It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.

Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post. Moreover, there are innumerable copies in very many countries around the world.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

The lashing furiously out by Bill Clinton at Obama before the NH caucuses by labeling him Obama too green, could send people back to his vicious attack prior to the Iowa caucuses was nothing but openly racist attack from a person who twice was consecutive USA presidency. At the time many people did not discover the hidden racist and heinous nature of the Clintons couple. With the NH caucuses It took no long for reporters and the Nation’s and the world media to finally uncover who this couple, ready to do anything just to satiate their ambitions. Now it is compelling to briefly expatiate on such behavior. Prior to the Iowa caucuses, by saying that Obama is green, Bill Clinton did not mean that Obama is not ready, unripe or too young, incompetent to become president, but he used the metaphoric racist bigotry, a glass ceiling for black person who would never be allowed to confidently stride toward a promising future in the United States of America. Let me take back Clinton to the time when Rev. Jesse Jackson Senior, _ who had some of the best experiences in terms of politics and the defense of civil rights _ was campaigning for the nomination as the democratic candidate for the US presidency, for him the issue had never been EXPERIENCE.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson was made by the Democratic machine to understand that the time was still not ripe for Black presidency. When General Colin Powell admired personality by the world for his probity, and other noble humane values, had tried to take the same path, he was swiftly scared by the Republican Party’s propaganda and manipulative and invisble to a point by the same cynicism and bigotry that he even dropped his drive before launching it. For what concerns Bill Clinton’s consideration of Barack Obama as too green, inexperienced to become a US President, [though one must of course concede that there other unenviable experiences that the Clintons excel in and which Obama needs neither possess nor long for _contempt, deceit, vice, dirty tricks, smear].
Here is an advice for Sen. Barack Obama, CONTINUE TO: REMAIN ABOVE THE FRAY, POLITE, POSITIVE! TRANSCEND THE COLOR BARIER. THESE ARE THE DRIVING ENGINES THAT ARE PROPELING HIS ACTION!
I’m kindly inviting Bill and Hillary and their entire propaganda college to cogitate the following old wisdom:
Aux âmes bien nées, la valeur n’attend point le nombre des années.
Roughly translated it goes as:
For gifted souls, the maturity of the core value never waits for numerous years.
The Republican hopefuls are praying every morning and every night to have as the easy to be defeated democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, So as to, ultimately see their DREAM COME TRUE!

What I will say with the Bush experience is that I'll put everything in, sigh, c o n t e x t . (Something you've done already, no doubt)

Howdy, Chief. I hope you realize he and I don't quite agree on how bad Obama would be. I think he'd be inhibited if he got into the White House, by the Dem Old Guard.

“hopefully Nevada will be the stake and S. Carolina the hammer”

and then Feb 5 would be a giant coffin-nailing session!

I'd be entertained if she experienced more setbacks and conflicts among her staff once she was truly in crisis mode. I know of a photograph that's perfect to describe it (a ballistic missile gone awry after a test launch and turning circles in the sky — TAKE COVER!), but I'm having trouble finding it.

True, though the delusional will still deny it.

“He truly does not have to explain his policies, his actions or his thinking”

So far that is what has happened, pretty much.

By the way,

“Much as Ronnie Reagan did in 1980″

While that was probably an anti-Carter (as well as anti-liberal) vote more than a pro-Reagan vote, I've seen at least one other writer compare this Obama campaign to Reagan's and I feel it could in theory be similar if not give Obama even better numbers by November.

“having ODS”

Nothing has been analogous to, or even closely approximated, BDS.

The Clinton hatred was because he was a cad with a fat mistress. W started a war that has killed thousands for no reason. Quite a diff. Plus, W has curtailed civil rights and launched a naked power grab for oil money.

Somebody- you mean aspersion not dispersion.

As for Hill the Chill, if she loses this, hopefully Nevada will be the stake and S. Carolina the hammer.

***Glee***

Goe: the Clintons are feeling the Coriolis Effect, and before the final 'glub' of the plughole, they are spitting fire.

The power of the press cannot be under estimated. Bush hatred is way, way more then Bill Clinton ever saw and the blog sphere is full of his praises.

