http://blackpoliticsontheweb.com/2008/08/24/cly...
Clyburn Says Obama Election Would Change America's View of Race.

One statement: “The Clintons have HISTORICALLY enjoyed tremendous support from within the African American community, but SOME OF THOSE TIES BECAME STRAINED over the course of a long primary season.”

Why do I see this statement as WEAK??

Their history has been DESTROYED – BECAUSE OFTHEIR DOING!!!
Some of those ties became strained – BECAUSE OF THEIR DOING!!!!!

He still caint' give it up!!!

Whew! Shaking my head Deep Breaths!!! :>) :>)

As far as the Clinton's not controlling their surrogates, it begs the question: is Howard Wolfson really qualified to speak to Bill Clinton's need to have his ass kissed in the first place? Or is the old Bill setting us up for a rousing and dramatic announcement of support for Obama at the convention, keeping silent and allowing all this talk about grudges and hurt feelings to build up to the moment of reconciliation? Wouldn't put it past the old mongoose…

The year was 1992, and the Democratic party was on the ropes. We were already 12 years into the Reagan revolution, and even with a weakening economy, George the First's promise to continue Reagan's policies for another 4 years looked like a clear path to victory. We needed a game-changer, and we got one. A young outsider burst onto the scene, with a radical new vision for the Democratic party. They called it neoliberalism, a marriage of traditional liberal social policies, with traditionally conservative, pro-business policies. The bet paid off. Clinton and his DLC not only won the presidency, but effectively took control of the Democratic party.

Fast forward to 2003. The DLC-dominated party had already suffered one painful presidential defeat, the Republicans had controlled congress for nearly a decade. The DLC needed an infusion of new blood, and one of the people they turned to was freshman senator, Barack Obama.

Here's how Ari Berman described it in his March 2005 article for The Nation, entitled, “Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt” (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm):

“In May 2003 the centrist Democratic Leadership Council published its yearly list of “100 New Democrats to Watch.” … The 2003 list, however, contained a number of questionable additions, including then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. As a state senator, Obama had continually passed progressive legislation–a record that he vowed to add to when he began his run for the US Senate on a platform of clear opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and NAFTA, all positions anathema to the DLC….. After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC.”

I don't doubt that the Clinton's are genuinely outraged over the loss of black support, or genuinely resentful about Hillary's defeat, but I think they'd still campaign their hearts out for Obama if only he'd do what he refused to do in 2003: embrace the DLC.

It's not like the Clinton's are controlling their surrogates anyway. So what exactly is Barack getting from them in return for puckering up?

BubbaBill you are DONE. Take your southerntiredracemongeringmaceatingwhiteass HOME and call Lewinsky if you want to be appeased. Obama ain't gettin on his knees and he ain't coming with his hat in his head either.

http://blackpoliticsontheweb.com/2008/08/24/cly...
Clyburn Says Obama Election Would Change America's View of Race.

One statement: “The Clintons have HISTORICALLY enjoyed tremendous support from within the African American community, but SOME OF THOSE TIES BECAME STRAINED over the course of a long primary season.”

Why do I see this statement as WEAK??

Their history has been DESTROYED – BECAUSE OFTHEIR DOING!!!
Some of those ties became strained – BECAUSE OF THEIR DOING!!!!!

He still caint' give it up!!!

Whew! Shaking my head Deep Breaths!!! :>) :>)

As far as the Clinton's not controlling their surrogates, it begs the question: is Howard Wolfson really qualified to speak to Bill Clinton's need to have his ass kissed in the first place? Or is the old Bill setting us up for a rousing and dramatic announcement of support for Obama at the convention, keeping silent and allowing all this talk about grudges and hurt feelings to build up to the moment of reconciliation? Wouldn't put it past the old mongoose…

The year was 1992, and the Democratic party was on the ropes. We were already 12 years into the Reagan revolution, and even with a weakening economy, George the First's promise to continue Reagan's policies for another 4 years looked like a clear path to victory. We needed a game-changer, and we got one. A young outsider burst onto the scene, with a radical new vision for the Democratic party. They called it neoliberalism, a marriage of traditional liberal social policies, with traditionally conservative, pro-business policies. The bet paid off. Clinton and his DLC not only won the presidency, but effectively took control of the Democratic party.

Fast forward to 2003. The DLC-dominated party had already suffered one painful presidential defeat, the Republicans had controlled congress for nearly a decade. The DLC needed an infusion of new blood, and one of the people they turned to was freshman senator, Barack Obama.

Here's how Ari Berman described it in his March 2005 article for The Nation, entitled, “Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt” (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm):

“In May 2003 the centrist Democratic Leadership Council published its yearly list of “100 New Democrats to Watch.” … The 2003 list, however, contained a number of questionable additions, including then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. As a state senator, Obama had continually passed progressive legislation–a record that he vowed to add to when he began his run for the US Senate on a platform of clear opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and NAFTA, all positions anathema to the DLC….. After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC.”

I don't doubt that the Clinton's are genuinely outraged over the loss of black support, or genuinely resentful about Hillary's defeat, but I think they'd still campaign their hearts out for Obama if only he'd do what he refused to do in 2003: embrace the DLC.

It's not like the Clinton's are controlling their surrogates anyway. So what exactly is Barack getting from them in return for puckering up?

BubbaBill you are DONE. Take your southerntiredracemongeringmaceatingwhiteass HOME and call Lewinsky if you want to be appeased. Obama ain't gettin on his knees and he ain't coming with his hat in his head either.