The date on the memo is December 30, 2007, so it must be the Jeremiah Wright tapes. Can there really be anything left that the Clintons didn't use?
Here's an index of all the memos. Can you find anything interesting?
ADDED:
“A word about being human,” he wrote. “Bill Gates once asked me, ‘Could you make me more human?’ I said, ‘Being human is overrated.’”LOL.
पोस्ट्स
३१ टिप्पण्या:
Tapper has an update from Politico, that the tapes are of Obama's earlier days talking really, really liberal.
Why wouldn't Hillary release them? It's representing his political history--fair game.
An increase in pressure does not remove oxygen from the air.
Ann wrote:
Can there really be anything left that the Clintons didn't use?
Oh yes. Remember ahead of the Puerto Rico primary, I made the mistake of posting something about these kinds of "revelations" in an email I received from a Clinton operative in San Juan.
So far, I haven't seen evidence that it's been leaked by her camp or anyone else's.
I took that to mean that Hillary is being helped financially to pay for her campaign debts in exchange for her silence.
Unfortunately, this is the Clintons we're talking about. I don't think any damning information is safe with them.
Cheers,
Victoria
I wonder what it is Bill Gates doesn't consider "human" about himself?
My guess is, that by human he means "nice."
That must be why he's throwing all his money down a black hole. Right, Victoria?
"Why wouldn't Hillary release them? It's representing his political history--fair game."
They were competing in a Democratic party primary, where a lot of the delegates would be decided in activist-heavy caucuses.
Those tapes would not have helped her. They would have helped him, at least as far as the race for the nomination would have been concerned.
They only would have hurt him in the general election.
Which makes me wonder if the Republicans have these tapes too, and we will eventually be seeing them.
Which makes me wonder if the Republicans have these tapes too, and we will eventually be seeing them.
I remember in 2004, that Democrats were predicting Bush-Rove would trot out Osama or Saddam as having been captured, and that would be their way of "stealing" the election.
Instead, Saddam was captured in December, after Bush had been re-elected. We didn't need smoke and mirrors, dirty tricks or anything to recapture the White House.
Unless it's something really egregious, such as Michelle Obama using a racial epithet, or about Obama himself regarding his real views, I say, don't use them.
It makes the party doing the revealing look bad.
This includes "surrogates" like MSNBC or Fox News.
Cheers,
Victoria
Penn believed that voters view their president as the “father” of the country. “They do not want someone who would be the first mama,” he counseled. “But there is a yearning for a kind of tough single parent.”
I don't know about interesting, but it's definitely creepy. America yearns for nothing Hillary has to offer.
“…he has taken a bunch of liberal positions that make him unelectable, has been inconsistent on Iraq, has flip-flopped on issues…”
Um, I guess he never really listened to Hillary or he did not read what she said. If you replace the he with she, you have Hillary Clinton. As to Iraq, she was for the war before she was against it. Just like another loser.
Just goes to show the lengths that the Clinton Crime Family would go to destroy an opponent to win a nomination.
Are these a portion of the
tapes or have these been aired with others yet to be heard?
The more important question Democrats should ask before Denver:
Why hasen't Senator Clinton released her delegates?
If she has not, why?
JSF, I believe for two reasons. One, in case something were to happen to Obama, she would be in prime position. Two, because despite all the hand-wringing about her alienation from Obama, I believe she will be his choice for running mate. Further, this is the reason her as the keynote speaker won't overshadow the VP pick's speech.
No question, that ad would get made.
But how effective would it be? Would it make any Democrat change their mind? Unlikely.
It would be limited in effect to independents, who would instinctively assume that it was taken out of context or that she had come to see things differently based on her presence on his ticket.
The votes Obama would get by unifying the Democratic party in this manner would be larger than he would lose in independents turned off by her comment. And her perceived centrism would have appeal to other left-leaning independents.
It would turn this into a turnout election-- which side can get their people out. This year, the Democrats would win such a battle.
I find it ironic (and by ironic I mean twisted) that the Clinton campaign would talk about going negative using information about failed land deals and questionable stock dealings...
Are these a portion of the
tapes or have these been aired with others yet to be heard?
