I can see why you think that, but then if you go there, shouldn't week look at Clinton's dubious relationships with questionable people like Peter Paul, Vinod Gupta, Hsu, David F. Rosen... the list of criminals, people on trial and unsavory people she surrounds herself with is extensive. Again long-term, friends and fundraisers. What is different is that instead of raising only $250,000 over at 20 year period, they have raised her $millions in less than a decade. These are facts that she is not denying. Do you want to even review the issue of all those poor Chinese immigrants (dishwashers waiters, etc) who magically can find the maximum donation to give her. Interesting that they are willing to forego paying rent or eating. Interesting that her supporters are paying some of them to give her the money. Then she has all the imaginary contributors who no one can find and who do not exist donating the maximum. It's not her fault that she is so well loved by people or that some of them are imaginary.

Ironically many Clinton supporters either have not bothered to be informed about there shady characters or maybe they simply do not hold her to the high standard that they hold Obama to.

I do not have a problem with Clinton supporters questioning Rezko. However I think that they are hypocritical in not questioning the numerous and growing number of financial scandals that Clinton is caught up in. Why are you not applying this same dilligence to your own candidate?

These many dubious involvements are all signs of her good judgement, I guess, huh?

Posted at March 16, 2008 4:33 PM in response to WHO ARE YA KIDDIN’ OBAMA!!!? Trustworthy, Naïve, Poor Instincts – All the qualities of a good Chief Executive?!

kcpoo

Hillary seems to surround herself with questionable types: Peter Paul, Vinod Gupta, Hsu, David F. Rosen... the list of criminals, people on trial and unsavory people she surrounds herself with is extensive. Ironically many Clinton supporters either have not bother to be informed about there shady characters or maybe they simply do not hold her to the high standard that they hold Obama to. By the way, The Clintons have been hanging in Harlem with leaders in the Black Church,(before she made being Black unfashionable). I hear she has a Wright of her own. Don't worry, the biased media won't likely cover it.

In a May 2005 interview with the black weekly newspaper the New York Amsterdam News, the former President Clinton said that he supported the efforts of Louis Farrakhan.

Lets face it, the Clintons hold everyone accountable for their actions but themselves.

Posted at March 16, 2008 3:36 PM in response to Chicago Tribune: No Obama/Rezko Wrongdoing

As a Black Women, with a biracial child and a multicultural background and family, I can attest to the fact that most Blacks can understand the pastor's perspective and many, especially the most oppressed probably agree with it.

Did Obama know? I think yes and no. I think the video played are the pastor's hits. I think Obama probably does not go to church regularly - especially since hitting the Washington scence and I think that the pastor is an elder and does not give regular sermons anymore. What is a shocking perspective to most of Americans is not so shocking to African Americans, so there would not be rumors about these sermons. While I'm not a chuch goer I've had enough exposure to Black churches to know that the more outrageous and outspoken pastors get the largest followings. Also from what I've heard pastors all across America blamed 911 and Katrina on our sins. In this instance it had a Black racial filter on it.

I have always thought the reverend was his Achilles heel. I did not know his rhetoric was as controversial as is was, but I thought he was trouble. I think Obama's people thought so too, but Obama did not want to abandon someone who has been his family, so he kept him and is paying for it now. I do not know if he can survive it, but he has gained my respect for not getting rid of the politically incorrect uncle with the loud mouth. Had he gotten rid of him, he would just look like he was pandering. This would have come out know matter what he did.

Take away the pastor's performance and here is what the guy was saying. Some of our past sins are coming back to haunt us. Just like we were wrong to support Apartheid in South Africa we are wrong to support the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. The Clintons had more for profit prisons built than any other administration and now there are more people in jail than ever before. The three strikes federal program is turning victims of drug addiction in our communities into career criminals and it is destroying our families, our communities, and our race as a whole. My nephew understands this, Hillary does not. Our interference in the affairs of others abroad have caused America to become a bullseye for those disaffected, harmed and angered by our actions overseas and have as a result come to see us as the enemy who is out to destroy them.

Others have said similar things. Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky and Rabbi Learner of Tikkun come to mind. They just said it in a more palatable way. I do not think Obama thinks "God Damn America." But as a man who, if he was not flanked by Secret Service, could be easily racially profiled on the road or a department store or have trouble getting a cab, I believe he understands the sentiment. I believe, as others on this site have suggested that he is choosing a different path toward resolving it. Part of that strategy is not knocking people over the head with hearing things that they might not be prepared to hear and ultimately be ready to believe. Many in the right wing and some on the left are not ready to accept that many Blacks do not get an equal chance at life and that makes some of them bitter. Some see a different America than most of us. I think that is starting to happen to poor Whites and other groups as well in recent years. I think Obama will opt to bring those groups together through their shared experiences.

