I saw Larry O'Donnell live last night. he had an interesting take on The Clintons

[Armstead]

He gave a lecture in my hometown last night, and then took questions.

One was about the Clinton's and whether they really intend to work for Obama and want to see him win.

At first he gave a circumpect reply. Basically (slightly paraphrased): "They will do whatever it takes to NOT look like they are trying to undeermine Obama's campaign. They will do what the need to publicly help him...That's about it."

Then he paused, and decided to add something. He mentioned that screwy countess de Rothschild who had been a prominent Hillary supporter, but recently announced that she will support Mccain.

O'Donnell noted she was as close to Hillary and Bill as anyone, and she had spent her honeymoon nioght in the Lincoln bedroom when the Clintons were in the WH. O'Donnell said he could not imagine the Countess doing anything the Clintons might object to. He said the Clintons would certainly have known about this in advance. In short the Clintons could have stopped her, but they never called her about it....This, O'Donnell said, is probably a clue as to how committed the Clinton's are to Obama's victory.

He added that, fortunately for Obama, the press treated it as a joke because the Countess was ridiculous in saying that she was supporting Mccain because Obama is an elitist.

[Cha]

1. That wasn't " von Furstenburg" it was rothchild.

Too bad about the whole friggin thing.

[Armstead]

3. Sorry, i got my elite families mixed up

corrected it in my Op

[Cha]

24. Ya had me goin' ..I thought mccain had snagged another

countess of Hillary's until I read the "elitist" part and that was a dead give away. That's rothchild's signiture Epic Fail.

[valerief]

2. Countess de Rothschild, I think. Interesting point. nt

[blm]

4. Exactly - - just as they did in 2004 and 2000 before that. Don't believe in 'coincidences'

when it comes to Bushes or Clintons.
\
\http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4057245&mesg_id=4057245

[LaydeeBug]

10. as "they" did in 2000? Long on blame, and short on memory. It was AL GORE who ran AWAY from Bill...

not the other way around.

[wyldwolf]

11. shhhhh... some people need their boogymen!

[blm]

13. Behind the scenes sabotage was constant in 2000, as it was in 2004.

You really want to dare going head to head on what went down with ME? Hahah...bring it.

Clinton camp backstabbing of Kerry...
As observed by historian Douglas Brinkley in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Typical Clinton interview during his summer2004 book tour:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville's sabotage of Ohio Dem voters on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Clinton siding with Bush and McCain's lie against Kerry in 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Robert Parry has a history lesson for ALL Dems:
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[wyldwolf]

17. ..and you were there so you should know...

You really want to dare going head to head on what went down with ME? Hahah...bring it.

It's always just a matter of time before you veer into the supermarket tabloid-level terrain.

[QC]

75. "...the supermarket tabloid-level terrain."

And then it's on to batshit loony tinhattery soon after.

[blm]

79. Yes, Brinkley, Parry and Woodward will go down in history for their tinhats, not their

investigative reporting or as analytical historians. You are right and they are conspiracy theorists.

[leftynyc]

34. You were asked about 2000

and the fact that it was Al Gore who ran from the Clinton's. Your pathetic list is only about 2004. And if you think you scare anyone with your "head to head" nonsense, think again cupcake.

[wyldwolf]

41. three people offered to take her on...

:shrug:

[blm]

47. Go ahead...You have never ONCE produced a refutation of Brinkley, Woodward, Parry and

never once claimed that Bill did a great thing when he used his summer2004 book tour to not just support Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war but defended him VIGOROUSLY from the very criticisms Kerry was making against Bush for those decisions at the time.

Did you side with Clinton's defense of Bush then, wyldwolf? Did you think it was helpful to Dems and their nominee for him to use a three week book tour to make it clear he sided with Bush on those decisions?

[wyldwolf]

53. you've never once produced anything beyond "anonymous sources say..."

[blm]

55. Baloney - Brinkley and Woodward and Parry are NOT anonymous sources and

their work over the years has always been done with heavy legal vetting.

