Is the Convention Over Yet?

By Booman Tribune
This is an interesting statement:

Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, was tasked by the Obama campaign this summer with soothing ruffled feelings and helping Hillary loyalists to get over their sense of loss. It has been a demanding assignment.

“There is a sense of entitlement that almost seems to be inbred,” Panetta said. “They are convinced Hillary is the one who should be assuming the mantle and it’s tough to crack that.”

Regarding the prime-time speaking slots for the Clintons and the roll-call:

“It’s not something that I would have recommended, but they’re trying to bend over backwards as far as they can to accommodate her,” said Panetta. “I’m a little disturbed that this keeps playing out.”

Now, I want to take a moment to set up this next piece. Lynn Forester, aka Lady de Rothschild, is married to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, the 'former chairman of the family firm, NM Rothschild.' They are worth billions of dollars. When they were married, they spent the night of their wedding dinner sleeping as guests of the Clintons in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House. I really don't think it is possible to be more of an elite than the Rothschilds. So, the irony of this next comment is almost thermonuclear in its incandescence.

“I think the roll-call will be a cathartic moment,” said [Lady de] Rothschild. “There will be a lot of people who will say, ‘Oh, what might have been’ and will vote for Obama but there will be a lot of tears.”

The roll-call will not be enough to bring Rothschild back into the fold, however. “We’re not going to win by pretending problems with Barack Obama don’t exist. He has a huge problem connecting with ordinary Americans, who think, ‘He doesn’t understand me.’ He is not modest; he is arrogant. He radiates elitism.”

I'm not going to get into internal polling numbers that disprove the Lady's point. What's most shocking is that she would accuse a man with Barack Obama's background of 'radiating elitism.' She married into billions, and he fought his way to the top of the meritocracy through hard work and perseverance. I love this next bit:

She also resents a lack of effort to pay off Clinton’s $20m campaign debt. “He has provided her with a pittance compared to what the Clintons have given Obama,” Rothschild said. “Her debt could have been cleared within 10 days. It’s ungracious.”

Lady Rothschild could pay off Hillary's debt by cutting her weekly allowance in half for a month or two. And who is she calling ungracious?

Rothschild has not yet made up her mind. “I haven’t ruled out voting for McCain,” she said. “I like him a lot.” She is waiting to see who Obama picks as his running mate and has her heart set on Clinton.

Considering how much money the Rothschilds stand to gain from lower marginal personal income taxes, lower capital gains taxes, lower taxes on dividends, lower estate taxes, and less banking oversight, it's no surprise that they would consider voting for John McCain. I think there are a lot of people in the Rothschilds' circle of friends that would never vote for a real progressive Democrat. If they don't feel like they already own you, they do not want to see you take power. So it goes.

I can't wait to get this stupid convention behind us.

Comments

(37)

Not Real Democrats

I was in a heated discuss with FUB2 and AG over hillary and her sizable majority getting a voice at the convention.

I even though I believe that the best ticket would be Obama and Hillary.

However, to my surprise, there are Some Obama Supporters (or claim to be) that hate that idea.

I ask you, who really hates the clintons...the answer would be the republicans.

The answer, they fear Hillary so much that they unleshed there corporate media dogs on her.

Why suchhatred.... the the truth is the poll that shows that Obama is not doing that well with white men and as well with white women.

The republicans would love to take their chances in a race war, not that they would automatically win, but the last things the want is a GENDER war.

The democrats could win a major landslide in the fall with Hillary on the ticket pulling just 50 percent of the white female vote. The dems could win with just Obama considering the republican failures of the past but the republicans still have their corporate media buddies on their side and that's why we lost in 2004.

The last thing the republicans want is the Obama and Hillary supporters uniting under a joint ticket.

So don't let the corporate media talking heads claim that it's terrible because they are being paid by, of course, corporate american.

To have a great convention, the dems must rally around both Obama and Hillary for a great victory in the fall.

Obama supporters that don't understand that must be either crazy or republicans.
Thanks

Why they fear Obama/Hillary Ticket

Supporting poll number.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109456/Gender-Gap-Among-White-Voters-Bigger-N...

The democrats can not become a mandate party if they continue to lose the very important demographic.

