Zogby: Hillary pulls ahead with African American Voters...

Clinton and Undecided rise...Obama drops...



http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1267

over their right to know that OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT operations dumped TONS of CHEAP IranContra cocaine into their communities?

BET documentary American Gangster covers the story and displays the CIA documents that proved Gary Webb's reporting in 1996 was CORRECT. Too bad the Clinton WH at the time chose to downplay and deny the report to protect Poppy Bush.

http://www.bet.com/BETShows/americangangster.htm?wbc_purp

although you continue to pretend not to..

"you don't get even, you get elected. Then you get even.."

when you're about to make a serious move, you always deal from STRENGTH...not weakness!

Bill was STRONGEST immediately after his election and then his re-election. So....why was he STILL protecting Poppy Bush?

that would hold Poppy Bush accountable for his crimes of office, instead of acting like a SUBJECT to Poppy Bush and his cronies.

just asking President Clinton?

I've sent him e-mails, birthday cards, and get well wishes......I usually get a response......same with Hillary.....

It would be interesting......you might be surprised!

Should a 9-11 family be pleased with Clinton's decision? Should ANY Democrat concerned with open government be pleased with Clinton's decision? Did Clinton's decision serve to benefit ANYONE but the Bush family and the GOP?



http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

>>>>>>>

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

>>>>>>>>>

Or even more blame Hillary Clinton for something Bill Clinton did.

I guess only some DUers do that.

:eyes:

Webb's report came out in 1996 and Clinton WH downplayed it and denied it and targeted the REPORTER for a takedown.

You can pretend all you want that Clinton played no role, but try to be convincing when you argue with anyone who knows he was president when the CIA drugrunning story was revealed 1996-1998.

If I thought for a second that Hillary would act differently than Bill on matters of coverups, secrecy and privilege, then I'd be her biggest cheerleader. But there is nothing in her record that tells me she has any intention of opening the books on BushInc. In fact, she seems to have shied away from opposing BushInc on any serious issues over the last 6 years.

For months...

It goes nowhere, so any pro-Clinton thread he attempts to hijack with this...

It is the new tactic of some "progressives"...blame Clinton for Bush crimes...

and reputation.

May I ask why YOU think it is OK for Poppy Bush to be protected by anybody, including Clinton?

Start a new thread if you wish to peddle this nonsense

Or do you just hope that the black community won't figure out that Bill Clinton approved the coverup from 1996-1998?

This is DIRECTLY related to your thread on black voters and the popularity of the Clintons. You are welcome to provide evidence that Clinton wasn't in office when the story broke in 1996 or that he sided with the black community - but all arrows point to Clinton siding with Poppy Bush on this - yet again.

leader to protect crimes of office committed by BushInc, you equate them with an enemy propagandist>

How many people did my posts here at DU kill, and how many people died because Clinton protected BushInc throughout his term?

But, when Obama pulled ahead it was trumpeted to the skies...

So, gotta make sure I do the same with my candidate...

This could go anywhere.

Unless one candidate or the other begins to seriously pull ahead in the polls overall...this vote will continue to be split...

Clintons know this and that is why they are using threat tactics to keep the black leadership in line. They have basically asked them to sit this one out till after the primary.

Being a black woman who frequent black establishments (beauty salons, church) the buzz about Obama is increasing everyday. The only thing that will do him in would be the Clinton pr machine.

That pr machine (Clinton) has to make sure not to alienate the black vote and I can definitely see this happening. Hell it has happened already.

There are alot of blacks who were willing to sit this one out, until Obama and Clinton entered, and if they feel that the Clinton's are personally attacking Obama they will sit this one out.

Then i would believe this poll

Discounting a pro-Hillary poll...

How ironic...

You fucking hypocrite.

It cracks me up! :rofl:

I don't care who is doing better or worse...polls with an MOE over 3% is basically pointless. A 3% MOE can sway 6% in either direction. An MOE nearing 5% is veering near 10% on the numbers... crap...pure and simple...

But if you want to believe a poll with an MOE near 5%, be my guest.

Was extolled to the heavens a couple weeks ago...

Thought it would be useful to point out that that trend did not continue...

btw, since you are fixated on MOE...Hillary according to this poll leads Obama by 11 among African American voters, outside the MOE...

A margin of error standard of 3% or less is what you call a good poll. Anything higher is crap.

If Obama was cited in a poll gaining ground or whatever and the poll was nearly 5% MOE, it would be crap.

If you enjoy meaningless and sub-par polls, that's your choice. It also indicates to me how you value making choices as well.

...is the apparent assumption that African Americans should "support their own". And if they don't...then there must be something wrong with him/her.

I ask one question: have there been any polls recently among WHITES about their preference? And has there been any implication that Hillary or any other WHITE candidate is not getting the WHITE VOTE?

Just asking.

But I have seen it broken out in others...

Did ANY of them discuss who was winning the "white vote"? For example, if Edwards or Clinton was behind, was it pointed out he/she did not have the "white vote"? Or was there speculation as to what faction of the "white vote" a candidate appealed to or whether there was a rift in the "white community" over a candidate?

Just askin. Mainly because I doubt if most would view the "white vote" as a group the same way some of us might view the "black vote".

Name Recognition...


Oooops that was two words.

His lead in the previous Zogby Poll...did people forget his name between then and now?

misconceptions going on here lately.

Hell....I think even Rev. Sharpton is leaning towards Clinton.

Oh well.......things can change on a dime in politics, but I hope the numbers continue to climb.

He's lost some support, Edwards has quickly gained some support...

Still, let's see a week from now.

All sorts of changes will take place.

Obama will get the black vote.



Chicago Sun-Times

The better question is:
Who will black women vote for?

of course. He just need to get Michelle out there more and everything will be alright.
Blacks can relate to Obama ands black women see themselves in Michelle.

Clinton has more name recognition than Obama. Period. Spouting off with these polls regardless of who they say is the golden child is ridiculous at this point.

wait till Jackson is giving speeches for Obama in South Carolina.