He truly does not have to explain his policies, his actions or his thinking. He just gives the house on the hill speech and the people eat it up. Much as Ronnie Reagan did in 1980. I remember even Ronald Reagan was getting the “your not experienced enough” dispersions cast on him and they did not stick.

I do truly believe that Obama steamroller express will trounce everyone on the way to the nomination and nothing the GOP has will even come close to stopping Obama.

3 years from now we will all be accused of having ODS.

MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, four, five, six and seven. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that’s what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that’s what I have done. Finally, in 2006, 2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge. And at that stage, I said, very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there. And since that time I’ve been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take. I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.

So he was asked and his answer is fairly obvious.

But it's nice to see Clinton in distress. (Real) Americans [tm] love it!

I wonder if Al Gore is noting the current Clinton implosion with a smile.

BO is not being forced to splain anything. He is being given a free ride to the general election. If you look at the issues hes posted on his website I'm pretty sure they were cut and pasted from Michael Moores handbook on how to appease the far left progressives.

But as someone pointed out on a site that is not so friendly to BO….Obama doesnt have to splain his positions. Royalty is given a free pass.

So we pass the mantle from King Bush to King Obama.

And leave the queen out in the cold. Never had a chance Hillary. You never did. Even your own party doesnt like you anymore. I hear the GOP is looking for a good candidate. If youd switch parties today I bet you could get the nomination.

I think this is very wrong. I think it was Kyl-Lieberman and I said so at the time: it was a potentially fatal error. Second was the missed opportunity to go stand with Chris Dodd in the Senate and fight to hold back the FISA renewal. That would have shown courage and attracted progressives. I think that was a terrible missed opportunity).

Bill Clinton? He is her most effective advocate. He remains persuasive and smart. His quote posted here-above is right on in my judgment and he has the facts at his fingertips to support his argument. He is, alas, a much more effective advocate for HRC than she is herself, and as a man able to go after Obama yet avoid the misogynistic crud HRC gets every time she does ANYTHING. Of course, you here, as well as cable media, immediately decry everything he says as complaining and victim-hood, without stopping for a second to analyze whether or not he is correct.

“Now he’s seemingly fanning the flames of growing tensions between the Clinton camp and the press.”

This one is funny. If you think this did her in with the press, or that there is any chance to turn the press from the pack-rat mob anti-HRC misogynistic pile-on, I would like to have what you are drinking. This has been going on for years.

“There (sic) has indeed piled on Hillary Clinton — but the press will usually do that when a candidate stumbles.”

Sorry, factually in error to the nth degree. The press piled on HRC LONG before she stumbled. They publicly prayed for her to stumble; certain cable talking heads ranted daily against her and urged Obama and Edwards on what to do to take her down. The mean ones went right for the HRC divisive-right wing BS (”Clinton crime family” talking points) and campaigned ruthlessly in the most outrageously horrid language using insults that made my skin crawl. All of this LONG before she stumbled.

“But, in fact, it could get WORSE. The Huffington Post’s Thomas B. Edsall reports that the Clinton campaign is pondering going negative and doing it in the traditional political deniability mode by using Swift Boat like groups”

There is so much wrong with this statement I dont know where to begin. First, here again if HRC tries to do anything it is cast as “getting worse”, “going negative”, or using “Swift Boat like groups.” I also understand the campaign is trying to figure out how to present the real, human HRC and her vision for the future. No mention of that of course. And the use of “Swift Boat” is particularly rich: tying any of her attempts to try and identify Obama as who she thinks he is (inexperienced and not ready to take on the Right wing machine) to the outright lying, unpatriotic de-balling of John Kerry by that single group of that name. Maybe you should hear what these potential 527 groups have to say before you compare them to Swift Boat lying morons.

As to the ultimate Bill Clinton issue, when the history of her campaign is written it will almost certainly not blame Bill for what happened, but note properly that in so many venues, on TV (Charlie Rose) etc. etc.,in the quote above, in his quote that NH had destroyed its own independence by putting its primary 4 days after Iowa (NH, predictably is reacting in a mob mentality. You cant tell me that anything changed between the day HRC led in NH and the day she went 10 points down, except that a bunch of corn farmers in Iowa had cast their votes), he was right, and he was her most effective advocate, and if she had even a small amount of his charisma and “phenomenal personal political skills” (as he has graciously and classily said of Obama) she would have had a much better go of it.