We might not can convince 50% of white males to vote for Obama, but I truly believe we could reach 50-55% of white female vote with Hillary joining the ticket.

That's what the republcians fear and hope Obama supporters can block this union to create one very strong ticket in the fall.
Thanks

I don't believe that Hillary would be a good choice at all for

VP, on several different levels, as I have stated many times in the past.

1. Hillary wants to have a role in passing legislation that is important to her, such as health care reform. As VP, she would have far less ability to do so than she would if she remained in the Senate.

2. A presidential candidate has every reason to expect that they can, as the winning nominee, have the freedom to choose someone that has similar views on most issues, to ensure that there is continuity should the president be unable to fulfill their responsibilities. Hillary made it abundantly clear during the primaries that this is not the case with her and Obama, and she actually seemed to show more respect for McCain than she did Obama. Why pick someone who doesn't even respect you, especially when you have to work with them every day?

3.Hillary also had by far the biggest negative numbers for any of the dem candidates during the primary, and despite what Hillary supporters say, repubs would absolutely love to attack her in a campaign. To them, the Clintons are the devil incarnate, and the presence of Hillary on the ticket would be just the red meat that repubs need to get their base to the polls, not to support McCain, but to oppose Clinton. At this point, they don't have that.

Contrast

Uff,
Good points you are making.

I just want to point out that negative poll numbers shift like McCain was written off at one time and Rudy was riding high.

However, I don't expect a major shift in the white demo if Obama select someone other than Hillary as running mate.

Again, I say Obama may win enough of the white demo to carry him to victory, but to become a successfull president he needs a political mandate to hold off the republicans and the corporate media.

But I am glad you brougth your points to the discussion. Right now I not sure, what Hillary wants.

If she is not fighting for the VP slot, then her only choice is to block Obama by supporting Gore.
I love Gore, but don't like the fact that it could tear our party apart.

Therefore, it is best for Hillary to join Obama to truly unite the party or just sit down in shut up.
Thanks

Your Crystal Ball!!!

"1. Hillary wants to have a role in passing legislation that is important to her, such as health care reform. As VP, she would have far less ability to do so than she would if she remained in the Senate."
Ugg,
On this point, I think your point is valid if you know how an Obama/Clinton white house would be structured and I don't believe anyone knows that at this time. I am sure if they can bring the party together at the convention, they will have no problem with the point you addressed.
Thanks

Who should actually hate the Clintons?

The answer is real Democrats, unless real Democrats are for unrestricted crony trade deals without labor protections, normalization of trade with China, deregulation of corporate monopolies, deregulation of the media and investment bankers, punitive crime legislation with overkill sentences resulting on 1 in 100 Americans in jail currently, no restriction on bribes that Congress is allowed to receive from corporate lobbyists and encouragement of Congress to take those bribes, thus ignoring the vast majority of the population to promote anti-labor trade policy and domestic business law, and not last and not least, kicking poor people off the welfare rolls.

Who should really love the Clintons? The Republicans and the DLC.

Yeah !!!!

Anti,
I have the same concern that you have and that's why I never voted for the clintons.

However, I don't think Obama is a champion of your above complaints about the clintons.

Please let me know were I am wrong on this point.
Thanks

Agreed

Obama is only slightly less corporate than Hillary is, overall, and less so on some issues (like coal). In the General he has positioned himself even more to the center than he had been, as I'm sure Hillary would have done as well. It's too bad, because I felt like he left enough people on the left to pick up that he didn't need to move right, but he is looking to put some states into play that have not been so for a long time.

He is nowhere near as liberal as I would like him to be and yet he is light years closer to right than McCain. My hope is that we can take over the center here and then keep the momentum going to move the center back to the middle where it belongs.

Couldn't Agree More

gt6,
I believe you are right on all points. The sad thing is that it cost too much to run for political office.
As long as politicians must beg corporate america for money the results will be the same.

But the main problem is that the corporations control the political message and defined the candidates through their media organizations/outlets.

Nothing will change until politicians can get direct access to the public through media where they control program content and not some media exec with a hiden agenda.

For instance, I would prefer two democrats and one republican moderators during the democratic debates than network talking heads more interested in ratings and not offending powerful viewers.
Just the opposite for the republican debates.