So is he lying? No and Yes. Yes in that he is editing for the audience the way you might explain something controversial to a parent who sees the world different than you or someone who understand sees it.

Please excuse my rambling.

Posted at March 15, 2008 9:07 PM in response to I respect Obama more today then yesterday.

I sent info about it to the NY Times writer who did the piece on Hillary Clinton not paying suppliers, The Fix blogger on Washington Post, Smoking Gun, and Marc Armbinder of The Atlantic. Maybe one of them will research and do a story. She has the police report, correspondence with the bank manager, and the emails from the Clinton Finance committee contacts who told her "you are going to be with us all the way to the White House...So let's leave the money where it is and we'll save time on inevitable future donations and transactions" and "What happened to you with credit card errors is happening to others"

Posted at March 11, 2008 12:33 AM in response to HRC Finance Committee Discovers $3K Unauthorized on Private VISA, Switches to Obama

Sorry about the typos. I rushed. I was not supposed to be posting so much

Tracey

Posted at March 9, 2008 9:52 PM in response to Calling All Former Clinton Supporters

Indiex:

You did a great job of trying to reach us with your perspective without attacking. Thank you. I really appreciate your effort. I also meant to tell you that I liked the link to the Obama bio that you provided. I'm not shocked because I have worked in publishing and there are just as many discrepancies in not only Hillary's bio, but most bios. It was a good piece.

Your post also gave me some insight into your hostility toward me. You saw my summarizing of some of the things I am finding out about the Clintons as Right wing talking points. I was not in many heated debates with them back in those days and sought to avoid them. I'm not going to put the time in to redoing all the research I did for myself. I do not keep this stuff. But I will provide you with links to some of the recent scandals that I have not yet deleted. But please, lets not debate this stuff, because, you will give your side, and I will give my side and we will just end up at the same place. I truly think arguments with “facts” regarding the Clintons is a waste of everyone's time. What I perceive as facts, you see as distortions and vice versa and we are just starting to converse like two people in the same party.

What you need to remember about my post is that I was not providing evidence to a group of people who disagreed with me, but speaking about my path from Clinton to Obama. I'm not saying the issues were not important, but that with all this fighting online, I wanted to relate to the supporters who were not Obamabots yelling at idiots at the Clinton supporters yelling like idiots, but people who felt like they had a rude awakening. That is why I summarized so briefly what I image to you seemed to be right wing talking points. I now see why that hurt you and that was not my intent. Those of us you do not see people like you and my Mom as the enemy are a painful crossroads where someone whon we not only supported and admired is starting to seem like someone we would rather not know about. This is painful for me. That week in South Carolina really hurt me and other former Blacks supporters. Even if you think the source of our pain is not who we think is the source, can you at least find a way to understand that we think she and her husband treated us like trash, after years of us defending and supporting them through all the scandals? I'm just asking you to empathize with the sentiment, even if you think it is misguided instead of seeing us as the enemy

When I am making a post about a new revelation, I always cite the source and always use legitimate sources. Regarding Rezko, I think it is horrible that we have to choose between two candidates who are a potential part of scandal. There are several pending cases in which she has some involvement Clinton and she is not even the nominee as well. Do me a favor, if you want to get into the validity of these cases, can you do it on another post. Fighting back and forth about these issues is not what this message thread is about. If it comes from NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, NPR, most Clinton supporters still tend not to believe this stuff. I remember feeling the same, so I do not begrudge you if you do not like the sources.

Clinton Received $500-$2,000 Donations from poor Non-voting Chinese Immigrants - Source: LA Times
http://tinyurl.com/2kk7sa
The Clinton InfoUSA Ties May Lead to a Scandal - Source: NPR
http://tinyurl.com/2uddna
The Clinton Library Donor Conflict of Interest – Source: Washington Post
http://tinyurl.com/2b89vg
Bill Clinton Earns $700,000 for his foundation by selling stock that he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon – Source: Chicago Tribune
http://tinyurl.com/2gs9jx
Monsanto Clinton Connection – I have not researched this yet, but I it is being passed around liberal lists – Source: Daily Kos
http://tinyurl.com/3cpyjr
Clinton National Archives Issues
http://tinyurl.com/2v5k2r
Clintons Limited disclosure of their finances.
http://tinyurl.com/38stsn
David F. Rosen Illegal Fundraising Trial – Source: Washington Post
http://tinyurl.com/3xkayl
Norman Hsu Money Bundling Scandal
http://tinyurl.com/32ybqm
$1,200,000 Illegal Peter Paul Donation – Source: Boston.com
http://tinyurl.com/ypjnf4

This type of stuff is being read my democrats all the time and new stuff comes out weekly in the mainsteam media. I cannot imagine that she thinks she is completely vetted. So while I do not make light of the implications of Obama and Rezko, the overwhelming volume of their entanglements also has me even more worried that we are about to revisit our history of fighting for the Clintons again, only now many of us will no longer be fighting for them.

