Will Sharpton Require Clinton to Quit?
Jan 28, 2008 Political
The Reverend Al Sharpton, our aging antisemitic race baiting poverty pimp makes a name for himself by going after white folks who say things that he thinks are racist. He recently got himself involved in the business of the Golf Channel when one of their female reporters used the word “lynch” while discussing Tiger Woods. Woods took no offense and said it was a dead issue but Sharpton started in. The reporter got 14 days off.
Then of course, there was the Don Imus incident where he referred to a women’s basketball team as a bunch of “nappy headed hos”, a remark that brought Sharpton out in full force. Imus went on Sharpton’s radio show and applied his pursed labia to Sharpton’s ample gluteals but that was all for nothing because Sharpton raised a stink and CBS fired Imus rather than risk losing sponsors to a Sharpton protest and Jew killing spree.
This leads me to Bill Clinton. It is no secret that the Clintons know how to play dirty politics. For all their crying and whining about Republican dirty tricks, the Clintons sure know a few themselves. The Clinton campaign, and particularly Bill, has been engaged in covert racism with regard to Barack Obama. Now they can say that they meant something else and all that but their pattern is to put it out there and apologize after it has had a chance to fester. When Hillary got her head handed to her in South Carolina Bill compared Obama to Jesse Jackson and though it was reported to be an off-the-cuff remark, it appeared as if he was saying; “It was just a brother getting support from the other blacks.” It was seen as minimizing Obama. Before anyone takes me to task, I don’t care what they say and I am happy that Democrats are finally getting a taste of how it feels to be accused of being a racist for a minimal or harmless remark.
Having said that, I also know that perception is often reality and the black community found the comments offensive. Don Imus made a great point when he said that if he had made the Jackson comment he would be before Sharpton again. That is a true comment. If Imus, or any other white person (especially a Republican) had made the Jackson comment Sharpton would be out inciting riots and getting Jews killed. But since Bill Clinton said it, it is ignored by the race baiter.
If Sharpton were consistent (he is in it for the money and nothing else) he would be demanding that Bill Clinton be removed from the campaign and then demand that Hillary drop out. He would threaten her donors (sponsors, if you will) with all kinds of ugly things and he would be telling us that there would be blacks protesting in all states to keep Hillary from winning. In short, he would be giving them the same treatment he gave the reporter and Imus.
Instead, it is ignored or if Sharpton had an opinion he expressed it and moved on. He did not make the demands that he makes of others who dare to offend him and his black sensitivities.
On ABC’s “The View,” Sharpton said voters are hearing “race charges, race-tinged rhetoric” in the Democratic primary campaign, and called on the former president to cease.
~snip~
Sharpton didn’t say which comments in particular bothered him. But many Democrats were particularly upset that the former president made an explicit comparison of Obama’s campaign to Jesse Jackson’s victories in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988, in an apparent attempt to explain why his wife didn’t win the South Carolina primary on Saturday. ABC Political Radar
As this item from ABC shows, he was bothered by the racial part of it but he just told Bill to shut up. He did not give Imus that rebuke. Instead he helped get him fired.
Maybe Sharpton has left Bill alone because Hillary is constantly on his case and riding his butt hard about every little thing. Maybe Bill gets a free ride because his wife is a nagger…
Tags: Clinton, Imus, race baiting, sharpton
It Depends on the Meaning of Campaigning
Jan 28, 2008 Political
The Democrats had an agreement not to campaign in Florida after the DNC stripped that state of its delegates because it moved the primary to before February 5th. Hillary is way in front in Florida but it does not matter because the delegates will not count even though Hillary is trying to get a new decision on this so they will. I am sure that she would not do that if Obama were ahead there.
Despite the pledge not to campaign, Hillary Clinton is in Florida and she is skirting the rules to have a presence there. After her stinging defeat in South Carolina she decided to visit the Sunshine State and make sure people knew who she was. Now there are no rules against fund raising there and Hillary supporters would point out that she is only doing just that. Perhaps, and if she is it would be kind of disingenuous because the message is, “I can’t have a real presence here and the DNC says your delegates will not count but your money is still good.”