The CHEEcanos.
The way he belted out the word really irritated me. Every syllable of that excerpted narration for this book was steeped in anger.
He's got a helluva lot of anger inside him. He just does a better job of hiding it than does his wife.
I have no doubt that negative ads using a candidate's own words are the most effective.
I am doubting if a comment made by Hillary as opponent to Obama during the primaries would be as damaging to the ticket's vote total as bringing her on as the VP selection would be beneficial to the ticket's vote total.
Take a look at Rasmussen's numbers. Obama is leading despite McCain having Republicans backing him as a percentage of the whole significantly more than Democrats are backing him. If he 'brings the Democrats home', he'll be in a commanding position. Hillary as VP presents him that best opportunity.
Ecore:
I agree picking Hillary! is Obama's best bet to win. I have predicted though that Obama will f up his VP pick.
i.e Kathleen Sebelius
"No question, that ad would get made."
Would, and did.
Responses from Biden and Kerry saying that the McCain they were praising is not the McCain they see campaigning, but no response from Clinton.
She won't be the VP nominee. She's scheduled to speak at the DNC on a different night than the VP nominee.
My guess? Wesley Clark.
Let me add - Carolyn Kennedy is chairing the VP selection. Think about how distorted her worldview has been for the last 25 years living in Manhattan, volunteering to raise funds for the NYC school districts, part of the elite Kenedy clan? There is no way she can possibly provide well-grounded, average-American type advice to Obama.
Wurly said...
We will either have 8 years of Obama, at which time she will be yesterday's news...
No one told the media yet, but she is and has been yesterday's news since she lost. She will have one more undeserved bright and shining moment in the lime light at the convention, then she will be banished to the scrap heap of history, where she rightfuly belongs.
Scrap heap of history? That's doubtful. She won't be president, but she'll likely serve in the senate for a very long time.
If Obama picks Hillary all those conservatives who were going to sit it out rather than pull the lever for McCain will be so energized they'll camp out at the polls the night before.
ricpic said...
If Obama picks Hillary all those conservatives who were going to sit it out rather than pull the lever for McCain will be so energized they'll camp out at the polls the night before.
Another factor is the large number of people that have now developed a hard spot with Dynastic politics. Who view a continuance of 28 years of either a Bush or Clinton on the ticket as a sign of the corruption and decay of our system.
McCain could play on a Hillary VP selection in several ways.
1. Obama's change transformed to more of the same.
2. His selection of her as capitulation to a stronger, smarter, more experienced force in politics he had no choice but to cave to...Just as he will have difficulties with strong, powerful foreign leaders who will also punk him out.
3. Dems as practitioners of nepotism & dynastic politics...
==================
On the subject of the tapes...I guess the big question is: "What is on the tapes?"
Same Rev Wright stuff exposed later
or new material?
Could Hillary's camp have the tape supposed to be the source of the rumored Michelle Obama "Whitey" hate speech tape?
Or, some other stuff....
"Can you find anything interesting?"
1. The incredible difference between the frank, high quality advice Rove gave in his memo and the superficiality and irresolution of Hilary's advisers.
2. The failure to address the issue of Hilary's personal negatives.
3. The language: soulless and technocratic.
4. The lack of moral or intellectual purpose, other than positional maneuver.
Trevor Jackson said...
Scrap heap of history? That's doubtful. She won't be president, but she'll likely serve in the senate for a very long time.
How many Senators are remembered or even memorable? Once they are gone or retired it is usually Senator who?
She will always be remembered as a member of the Stand By Your Man Wives Club and that is about it.
Okay, not bothering to look at the link or anything else, and probably too lazy to be right, couldn't the reference here be to some goofy thing Reverend Wright said? Or that priest who thinks he's black?
If not, dirty laundry is a vital part of any election. Reveal! Reveal! Reveal! Both sides.
It's time for McCain to rev up the attack machine and start talking about all those questionable characters in Obama's background. People like Rev. Wright, and Father Pfleger who make Obama look like what he is--dangerous and extreme.
I love the expression coined by www.notwrightforamerica.com that Obama is not WRIGHT for America. McCain should go with it!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा