R.I.P., THE CLINTON ERA, 9:34 P.M. EST.

R.I.P., THE CLINTON ERA, 9:34 P.M. EST.

Wow.

Get your kids out and put them in front of the TV: The Clinton Era officially ended at 9:34 p.m. EST when Edwards paired with Obama to bury Hillary as a non-agent of change.

Wow, again.

http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=rip_the_clinton_era_934_pm_est

The Hillary Clinton Presidency is approaching.

No free-trader, visa-increasing, job offshoring facilitator will get my vote.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

You know, what say anyone on this?? Huh? Aside from the few neo-libs that actually support free trade and job offshoring in her camp, everyone kind of whistles past this dead elephant in the room. Please explain to me what is Democratic with these straight outta the Heritage Foundation talking points?

Go Hillary.

And hopefully this time there won't be crooked referees on the payroll of the Republican bastards who own the other team.

One of the biggest in the business. I finally concur.

Interesting that you didn't notice the Clinton era ended 7 years ago. Who exactly do you believe in the White House right now?

look at us now!!!

Hillary has made some significant blunders this political season. Significant. I would hope that she would have at least learned the lesson of being conciliatory in one's passions, because the way she's always done things isn't working for her. She's not 'one of the guys', but she's not 'the girl being wooed', either.

Her dissing of Iowa, for me, is what set the final nail in place. But it was up to her to knock the nail away or let it be pounded into place.

As for Obama, people like him. They don't like inconsequential attacks on his character through third parties.

Clinton isn't half as angry as Edwards has been all year.

We should have the same rules for both men and women candidates, Tom.

Posted by: JoeCHI | January 5, 2008 10:11 PM

not about what's happening to our country, or the people in it, only what's happening to her. I think the rules are the same - if she spoke with the anger and passion JE does, about the poor, the homeless, the veterans - it would be quite a different thing.

... she is part of the problem and will NEVER be part of any solution.

Don't come here spewing that right-wing "angry" bullshit. We're ANGRY at what the Clintons and the Bushes have done to our country, and we want a CHANGE.

Bye bye Hillary.....

lucky..we're gonna see!

because it made them both look weaker, "pairing up" as you say. And the camera often had the two of them in view, which made it worse.

She handled it just fine. I think points go to her for that dynamic.

How is he different now from.... whenever?

that way, my appologies

I was more referring to some of the responses to it

nt

and well connected with the elites and we still have paperless ballots and such that can still put her in power. The elite will kill if needed to further their agenda. Ask Bill Clinton what was discussed at the secretive Bilderberg meetings all of the years he attended, I'm sure he knows a few things.


I do agree with you on the time if that is when she imploded and reacted like a spoiled child and started to get a little loud and unprofessional. I in no way want my children to have the most powerful position in our country held by someone that will respond like that to verbal comments, how will she react when in office when bigger things happen?

and she never acted like a child. She brought the two tag-teamers back to reality with what she's actually succeeded in changing. As far as Bilderberg, John Edwards made appearances there himself, as did many, many other Democratic leaders.

Edwards went to Bilderberg one year and he is now speaking out about the corruption and the fact that the system is rigged. So I will take someone that has come to grips with how bad things are and is standing up and telling us instead of one that still wants to play hide and seek and wants to sit the fence.

other than talk? What has John Edwards, son of a millworker, done in between the years he was a United States senator, and now that he's running for president? What has he done, how much money has he invested, how many hours has he worked for any of the causes that he insists are such a part of his life?

maybe some Edwards supporters can answer that for you.

"Edwards went to Bilderberg one year and he is now speaking out about the corruption and the fact that the system is rigged. So I will take someone that has come to grips with how bad things are and is standing up and telling us instead of one that still wants to play hide and seek and wants to sit the fence"

I'll post where I want to post thank you, and if you don't want to debate your own comments, then you probably shouldn't post them.

like Clinton did. If you are a Clinton supporter, it would now make sense why you responded the way you do and why you like her style.

YOU...brought Edwards into the conversation so I will await your apology and if not thats ok too. I realize that sometimes its tough to remember a few minutes ago and you didnt realize how ignorant your last response looked but thats ok.


Here you go folks, Edwards being brought into conversation by someone other than me.

"and she never acted like a child. She brought the two tag-teamers back to reality with what she's actually succeeded in changing. As far as Bilderberg, John Edwards made appearances there himself, as did many, many other Democratic leaders."

but I was responding to your post in which you seemed to feel that Edwards came out of Bilderberg energized to fight corruption. That's why I asked you how, when and where?

I'm sorry if I went over the top, that wasn't my intention, and I hate when it happens.

Peace

My brain tilted when I 1st heard that.

guess I was wrong.

if a lot of the prosperity that occurred during the 90's
was due to the early profits of job outsourcing, business excess, etc.
Uh, can we say NAFTA,????

With the coming of Dubya it just shifted into high gear.

We are infighting so hard, defending our candidates so hard, we are becoming factions.

i'm an Edwards supporter because I met him a few times during my eight years in North Carolina and he was always the most open, alive, friendly person in the room, ready to hear from individuals and converse with whoever was interested in doing so.

i forgive all of the Democratic candidates their foibles and missteps.

Bush, on the other hand, I will NEVER forgive. Hell, Bush wouldn't have even fit in during the REPUBLICAN half of this debate - he is a CLOWN.

Bush has a family fortune that dwarfs any of our candidates. And yet I still see catty digs on Edwards' house.

Bush is more than "complicit" in the iraq war - he is the VERY REASON IT HAPPENED. And yet Edwards is sometimes vilified as if he were the root cause of the occupation.

Where is the CTRL-Z for America ? How can we UNDO the damage of the Bush years ?

Certainly not by impugning our own top three candidates.

Obama won in Iowa because he changed the game by bringing new voters into the Democratic caucus. Edwards fans almost universally agree that despite our misgivings that Obama is too "pep-rally" and that his issues involve more compromise than fight, that this new-voter dynamic alone makes him a fantastic addition to the race. I realize now that I am actually disgusted by the low blows and infighting relished by some of his FANS, who all too often sound like they are naive LaRouche robots sometimes. This accomplishes the OPPOSITE of what Obama accomplished in Iowa, see? It turns everyone else AWAY from your candidate!

Obama himself finally had a chance to speak to me tonight, and I am grateful for having listened. I hope his supporters learn how to articulate - and maybe even PERSUADE me on - the merits of his positions rather than chanting negativity about John and Hillary. It's not going to win you many friends and it DESTROYS THIS COMMUNITY. I have been called an F-tard for observing this inane nature of Obama's support before, so spare your vitriol and think like this: if Obama is indeed to be the candidate of the Democratic Party, aren't you going to need everyone here to pull together for him in the General? Then why attack us? hint - the problem is not your candidate.

Clinton speaks for an older generation of voters, and powerfully. I don't spend too much time attacking her because I think she has fought for a long time for important issues. I *like* her and *respect* her as a human being and can support my candidate without trying to hurt her. Her supporters are understandably defensive after Iowa and perceiving her as having been directly attacked by "the change duo". I empathize. They should understand that this positioning - of "experience" vs "change" - was at least half HER decision, and try to persuade me and other voters of the vitality and SPECIFIC VALUE of her experience. At least Bill Richardson did as much tonight, connecting his past as Secretary of Energy and as a Governor to the specific role of POTUS in an era where energy dynamics are killing the earth.

I am not persuaded yet of the value of this experience, but I would love to be. I feel for Clinton supporters, because my Dad is one, and I want to see what her experience might directly translate to in a Clinton Administration. I also want her supporters to support my candidate if he should pull it out. However there are politics going on here, and I want to say too that yes Hillary supporters would need everyone on this forum in the general should she become the nominee.

Edwards supporters - of which I am proud to be one - please let's raise the level of bridge-building among candidate supporters tonight and for the remainder of the primaries. Personally I think that's the community that John Edwards deserves. I believe that our candidate's positive attitude and powerful opinions are setting the agenda for the USA and even without an election prize John's campaign has been MONEY WELL SPENT, sort of like forcing tons of voters to watch "The Corporation" a few times. And when we rally to defend our candidate, we must understand that the derisive snorts of the conspiracy theorists who diss him are evidence of the self-limitation and judgementalism of these detractors. They are not worth our time.

I'm sick of hearing about the money deficit under which Edwards runs. It makes me RELATE to him MORE, as he has been able to create great results with a fraction of the cash - which sounds VERY Presidential to ME. Edwards is going to remain in the race to adjust the agenda further, and make sure that whoever gets the nod will remain true to the ideals of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. I am very proud of that. He will bring up things like credit card companies and insurance companies and the other elements of the hegemony and hopefully CREATE THE DEMAND TO SEE THOSE INTERESTS KICKED OUT OF POLITICS. I believe this is a message that every one of the Democratic candidates should endorse wholeheartedly - so perhaps Obama and Clinton fans could let me know why it seems that their candidates aren't that interested?

Come on folks ! We are TOTALLY going to have to UNIFY in a few months, right ? I saw on stage today three candidates who each are deeply worth supporting in contrast to the Repugnicans. FIND SOMETHING TO LIKE IN YOUR RIVALS TONIGHT, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD !!!!!

as a final thought - i wish they had asked that lame-ass question about a nuke going off in the USA to the Repugnicans, who would have pounced on the red meat all Jack Bauer stylee. I want to condemn Bush yet again for creating such a welter of paranoia in his eight years of oozing slime on the Oval Office carpet. certainly Giuliani and Romney would have outdone one another, clamoring to send segment after segment of the brown and radical populations to the gulag after such an incident. that would have been an exposition of true colors I'd have liked to see.