In short, all politicans should have free unfilterd access to the public so that that they can address issues you pointed out in your post.
Thanks

Absolutely

until there is COMPLETE public funding for elections and that means no 527s, party ads or any other source as a back door for corporate funds.

Clarification

" public funding for elections "
Gt6,
I want public funding to buy cable feeds and blocks (hours) of cable/network time so that politicians can go directly to the people without the media network execs controlling content.

I don't want public money to going to the candidates so that they turn around and give millions of dollars to idiots like Mark Penn and other advisors that would turn around and give it back to corporate media through silly thirty second ineffective political ads.

After the election, what can we do to promote and fine-tune this issue?
I have contacted several politicians.
Thanks

Free time in the media

would probably be the best answer for the integrity of the system, but I doubt we will ever see it. I would be happy if it meant the end of the lobbyist's influence and groups like the swift boat liars. However the campaigns are funded, you will always see the so called experts like Penn deciding strategy and placing the ads.

"you will always see the so

"you will always see the so called experts like Penn deciding strategy and placing the ads."
Gt6,
They must go before the lobbyist. Especially the democrats ones...I can't stand them because they are the main reason that the dems have been doing so poorly in the presidential elections.

It's not that Rove is so smart, the true that our advisors are so stupid.

We need to get them out of democratic campaigns as soon as possible.
Thanks for your input.

Correction

"I was in a heated discuss with FUB2 and AG over hillary and her sizable majority getting a voice at the convention."
To All,
For some reason I can't edit this particular not to change the Typo of "sizabe majority" to "sizable minority"

Clearly, Hillary didn't have a sizable majority.
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407August 18, 2008 - 6:33pm

You can't edit your post after someone's replied to it.

Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.

"I was in a heated discuss

"I was in a heated discuss with FUB2 and AG over hillary and her sizable majority getting a voice at the convention."
What was the issue? You wanted a foundation of misrepresentation and they didn't?

Did you bother reading the post.

"You wanted a foundation of misrepresentation and they didn't?"
Dr,
If you read those posts you wouldn't have bother with posting this silly comment.

Talk about misrepresentation, compare Obama political positions before he moved to the top of the nominee list with those after.

In particular, the FISA vote. Let's see, while dems on the hill where fighting against bush over FISA in Feb Obama was absent.

However, when Obama won the support of most of the super delegates, he caved into bush and shifted to the political center.

Now he is pandering for votes on the religious right without getting anything in return like McCain facing his political base.
Wow.
Thanks

Correction

Dr,
If you read those post then you when understand that because of slow web-page response sometimes, I have typo errors.

I meant to type sizable "minority" and typed "majority" which clearly wasn't the case.

However, you should do your research and determine where the bullets are flying before you jump into a middle of fight.
I am still trying to correct the error.
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407August 18, 2008 - 6:13pm

My comment was based on your typo. You made a typo. I understand and retract my comment. However, I'm sure you are aware that supporters of Clinton claim/claimed she received a majority of the votes when they count the races in which Obama didn't compete.

"you should do your research and determine where the bullets are flying before you jump into a middle of fight."
It's the comments section of a blog for a failing radio venture. How much research do you really think I need to do in order to join in on hypothetical VP nominations, dubious polls and speculative election results? Oxford is a long ways away from where am regardless.

I must say I really do not understand why Hillary supporters want her to get the VP nomination. VP should be almost a non-position. Or do they want her to VP like Darth Cheney. I mean really, I've seen her in action. She can't waterboard for shit.

Why wouldn't Hilllary be more useful in the Senate or the Cabinet where she would have some real authority. VP seems like a huge under utilization of her abilities. All her being VP does is affirm her loss to Obama in the primaries. Unless her supporters think in the long-term it makes her a shoe-in 2016. That, or she's planning to have Obama killed, like she did with Vince Foster.

By Dr_BillionaireAugust 18, 2008 - 7:33pm

Excellent post, absolutely excellent.
I laughed, I cried, I stood up & cheered.

Thanks, that was just what the "Dr." ordered.

Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.

Really

Guy,
Was his post really that good or is he really a billionaire!!!
Thanks

They are wrong

"However, I'm sure you are aware that supporters of Clinton claim/claimed she received a majority of the votes when they count the races in which Obama didn't compete."
Dr,
They are wrong if you go by the delegate count and that's all that matters.

