances are just laundered overseas money which could not be given directly to Hillary’s treasury.
Unlike previous presidential candidates, like Bill, Hillary has refused to release her income tax returns and won’t indicate how much her husband gets from his partnership with the Emir of Dubai. On her disclosure form she only indicates, as required, that it comes to more than $1,000 a year.
But newspaper reports suggest that, in addition to the $10 million given to Bill annually, he is seeking a buyout of his share of the partnership for an additional $20 million. Could that windfall be funding Hillary’s campaign? And, if it is, is the Emir passing money through Bill to help Hillary get elected?
Foreigners are not allowed to contribute to presidential campaigns. But Bill’s 1996 campaign was accused of taking funds from the Chinese government passed through James Riady and through Al Gore’s visit to a Buddhist temple.
The Emir of Dubai must be smarting from the rejection of his efforts to take over security for key American ports and one can easily imagine that a desire for political acceptance by the next president may have been behind his generosity to Bill Clinton over this decade. Dubai has been gobbling up U.S. businesses. It recently bought a 20 percent stake in Nasdaq, Barney’s, Loehmann’s, it bought the Essex House Hotel, a 4 percent stake in Chrysler, a $5 million stake in MGM Mirage. In other words, Dubai is here to stay and may need help and permission for further investments from the federal government. Is it too much of a leap to speculate that the Emir might want to protect his investment by buying out Bill so that he can lend much needed cash to Hillary at a crucial moment in her campaign?
Especially at a time when Dubai and other foreign sovereign wealth funds are seeking to buy significant shares of cash-poor American banks, the major infusion of money into the Clinton campaign from the Middle East could become an important campaign issue.
Hillary and Bill could clear all this up by simply releasing the details of their personal finances as it was once customary for candidates to do. Unlike Mitt Romney who is funding his campaign with personal wealth that is both inherited and amassed over the years, the Clintons’ wealth is of very recent origin and much of it may represent the fruits of influence seeking by wealthy foreigners like the Emir of Dubai.
As long as Hillary and Bill’s personal finances were, indeed, personal, questions about the source of their newfound wealth were on the periphery of the campaign. But now that this personal money is funding her campaign, voters are entitled to answers about what they made from who and where the $5 million comes from.
It’s time for the Clintons to release their tax returns — as Obama has done — and disclose all of the contributors to the Library.
Check this out People. We've really got the momentum now. You can check the links to see the raw data from Rasmussen.
National Poll: Clinton 44%Obama 44%
McCain 46%Clinton 44%
The following is copied from a blog on Politico outlining why Hillary should be worried (and why Barack should be very happy, but not compacent):
1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention. And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more delegates in the 22 states. Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates. With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw. Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly. 2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago. At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone. One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him. This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown. All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths. 3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region. His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters. 4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing. He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward. 5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests. In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine. Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters. Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son. The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win. So it couldn’t be any clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning.
This article was posted on the Democratic Convention Blog Wesbsite:
yes we can!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
See the following link about the polls. Barack is moving up fast and everywhere. We need to get those delegates though.
Yet another positive post for Barack:
http://blogs.forbes.com/trailwatch/2008/01/the-early-prima.html
Barack is catching up very fast in California. HRC's lead has decreased to 3% and he's winning among liberal voters. See Rasmussen report at the following link:
"McCain comes out of Florida as the putative nominee in the eyes of Republicans - and it is up to Romney to take it away from him.On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's 50-33 victory over Barack Obama is not as much of an indication of momentum as it would seem. Exit polls suggest that, among those who decided whom to support in the final three days, Obama tied Hillary, 35-35. Those who decided in the preceding month backed Hillary by 59-29, giving her a seemingly decisive win. But the trend is clearly in Obama's favor"