And besides, wyldwolf...you never seem to address Bill Clinton's OWN WORDS throughout his summer2004 book tour. He made it clear he supported Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war and vigorously defended them from the criticisms of the left, which happened to include the Dem nominee at the time.

Did you side with Bill then and did you approve of his decision during that book tour to ignore Kerry's positions and his historic contributions to exposing global terror networks in the first election after 9-11? You really think Bill praised Bush and ignored Kerry unintentionally?

[wyldwolf]

56. I'll ask again.. WHO told them what they've written about???

[blm]

58. Investigative reporters and a historian...read their stuff...btw...Woodward WITNESSED the Carville

call. And...FYI....Parry SHOULD have a vested interest in what DID happen in IranContra coverups, since he is the reporter who BROKE many of the stories. Or...did you side with Clinton's protection of Bush on THAT, too? hahaha....you'd forgive anything of Bushes as long as it was OK with Bill.

BTW - you DO approve of Bill's OWN WORDS on constant public display in the summer2004 book tour, right? The ones where he vigorously defended Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war, right? Throughout those 3 weeks, Bill spoke for YOU when he defended Bush, right?

[wyldwolf]

60. like I keep saying, hearsay.

[blm]

64. Bill's own words are hearsay, too, eh? Of course, if Parry is wrong, then you can point out

in Bill's book the satisfactory explanation for what Bill DID do with all the outstanding matters left in IranContra. Heck...I'm sure Bill satisfied YOU as a citizen with his dealings on BCCI and CIA drugrunning matters that came across his desk, too. Right, wyldwolf?

[wyldwolf]

67. changing the subject... as usual

[CreekDog]

65. What did Bill Clinton say about the Iraq War in 2004?

Was it closer to the Kerry position or the Bush position?

And Clinton had been talking publicly about the Iraq War throughout 2004, no hearsay, no anonymous sources needed to find out what he said.

[blm]

43. Haha...so you say. Guess y'all missed the Vanity Fair article on Gore-Clinton from Nov2007

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711

And not one of you can dispute Brinkley's observations, Clinton's very PUBLIC defense of Bush summer2004 book tour, or Woodward's eyewitness account of Carville and Matalin-Cheney-Bush-Blackwell on election night.

Yet...you all act as if it never happened or don't care that it did.

[leftynyc]

49. I just read that whole article

Who is Brinkley and what are you babbling about? And why should I believe someone who writes for Vanity Fair? You take authors words as gospel - intellegent people usually know better.

[blm]

51. Douglas Brinkley is a noted historian...he spoke of Clintons backstabbing Kerry

as early as April2004. It's in the link in the earlier post.

I find it odd that someone presenting themself as informed on a Dem board, and especially in regard to pioiltical matters, would be unaware who Douglas Brinkley is.

How about the Woodward report re Carville on election night at TPM....you think that was made up, too?

[wyldwolf]

54. ...and where did Brinkly get his information?

[blm]

57. Ask him...you're the one doubting him...though his reputation as a historian is stellar while your

contributions to political discourse are pretty much just Clinton apologia.

[wyldwolf]

61. I'm asking you, you're the one pimping him

[blm]

63. Read Bill's book, then...how DID he handle all the outstanding matters in IranContra, BCCI and CIA

drugrunning so it satisfied YOU as a citizen?

[wyldwolf]

66. changing the subject... as usual

[blm]

69. Not at all...you don't believe anything investigative reporters say, so, then use Bill's own words.

and tell us why you believe his version of events OVER Parry.

[wyldwolf]

72. you've gone from "sabotaging candidates" to CIA and Iran Contra! LOL!

[blm]

74. Well, you don't believe Clinton's own words during his book tour in 2004?

Or, do you think Bill was just innocently displaying more support for Bush then? Nothing deliberate, eh?

And did you ever write to Woodward and challenge his eyewitness account of Carville's call to WH on election night that sabotaged Dem voters in Ohio? Did you ever see one report of Carville challenging Woodward's account?

I don't expect a real answer, just more diversion and inappropriate laughs....you NEED to laugh to live with your devotion to Clintons.

[wyldwolf]

81. quote Bill Clinton saying he sabotaged John Kerry

[blm]

85. Clinton's book tour interviews defending Bush on terrorism and Iraq war decisions

WAS sabotage of Kerry at the very time Kerry was criticizing those decisions. Only a willfully blind Clinton hack would think Clinton was acting honorably or innocently when he sided with and DEFENDED Bush over Kerry then.

You APPROVED of Clinton's defense of Bush, did ya?

[QC]

77. And BCCI. Every discussion eventually ends up with BCCI.

No matter what is nominally the subject under discussion.

[blm]

80. since you brought it up....do YOU believe BCCI had no outstanding matters since 1992?

.

[chimpymustgo]

39. Get the fuck OVER it.

[blm]

44. Over it? Political sabotage of other Dems may be something YOU don't mind, but, why expect others

to go along with it?

[LaydeeBug]

76. Political sabotage My Royal Bridge in Brooklyn.

Your hatred of all things Clinton seems to permeate all you do.

[LaydeeBug]

73. and yet, NOTHING about 2000, which is why this is mooseshit.

I *dare* take you on? You might have a wee bit inflated opinion of yourself. I was having a discussion. BTW, your assertion about 2000 has yet to be substantiated despite your links.

Thanks.

[blm]

78. Vanity Fair article is very clear. And Gore's camp was the source for that account.

Now....there are serious people who noted the backstabbing in 2004, and Bill's own words during his book tour made the undermining quite apparent, so... why would you expect that those same folks would NOT have participated in undermining Gore in 2000?

Why is it so important to you to separate 2000 and 2004, anyway? You may as well be saying, 'OK, it's obvious they didn't want Kerry to take office, but, there's no way they would have done the same thing to Gore.' Hillary2008 had been in the works since the decision was made for her to run for Senate as a first step.

[wyldwolf]

5. just goes to show that the anti-clinton conspiracy-filled hysteria can affect just about anyone

[dionysus]

6. bill clinton is the sweet little baby jesus.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

9. case in point.

[dionysus]

12. you can hitch your wagon to that bitter has-been if you wish.

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

15. better than the left/right irrational loons on their heretic hunts

[Cassandra]

21. As I said during the primary...

what I disliked about Hillary is the people around her. Sometimes, that includes you. You are much too devoted to the Clintons as people and take criticism of them too personally. It's not about them, it's about us. I admire Obama but I fully expect him to disappoint me, either a little or a lot. I think, however, that he has good judgment and is more likely to piss off his big backers than Hillary was, because she, and you, think they are right, even now.

(That first sentence should be... Hillary "was" rather than "is", but those people are currently around her; they are not in the past)

[wyldwolf]

22. as I replied in the primaries

There's a really odd habit on the internets to take a post that has someone's opinion repeated second hand, and then running with it as though it were fact.

There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

[Cassandra]

31. You could point that out...

without implying that everyone who doesn't support the DLC is a leftist loon. Some of us have seen the more rapacious capitalists in our midst for 30 years selling out the country (including their fellow capitalists). When you have companies run by scum, what you get is what you see today. Honest business owners get run into the ground.

[Forkboy]

36. "without implying that everyone who doesn't support the DLC is a leftist loon."

What, and take away his only schtick?

[wyldwolf]

40. I haven't done that, but anyone who does treat unsubstantiated second-hand opinions as fact...

...does have a 'problem.'

[alarimer]

62. What I disliked about Obama were his supporters.

That is still true now.

[Jim Sagle]

84. I totally agree. BUT, as we're seeing on this thread, some of Bill's fans stink on ice as well.

[CreekDog]

68. During the primaries you gave all the benefit of the doubt to the Clintons now to Obama back then

because you are fair like that.

[AtomicKitten]

7. I have heard the same from other sources.

[MarjorieG]

8. Tired of Clintons holding us hostage, from 90s drama, to 2004/2008 place sitting Hillary's next.

Popular vote meme still spun by Bill Clinton today. Is what it is, so let's move on and stop the future drama.

[WeDidIt]

14. So basically, it's Obama vs. McCain/Clintons n/t

[blm]

20. Just like in 2004 when it was Kerry vs Bush/Cheney/Clinton.

Read these links and try not to believe it's all merely 'coincidences' when it comes to Bushes or Clintons.


As observed by historian Douglas Brinkley in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Typical Clinton interview during his summer2004 book tour:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville's sabotage of Ohio Dem voters on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Clinton siding with Bush and McCain's lie against Kerry in 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Robert Parry has a history lesson for ALL Dems:
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[karynnj]

25. Read her links and then think how different Iraq and other foreign policy would be

Then read this about the 2004 plank Kerry put in the Democratic platform. He wanted to prohibit most balloon loans. The housing boom, during which the bad loans causing chaos now were mostly written, ended in 2006. A President, who always was strong on oversight and regulation - as Kerry was, could have avoided this melt down. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DEFDF113EF934A1575BC0A9629C8B63&&scp=5&sq=business%20subprime%20Kerry&st=cse



So, much for anyone who said that Bush had messed up so bad it was better for him to be blamed and the Democrats win easily in 2008 and stay in power awhile. While Kerry may have been blasted for not "winning" the unwinnable war in Iraq, criticized for dealing (far better than Bush) inadequately for Katrina and for many other things - that is no doubt that it would be a far better world had he unambiguously won in 2004. (If the Clintonistas prefered waiting for HRC, the last 4 years are partially their responsibility. Kerry wouldn't be perfect, but he is a good person and he would have had the courage to do whate he thought was right.

[blm]

26. The DC powerstructure KNEW Kerry was strong advocate for opening the books - including BANK BOOKS.

His investigations into IranContra and BCCI also revealed the S&L crisis.

The robber barons did NOT want Kerry in office - and that goes for BOTH Dem and GOP power elite.

[orwell]

16. The thing I don't understand...

...If (ugh!) Palin-McClone pulls this off it is inconceivable that McClone would run for a second term (too old.) That would leave Failin as the sitting Vice-president running for President with her main liability (inexperience) off the table. She would also take away one of Hillary's strong draws, that of being the first woman president. So how would Hillary beat a sitting VP, wildly popular with the idiot Con base, with all the advantages of incumbancy, on her own turf?

The worst thing for any of Hillary's ambitions would be for Palin-McClone to win the WH.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. I've heard O'Donnell make similar remarks on Ed Schultz' show.

[iceman66]

19. In a way this is a good thing.

When Obama wins, he won't owe the Clintons any favors.

[leftynyc]

35. What is your beef with Hillary?

Has she not done something she was asked to do by the Obama campaign? Not enthusiastic enough for you? Not enough genuflecting? Be specific, what is it Hillary has done or not done since she has conceded that has your knickers in a knot?

[iceman66]

42. Hillary has been a better advocate for Obama than Bill.

His remarks on CNBC and The View were certainly not helpful.

[leftynyc]

45. You don't think Hillary has been

helpful to Sen Obama? Because your original post and Sen Obama not owing anything to either Clinton sure implied that. And I'm not saying he owes anyone anything - just that I'm surprised people put Hillary's efforts in the same category's as Bill's.

[iceman66]

50. I actually have mixed feelings about the Clintons.

I was very impressed by both of their convention speeches; I think they helped Obama a lot. On the other hand, sometimes Bill comes out with these remarks that make it seem like the OP may be on to something.

[blm]

48. She's seen doing one thing while he's doing another. It's called plausible denial.

Those of us who go further back with the Bushes and Clintons call it Dog and Pony Show.

[ClarkUSA]

23. For the Clintons, it's all about Hillary 2012 -- while she's creating plausible deniability now.

I don't know about Hillaryland but Democrats like me are 100% for the Democratic nominee, while the Clintons
are only out for their own political futures during a time of national peril. We shall remember.

[blm]

27. 100% agree.

.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

28. Bill can't get over some Dems treating Hillary like shit.... I wish he would. n/t

[Carolina]

52. Dems DID NOT treat Hillary like shit!

Hillary et. al. want to blame everything on sexism or others but a huge part of HRC's loss was her friggin voting record (IWR!), their (his and her) sense of entitlement and the people they chose to manage the campaign and surround themselves with!