The news reports are indicating that Clinton is there with a *wink* and that her presence constitutes campaigning. I guess that it all depends upon what campaigning actually means. Anyone who has a husband who can argue the meaning of “is” can certainly skirt the issue and argue the meaning of campaigning.
If the DNC has taken the delegates away then it should stay that way. A rule is a rule and a sanction is a sanction. I also think that if Hillary broke her promise not to campaign people should ask what other promises she would break.
Maybe folks will realize that the Clinton’s words mean nothing to them. Integrity is not a word in their vocabulary.
Sources:
Yahoo News
My Way News
Tags: broken promises, campaigning, Clinton, florida
Does Ted Kennedy’s Endorsement Matter?
Jan 27, 2008 Political
The news has been indicating that Senator Ted Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama tomorrow. This is an endorsement that Hillary Clinton has been courting and deals a blow to her while giving more credibility to Obama. The endorsement comes a few days after the daughter of JFK, Caroline Kennedy, endorsed Obama as a man like her father (quite similar to the endorsement she gave John Kerry in 2004). In anticipation of tomorrow’s announcement the Clinton aides downplayed the endorsement:
“She has a great deal of respect for Sen. Kennedy and is very proud of all the endorsements she’s received from her Senate colleagues,†said Doug Hattaway, a Clinton spokesman. “At the end of the day, the voters are going to choose a candidate on their merits, not on their endorsements.†The Politico
I imagine that this might have some smattering of reality to it but the truth is that Hillary coveted the Kennedy endorsement and it is so important that the Clinton campaign had union chiefs and constituents calling Kennedy trying to stop his endorsement. Bill Clinton himself has been on the phone a few times with Kennedy in an effort to stop this from happening.
If, in the end, voters are going to choose candidates based on their merits and not their endorsements, why did Hillary try to get the Kennedy endorsement and why did her campaign work so hard to keep him from endorsing Obama? Perhaps it is because Kennedy, who has been in the Senate for 47 years, is a liberal icon and is loved by a lot of moonbats. His endorsement gives credibility to people within the moonbat community. Hillary wanted the blessing of Ted Kennedy.
I don’t care for Obama and he has his own issues but I like to see him doing well in the primary because it gives the Clintons fits and it makes them reveal their true selves.
The Kos kids were talking about the disarray in the Republican Party but it seems to me that the Democrats are the ones acting like a dysfunctional family.
Tags: Clinton, endorsement, kennedy, Obama
What Will Bill Clinton Do Now?
Jan 26, 2008 Political
The votes are being counted in South Carolina and the only question remaining is how badly will Hillary Clinton be beaten by Barack Obama? The race was called for Obama based on exit polling which is not usually done unless there is a very large margin of victory. As of this post 98% of the precincts have been counted and Obama has more than twice the votes that Clinton has. The Clinton campaign tried to downplay this before th election but they worked hard to win the state nonetheless. Why is she losing so badly when the difference was only about 12% on pre primary polling?
Exit polling shows that the electorate, by and large, was displeased with Bill Clinton’s style of campaigning. This was true among the black voters but also true in about 68% of the white vote. These voters indicated that they believed that Bill Clinton had unfairly attacked Barack Obama and they let him now it with their votes.
I wonder if Hillary Clinton will lose her mind and throw ashtrays at Bill since he is being blamed for the rout? It would be interesting if she does because she was more than happy to have Bill attacking Obama while she campaigned elsewhere. Regardless of how she feels about the affect of Bill this loss must be particularly stinging because in addition to the majority of the black vote Obama picked up about 25% of the white vote. Additionally, only about 20 people showed up at the place they booked for a post primary party. It will also be interesting to see if the Clintons hit even harder or if they switch tactics. She might have to muster up a few more tears. She certainly did not waste time leaving South Carolina for Tennessee…
I also if race will play into this even more. Bill made a remark that Jesse Jackson won the state as if it were no big deal that a black guy won it. I imagine if a white Republican had sad that Jackson would be gathering the Rainbow Coalition for an old fashioned protest and it is still possible that Clinton’s remarks will be seen as patronizing and incur backlash. Regardless, the Clinton campaign is going to have to be more careful because every word they utter now will be scrutinized for perceived racial content.