Posted at March 9, 2008 9:39 PM in response to Calling All Former Clinton Supporters

Tasty Tone:

I had a similar argument with my Mom who is also extremely intelligent and owns a multimillion dollar company. Now I try to avoid these conversations with her, because I do not want her upset. It definitely is not about facts or logic. The Republicans must be feeling vindicated and laughing their heads off.

Posted at March 9, 2008 7:17 PM in response to Calling All Former Clinton Supporters

Indiex: From our perspective, what we are posting are not lies. Despite your tone, I recognize that you do not think the things you are posting are not lies either. Too bad you are unable to get our perspective. I do not mean agree with us. That is unlikely, but stop simply looking at our perspective as something sinister.

I could look at your acceptance of how Hillary has treated Blacks as you having a problem with Blacks. However, I do not believe that. I believe that you likely think that she is misunderstood on this issue because of how you think Obama manipulated the press. I'm asking you for the same benefit of the doubt. Is it in vain? Am I the enemy simply because I support the wrong person?

Regarding the issues you raised about Obama. I'm not going to blindly follow him like I feel I did with the Clintons. If It comes out that he is culpable, I will likely have to rethink my support of him as I did with the Clintons. I think it is entirely possible that there is something up with Rezko. I do not drink the cool-aid. He was not my first choice. If anything, Clinton drove me to support him. I think we should stay alert with regards to the actions of all public servants. Clinton, Obama, Mc Cain, all of them. I do not think any of them should be above the law. I suspect most in Washington are dirty. I'm just hoping that some are less dirty than others. Right now, I do not know what category Obama fits in. However, you have decided that he is guilty and I respect that. Like with the Clintons there is enough information out there to at least justify some serious questions. So, I do not begrudge you this perspective

Posted at March 9, 2008 7:06 PM in response to Calling All Former Clinton Supporters

karenina044

Great Idea!

The following is the contact information:
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Phone Number: 202-863-8000
The Feedback form is at the following link:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

Tracey

Posted at March 9, 2008 6:07 PM in response to Calling All Former Clinton Supporters

Indiex:

Maybe if you did not attack us and instead interacted with us without hostility, you would be able to help us see the light. That we have to support Clinton if she wins. I realize that you did not get to this hostile state of mind in a vacuum. Many Obama and Clinton supporters have behaved horribly. all in the name of the "honor" of their chosen candidate.

You likely are responding to that and not us as indiviuals. I get that, but if you look closely at the many of the posts in this thread, a good number of us are sharing a sense of betrayal and disillusionment--pain even. I do not think anyone that posted in this thread, put down any Clinton supporter.

So, I call on you to help us. Why not look at us as mislead, instead of enemies. You will never convince an enemy to see the error of their ways, but you might be able to do so to someone who simply does not understand your point of view.

Might I suggest a way to do it? Instead of attacking Obama, which will likely just make many reading the thread angry, why not defend your candidate by explaining her actions and why they are justifiable. While I doubt if it would get most of us to support her in the primary, it might get some of us more comfortable with voting for her in the general election. I think most of us wish we were not in this place.

So, I got one question for you. Please try to answer in a diplomatic way so that this does not become a brawl.

The DNC ousted two democrats for supporting a republican in a presidential election. While Clinton did not officially endorsed Mc Cain, she did on at least three occasions, in as many days last week suggest that she and Mc Cain are qualified but that Obama was not, and that the only accomplishment he had was giving a speech. To many in the party she was saying that she preferred having Mc Cain elected over the other democrat. She aligned herself with Mc Cain. This is a first in primary history for any party.

You suggested that those of us struggling to be comfortable with voting for her are immature. Help us understand how supporting Mc Cain over Obama is not crossing the line and possibly immature. Since there is a good chance that she can not get the votes she neds, it appears to some of us as if she is saying that if she can nothave the nomination, then she will make him unelectable. Help us understand how not to see this behavior as not one of a leader. Tell us how you see this behavior and feel it is justified.

I know you have a problem with me and my post, but I genuinely want to understand. At the very least, this could be the first step in our two sides talking to each other instead of at each other.

Tracey

Posted at March 9, 2008 5:44 PM in response to Calling All Former Clinton Supporters