Hillary On Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"

cross-posted to goodCRIMETHINK

Barack Obama is rubber. Hillary Clinton is glue. Everything she says about him bounces back and sticks to her. Everything.

From Huffington Post:

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."



...those who were at the event say the 1995 episode fits into her larger political viewpoint. As Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

There you have it. Screw them.

Screw those people with values. Screw those hunters. Screw those church-goers. Screw those people whose hypothetical offense I am exploiting for short-term political gain.

It doesn't matter why they might be frustrated. She doesn't try to explain it. She writes them off.

That's just cold.

She's so full of excrement, this one.

The article continues, explaining that after her comments, Bill Clinton stepped in to explain (I've highlighted a few sections for later focus):

I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.

The HuffPo author seems to think that the above "is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America."

He's wrong. I bolded a few sections above which caused me to pause. Bill goes far beyond anything Obama was trying to say.

Bill says that "our reforms" came at "their expense" and amazingly claims that they've paid the whole price of liberty for others.

What a paternalistic nincompoop. I'm sure poor Southern white men have suffered the neglect of a corporate-driven system that overlooks them. All poor people have. I'm sure it was painful for many white supremacists in this group to watch women and blacks start working and voting. But to somehow claim that this group paid the whole price of "liberty for others" is stunning. How magnificently twisted of you Mr. Clinton.

Here I am thinking that the liberation of any is the liberation of all, that a society which begins to value the least of us can finally truly value each of us.

Here I am thinking that the "liberty of others" might have been fought for and paid for in blood by those very "others" through marching and lynchings and state-sponsored terrorism, but apparently it was all due to hardworking, poor, white boys.

This sounds similar to Hillary's "it took a president to get it done" comment which sparked so much ugliness in this campaign back in January. It's never the oppressed working hard, fighting and dying for their freedom. It's always somebody else.

Thanks for the clarification, Bill. Now kindly, take your opportunistic, back-stabbing, kamikaze wife and your patriarchal, historically revisionist ass, and shut the fuck up.

Bill Clinton's Ties to China----show us the $$$$$$

From The Los Angeles Times.com

CAMPAIGN '08

Bill Clinton, China linked via his foundation
Eugene Hoshiko, Associated Press

IN HANGZHOU: President Clinton gave the keynote address at a 2005 conference organized by Alibaba, hailing the Internet as “an inherently cooperative instrument.”
A firm that has donated to the president's charity is accused of collaborating with the government in its crackdown on Tibetan activists. Hillary Clinton has spoken out against China's actions.
By Stephen Braun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 13, 2008

NEW YORK -- As Chinese authorities have clamped down on unrest in Tibet and jailed dissidents in advance of the 2008 Olympics, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken a strong public stance, calling for restraint in Tibet and urging President Bush to boycott the Olympics opening ceremonies in Beijing.

But her recent stern comments on China's internal crackdown collide with former President Bill Clinton's fundraising relationship with a Chinese Internet company accused of collaborating with the mainland government's censorship of the Web. Last month, the firm, Alibaba Inc., carried a government-issued "most wanted" posting on its Yahoo China homepage, urging viewers to provide information on Tibetan activists suspected of stirring recent riots.

Alibaba, which took over Yahoo's China operation in 2005 as part of a billion-dollar deal with the U.S.-based search engine, arranged for the former president to speak to a conference of Internet executives in Hangzhou in September 2005. Instead of taking his standard speaking fees, which have ranged from $100,000 to $400,000, Clinton accepted an unspecified private donation from Alibaba to his international charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation.

The former president's charity has raised more than $500 million over the last decade and has been lauded for its roles in disaster response, AIDS prevention and Third World medical and poverty relief. But his reliance on influential foreign donors and his foundation's refusal to release its list of donors have led to repeated questions about the sources and transparency of his fundraising -- even as Hillary Clinton has talked on the campaign trail about relying on him as a roving international ambassador if she is elected president.