This might not mean much and Hillary will probably split the Tsunami Tuesday states with Obama. Since February 5th will not decide the candidate, the decision could come down to the Democratic Convention and there might be a real fire fight there.
I do wonder though, if these candidates will pick the other to be a running mate. Given how they have attacked each other it would seem to me they are less than credible in their beliefs if they picked each other. Of course Democrats wold not look at it that way so long as their party wins.
However, if Obama selected Hillary he would never have to worry about someone taking him out…
Sources:
MSNBC
CNN
Washington Post
Others with interesting posts:
Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, A Blog For All, 123beta, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: billy blowback, blowout, Clinton, Obama, racial tension, rout, south carolina
Will MSM Give Hillary Same Treatment as Bush?
Jan 25, 2008 Political
Drudge is displaying a picture that has surfaced of Tony Rezko with the smiling Clintons, one on each side. This is important because Hillary Clinton mentioned Rezko in the last Democratic debate when she said to Senator Obama; “I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.” The photograph looks like one of the many that presidents and their wives have taken, photos that are often with people they do not know and have never met. Often though, these pictures are taken with people who have donated money to the president’s campaign. So the question now becomes, how did Tony Rezko get invited to whatever event this was and how did he get his picture taken with the Clintons? Another question would have to be did this “slumlord” donate money to them?
On the surface this might not seem like a big deal and many Hillary supporters will say that she has taken many photos with people that she does not know. Hillary was making that very case this morning on the Today show. In the glory days of the Clintons the media would be tucking this under the bed and if she were running against a Republican they would certainly make no big deal out of it. The media are not treating the Clintons unfairly as Bill claims, they are just giving Hillary the same scrutiny as other candidates. In other words, the playing field has been leveled and the Clintons are not used to that. Remember, it was Drudge who expose the Lewinsky affair when the media was keeping it under wraps.
As I stated though, the photo looks like one of many except the person in the middle is different so why is this important and why should Hillary be taken to task for this photo? There was a guy named Jack Abramoff who was a lobbyist. He ended up in jail and several Republicans ended up in legal trouble because of illegal dealings with Abramoff (Democrats ignored their dealings with Abramoff as did their partners in the MSM). After the Abramoff scandal broke there was word that the disgraced lobbyist had been tot he White House and that there were photos of him with President and Mrs. Bush. The Democrats and the media went nuts over this and said it proved that Bush was doing illegal things. The Chicago Tribune said that Mr. Bush had some explaining to do even as the President was saying that he took thousands of photos with people he did not know and that he did not know Abramoff (sound familiar?). Here is the Tribune take on it:
“However, now we know there are at least two visits by admitted felon Jack Abramoff that the White House must explain,’’ Fitton said. “What was Jack Abramoff doing at the White House? With whom did he meet? The public deserves to know answers to these questions.†Chicago Tribune
Since Rezko is from Chicago, let’s wait and see how long the Tribune waits to tell us that the public deserves to know about Rezko’s visit with the Clintons.
There is no doubt that Abramoff raised money for President Bush as he did for many politicians from both parties. Many of those politicians, including the President, have donated that money to charity. The point being, if Abramoff was able to get his picture with the President because of fund raising, what did Rezko do to get his picture taken with the Clintons?
This photo, which has to be an embarrassment to Hillary, is probably nothing more than a photo with someone they really do not know, as are the Abramoff/Bush photos. However, the media and the Democratic Party went absolutely nuts over the Bush photos and the words corruption and scandal were thrown around quite often. Therefore, the Clinton photo with Rezko demands the same attention and scrutiny as the Bush/Abramoff photos and that attention needs to be now, not six months after she is elected to the Presidency.
The media cannot drag its feet on this and they must start digging to see if Rezko gave the Clintons money or if there is another relationship between the parties. The media must start using words like scandal and corruption and the Clintons must allow access to all their records so a federal probe can begin.
While the investigators and the media are at it, they can look into Hillary’s ties to Abramoff as well. If she wants to be President then she should be held to the same standard that the Democrats hold President Bush to.
Of course, this could be photoshopped…
Others items of interest:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, A Newt One- The Truth Surge, Pet’s Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: abramoff, Clinton, investigation, photo, rezko, scandal
Loading ...
Loading... 