And when things went south after February 5th, they went nasty. You reap what you sow!

[Major Hogwash]

83. She can't create "plausible deniablity" with only 40 days of the campaign left in the closest race

in the last 100 years, according to the experts.

There is just no way.
She needs to get out there and save America from a would-be "President McCain".

She needs to get out there every day and tell her white supporters that they need to vote for Obama, and against the wretched, vile, ignorant, stupid, lying POS named John McCain.

[TheWraith]

29. She's not a countess, she's just Lady de Rothschild.

Her husband is knighted, not titled.

[BeyondGeography]

30. Re. the aristokitten, just another political miscalculation by the Clintons

They've made a few this season.

[Arugula Latte]

32. Their time has come and gone.

I don't think they realize that quite yet.

[WI_DEM]

33. If need be Obama will win without the Clinton's. We will see in the next 46 days what they do

in campaigining for Obama. I would think if it looks like Obama will win that they would want to have brownie points.

[Forkboy]

37. Larry is always interesting, but I take what he says with a large grain of salt every time.

Hyperbole tends to be one of his close friends. :)

[leftynyc]

46. But he insulted the Clinton's

which makes his word gold. This same tool that has gotten creamed on this board countless times now if the oracle. What a fucking joke. Good for you to be levelheaded about all this.

[Eurobabe]

38. I wondered this myself

How could someone so close to the Clintons, turn on them so ruthlessly. Lady Lynn smells like Harriet Christian. She stinks.

[blue_onyx]

59. I only have Hillary and Bill's actions to go on...

and I think Hillary is a strong supporter of Obama. I haven't followed Bill and the things he's done/said very closely so it's hard to judge him. I doubt Hillary could have stopped her supporter from endorsing McCain...people do have free will. Either way, Obama is the nominee this election. He should be able to win with or without the Clintons on board. Hillary lost. She doesn't get the benefits of being the nominee so she shouldn't be forced to take the burden of being the nominee. If she didn't want to campaign for Obama, she shouldn't have to, she lost. But it of course would be nice if she would...and she has. Obama has asked her to campaign for him in important states like Florida and Ohio and she did so willingly. I don't get why people keep pushing this Hillary/Bill aren't doing enough argument. Even if they weren't fighting for Obama, there's nothing we can do. Just move on and keep fighting for Obama ourselves.

[Metric System]

70. Ugh. I think I better take a break from DU because I'm getting damn tired of this shit.

[genna]

71. Well when stick the knife in 10 inches and take it out 5, do you want a thank you?

HRC gave a great convention speech. She is doing whatever speeches she is asked. I don't think too much more can be asked of her.

I don't want her in spotlight. I personally feel like enough media diversion is too much media diversion.


As for BC, he made me realize somewhere around the Monica thing that if he could get away with it...he would. If he could wrap his failings around my angers, he'd make me ignore the underlyiing issues. He was good at it. I believed in his ability to tell me to jump in the lake and make me glad to do it.


I read the articles listed for the Clintons 2004 behavior. I've watched their behavior in this election year.

I appreciate all the Clinton world help from the 1990s.


I have enough of the whole ball of wax. If Howard Dean or Barack Obama asked me my opinion about where they should lead the Democratic party in the future, I'd tell them to continue to avoid any public conversations about the ongoing Clinton drama, put the granola grassroots of the party at the forefront and continue to push back on the professional slick political strategists. I don't think there is a nice way to tell Democrats who gave our party away to corporations and lobbyists...your gut instincts hurt the little guy and took us away from putting people first.

I think when it is even discussed, they are put on the hunches. Better to let James Carville call people Judas when he is sleeping with the enemy or hear Paul Begalia tell the rest of us the nastier we get the better chance Obama has of winning.

How did that help HRC in the end? n/t

[Kurovski]

82. Interesting OP and thread.

K&R.

I'm not getting any particular sense of enthusiasm from either Senator Clinton or President Clinton these days.

But I will say that Senator Clinton's convention speech was excellent and convincing.