I took FUB2 estimate that Hillary had only 46% of the delegages.

Eventhough I believe it's a bit low, I still believe it's a sizable minority that can not be ignored and deserve a voice at the convention.

Afterall, a minority of 32% or greater is consider respectable in the U.S. Senate.

Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407August 18, 2008 - 8:35pm

"Eventhough I believe it's a bit low, I still believe it's a sizable minority that can not be ignored and deserve a voice at the convention."
Is that what the convention will be like? They'll be ignored and given no voice? Is this the kind of thing people call a conard?

they will have a voice

Hillary and Bill will each be given some floor time. I don't think that was ever in doubt. The controversy is over the voice vote and putting her name in as if she might still be in contention. I have no problem with recognition, but the operation chaos types are licking their chops over reopening the issue.

No doubt at all

the operation chaos types are licking their chops over reopening the issue.

No wonder the huffer has been crowing with glee over this.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

We Clinton supporters

do not CLAIM that she got more votes, it is a FACT that she got more votes. The only state that Obama was not on the ballot was MI. Obama received ZERO votes in MI but received 59 delegates.

Are you STILL on about that?

You're obsessive-compulsive. Get help before it's too late.

while (horse == dead) { beat(horse); }

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By hufflarry2000August 18, 2008 - 8:44pm

Several points:
- Claims can be based on facts. Such claims tend to be more supportable.
- Obama did not campaign in Florida. Traditionally campaigning has been a part of primary "competition".
- Count them any way you want, it won't constitute a "sizable majority" as was originally posted. The poster corrected a typo. Unless of course "sizable" is the new "vast".
- You and other Clinton supporter don't want to count the Obama votes Webster Hubbell hid in Hillary's book room.
- Obama received ZERO votes in MI. Does MI prohibit write-in candidates? Because if the state does not, I suspect that statement is false.

write ins

The State of Michigan requires all write-in candidates to approve their write-in status. None have done so. Net result: IF YOU CAST A WRITE-IN BALLOT, IT WILL NOT COUNT!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sethkramer/CGgf

Michigan rules discounted any write in ballots so the claim that Obama got zero is correct and yet therein lies the problem. It's not like he had zero support there.

In October, the Democratic candidates agree to remove their names from the Michigan ballot in order to honor the pledge they signed about not campaigning in states that weren’t being compliant—except Hillary Clinton leaves her name on the ballot. “It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything,” says Hillary

http://www.iambossy.com/i_am_bossy/2008/06/blog-kindergart.html

So the candidates all agreed to remove their names from the ballots but Hillaru never got around to it. That's the only reason that she got votes and Obama didn't. We can argue all day about how the vote counts might have gone but not whether Obama would have gotten zero or that Hillary didn't agree that the vote would not count.

By gt6August 19, 2008 - 11:19am

Thanks for the information on MI write-ins.

"I must say I really do not

"I must say I really do not understand why Hillary supporters want her to get the VP nomination."
Dr,
Well...I take to read post before I respond...if you would know that I am not a clinton supporter.
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407August 18, 2008 - 8:50pm

The statement was not intended to apply either specifically or exclusively to you.

Sad :-(

"That, or she's planning to have Obama killed, like she did with Vince Foster."
Dr,
You wasted all those words just to reveal that you are a clinton hater!!!
Wow!!!
What a waste.
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407August 18, 2008 - 8:53pm

Can't recognize a little sarcasm, eh?

Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.

By Guy FawkesAugust 18, 2008 - 9:34pm

If take non sequiturs in response to sarcasm as irrefutable proof of Republicanism.

""you should do your

""you should do your research and determine where the bullets are flying before you jump into a middle of fight."

It's the comments section of a blog for a failing radio venture.
==(Boy that's cute...then why are you wasting your valuable time dropping your comments)===

How much research do you really think I need to do in order to join in on hypothetical VP nominations, dubious polls and speculative election results? Oxford is a long ways away from where am regardless.

==(Failure to care to do the research like GW is still the same no matter how many pretty flowers you place around the effort)===

Disappointed
Thanks

Failure to care to do the research like GW

Check, do more typo research.

Comments

(37)