Foreign contributions to American-based charities are allowed under U.S. law, but political and philanthropy ethics advocates worry that Bill Clinton's reliance on international businesses and foreign governments to finance his worldwide charity campaigns raise issues of potential conflicts of interest if he were to take an active role in his wife's administration.

"This is a perfect example of why it's critical for both Clintons to provide prompt and complete disclosure of all their sources of income, not just personal sources but also his foundation," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a government reform advocacy group.

The Clinton foundation and the former president's library in Little Rock have received millions of dollars in donations from the Saudi royal family and the Middle East sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar, along with the governments of Taiwan and Brunei.

Fueled by such cash, the foundation has grown into a worldwide philanthropic dynamo, using its financial clout and influence with business leaders to streamline solutions for logistical logjams that have long plagued charity operations. The foundation has pressed to lower the price of expensive AIDS medications and set up long-term projects across the Third World.

But like many charities, the Clinton foundation maintains a strict policy of keeping its donations confidential to protect the privacy of donors. Still, partial lists have emerged in the foundation's tax filings and in press accounts, leading to growing scrutiny of the activities of some contributors.

Some human rights activists suggest that the Clinton foundation's contribution from Alibaba undermines his wife's outspoken stance on China's internal crackdown.

"A former president of the United States received a donation from a Chinese firm that is involved in censorship, and now his wife is running for president. This is a shame of the U.S.," said Harry Wu, an exiled Chinese activist based in Washington.

Rest of article at link above.

**********************************************************




See, while the MSM obssesses over Obama's so-called 'Elitist' comments,


They still havent gotten the list of Donors to
1. Bill Clinton's Charity
2. Bill Clinton's Library

I wanna know how much the Chinese have given him, as well as others.

It's called TRANSPARENCY...something The Clintons don't want any parts of this election season...just exactly WHERE are those 2007 Tax Returns? And what's up with that partnership with Ron Burkle? What did you do to earn those millions?

Bill Clinton Is Incredible, Now Lying About Lies

That's just meta.

When I was in Philly for Obama last week, a friend made a pretty insightful statement.

"When people say they hate Hillary Clinton, you don't know if it's a Republican or Democrat saying it."

That wasn't always the case, but I keep finding myself asking, "was the vast right wing conspiracy right about these people being serial liars?"

There's no way out for Bill Clinton on this one. This is Bill explaining the actions of Democratic Primary Spoiler Hillary Clinton's Bosnia deception. From ABC's blog

President Clinton's described his wife's experience, saying, "There was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it - what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that. Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you." Clinton then criticized the press, saying, “You woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them, when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too."

President Clinton's version of the story has several inaccuracies. Hillary Clinton actually made the exaggerated comments numerous times, including at an event in Dubuque, Iowa on Dec. 29th, in Waco, TX on Feb. 29th, and twice -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17.

Sen. Clinton did not apologize, as Mr. Clinton asserted. His wife did say she had made a mistake and said that she had misspoken when describing the Bosnia incident.

Sen. Clinton also wasn't as quick with her apology as President Clinton may remember either. In fact, it took a week for her to eventually correct herself, first talking to the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board on March 24 and again the following day in Greensboro, N.C.

President Clinton also indicated that his wife's trip took place in 1996 – when it fact it took place in 1995.

President Clinton then later in the evening told the story again in Jasper, Ind., saying the press was treating his wife like the Mata Hari. "She took a terrible beating in the press for a few days because she was exhausted at 11 o'clock at night and she started talking about Bosnia and she misstated the circumstances under which she landed in Bosnia. Did you all see all that? And oh, they acted like she was practically Mata Hari - like she was making up all this stuff."

There's just no defense at all. No misinterpretation possible. He's absolutely destroyed whatever credibility he reconstituted after leaving office. For shame.

Saying she robbed a bank is not far off from the truth. She robbed people who actually were in combat of their experience. She made up a combat story of her own. It's called valor theft.

Now please go away. I'm so tired of this.

Much Respect To Bill Richardson

For holding the line against James Carville. hat tip Pam's House Blend