- srini

And thank you for the lecture. I'm sure.

Some energy going on between Edwards and Obama. Energy for change.

They tried to bury her but she shot back with both barrels.

they tag-teamed her with rhetoric, and she shot back with specifics. I loved it.

They've been showing it on a split screen and Edwards puts his chin down a bit and looks very surprised and amused at the same time.

...of being in collusion with special interest forces who seek to lock in a status quo that harms the interests of working Americans would be hounded endlessly on DU for having no spine or worse; of actually being guilty as charged because they did NOT get furious over such a smear. When it is a Democrat defending themselves against a FOX news jock like that we cheer. When it is Hillary Clinton, who has devoted her entire adult life to the Democratic Party including organizing for George Mondale and staffing impeachment proceedings against Nixon, who gets outraged at the implications of that smeer then suddenly it is "a melt down". It seems men never melt down, they bitch slap their accusers. Women are the ones who "melt down", right?

but Hillary let her frustration with the way this race is going show tonight. All Edwards did was label her as the status quo candidate, which is the way she has consistently defined herself during this campaign. It was a very bad moment and, like Dean, she looked the opposite of presidential.

Throughout the entire debate Edwards defined the status quo as corporate power working as a special interest to defeat the interests of regular working Americans. You act like his use of the term "status quo" in that context was somehow nuetral, it wasn't. It was an equation with everything that is worst about the Bush Administration, everything that Democrats supposedly stand against. I stand by my comment. Clinton would have been crucified if she took that charge calmly. It would have been like when Dukakis was asked how he would feel about the death penelty if someone raped and murdered his wife. If a Democrat has no passion in defending herself against that type of attack then they are guilty as accused.

This reminds me of the old Inquisition witch trials. Throw a women into water over her head with no realistic way to rescue herself without super human effort. If she survives she's a witch and gets burned at the stake. If she dies she is innocent and the Church says "she went straight to heaven - no biggie".

A lot of people, myself included, said that this would become the story of teh debate as soon as it happened

... I agree that Hillary's reaction will be the talk of the media. But I don't agree with them. I didn't see anything wrong with what she did or said.

It didn't change my mind, but I think they will unfairly pounce on her.

but don't count the vast big-money conspiracy out yet.

That is the type of superficial thinking that repeatedly robs our nation of real discussion of issues. No one got "buried" and no truth was established because two politicians with their own personal vested interests in advancing to the finals identified with a slogan and sought to unidentify an opponent from that same slogan. Change has always been an Obama buzz word. He does represent change of course by being an African American, and as Hillary pointed out she represents change by being a woman. But her point was that representing change does not bring about change, effective work brings about change. Richardson focused on the real value of experience in getting things done. Obama in turn pointed out the power of words in moving people etc. There is much to discuss on the topic of how does change happen and more than one way to look at it. Much of the debate revolved around that and it was fascinating, and acutally a useful discussion to have. But your post glosses right over all of it. Two politicians try to patent a positive buzz word in a double team against a common opponent and you think that was a defining moment in American political history? That is sad.

Edwards for his part was just reading the polls. He needs to do some immediate political historical revisionism. He finished less than half a percentage point ahead of Clinton in Iowa, with both of them being 8 points behind Obama. So he is strapping himself to Obama's "change" image so he can claim that it was he and Obama who "won" Iowa rather than he and Clinton who "lost" there. "I'm about change too! Change, that's me, just like Obama!" was his ploy. In fact most everything else he went on to say about how to bring about change was diametrically opposite to what Obama had to say.

Obama stressed building a working majority coalition to bring about change by finding common ground with non Democrats; Independents and some Republicans. Obama blurred Party lines in an appeal to all Americans. Edwards took a very strong economic populist position against the types of compromises that in fact usually build those types of working coalitions. There are reasons why Independents choose not to be Democrats in the first place, and for many of them it includes a rejection of that type of sharp edged populist world view.

Obama and Edwards "teamed up" in name only; that name being the high polling buzz word "change". The actual debate discussion was real; the use of slogans wasn't.

I got the feeling Obama wanted to say, "Thanks, I can handle it from here."

The ganging up made them both look weak, I thought.

Not quite a tear, but was it close enough? (I thought it was a great way to handle the question.)

She's on the right track :evilgrin:

I did see that. She was beautiful at that moment.

I watched the debate alone, and then came to DU and it's like visiting an alternate universe. Edwards didn't do himself or Obama any favors tonight. I thought Hillary Clinton was brilliant in the way she handled them both.

This is one of them.

YEA!

After seeing the actual debate rather than a YouTube snippet it looked quite different. Hillary portrayed herself as an agent of experience in that instance, and Obama as an empty suit offering nothing but happy slogans. He spent more time stuttering than anything throughout the debate--particularly when put on the spot.

Now I had to pick an overall winner of the debate I'd choose Edwards.

mentioning DU, they attributed it to "liberal bloggers".