Bill Clinton: U.S. Is 'Groaning and Moaning and Screaming for Change'

It will be very hard to get over it if Obama will go down, and loose the nomination.All The garlic nose Italians , the typical whites the jews dont want him in the White House.

Every body, The Obamas ,The Obama supporters,etc already know The Obamas are toast.

"Groaning and moaning.."???

Bill Clinton at his finest.

Change for the sake of change is not real change.

Hey Jake, don't call my state screwy. Is it a pain? Yes. However, it's simple. You vote and then you return to caucus later. Like I said simple. Of course, if you don't really believe in your person, then maybe you won't caucus. Or if you targeted a certain group at the expense of others, then no you won't benefit by getting the most delegates, that's not screwy b/c the person should have had a better strategy......

@Ken,

1. Mrs. Clinton has been missing important meetings while 'on the trail,' as well. (Link to article provided below text.)

"It's true that Obama has convened no meetings of the subcommittee, but his camp counters that he became chair of the subcommittee early last year, just as he was starting his presidential campaign. Clinton is technically correct that Obama could have used the subcommittee to conduct oversight of actions and policies related to Afghanistan. But the full foreign relations committee, under the guidance of Senator Joe Biden, has held several hearings on Afghanistan that covered NATO's role there. It's not as if the foreign relations committee did nothing on Afghanistan because Obama did not take on the mission. Also, as happens with many committees, the chair of the full committee reserves the right to handle the big issues him- or herself, and Afghanistan counts as a big issue.

Clinton ought to be careful about hurling stones in this area. As she always tells campaign crowds, she is a member of the Senate armed services committee. In February the committee held two hearings on Afghanistan. On February 8, it focused on appropriations for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was a witness. Eight days later, the committee zeroed in on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, holding a two-part hearing examining recent reports on Afghanistan. Key witnesses included senior officials from the State Department and the Pentagon responsible for the administration's Afghanistan policy.

Clinton attended neither of these hearings. She was on the campaign trail."

2. "Whether you are a white, middle-aged woman is not verifiable and definitely not the issue at hand."

Being a white woman and supporting Mr. Obama is indeed worth mentioning. Mr. Obama is where he is in the race due to the number of white voters who are trying to supporting him - in addition to African-American voters.

"As for the United States being governed by white males for over two hundred years: This country was created, authored, and governed (for the most part) during that same time by the landed, white, gentry."

The US was 'landed' by immigrants from another country - who worked hard to even survive. The 'gentry' that you reference - was responsible for slavery.

Such are the historical facts.

" ... but not one that should govern support for a specific political candidate. But, again, such is your choice, and mine."

My support for Mr. Obama is based on his obvious intelligence and talents, as I stated. His heritage - only makes him stronger.

"You mention judgment in your post. I respectfully suggest that you consider the judgment of a man who would place the importance of his political campaign over his duties as chairman of a Senate oversight subcommittee on Afghanistan while deriding his opponents for their stances on Afghanistan."

Both candidates appear to be AWOL from meetings to a certain degree. If Mr. Obama's judgment is questionable - so is Mrs. Clinton's.

"We have people serving and giving their lives in Afghanistan. I just can't see where a political campaign should take preference."

Maybe you should raise that issue - with both of the candidates?

"Coupled with the Rezko affair ..."

It seems as if you are very interested in mentioning this 'affair.'

" ... we have witnessed quite a lack of judgment on Senator Obama's part (of which the Senator agrees). All the candidates have been subject to questionable judgment at one time or another."

Another reason to vote for him. A Senator who actually admits when his judgment is poor.

"However, the judgment of Senator Obama is just now being subjected to the same scrutiny as that of the other candidates."

It is our job as voters to scrutinize the candidates and their policies. I suspect that Mr. Obama will continue to handle issues as he has - to date - with decency, respect, intelligence, and maturity.

"We shall see what we shall see..."

So we shall.

i continue to be amazed by the stories of how experience doesn’t matter. it seems that finally, most would concede that clinton's experience in the white house, as essentially what one might compare to that of an apprentice, is plausible, just not worth the years it took to get. well experience doesn’t matter then. what next? grades don’t count? at least were getting a head start on how to refine the “no child left behind” agenda.

On the most important asset one own is his or her house. On Mr. Obama’s house purchase he made the WRONG judgment by knowingly doing business with indicted Mr. Rezko.

Well, Redcat, you do a very good job of making my point. I appreciate that.

The statistics of black American primary and caucus participants that support Obama (with caucuses it didn't even take an actual vote for support)are obviously biased towards race first. Interpret the figures as you will. The numbers do not lie.

The race factor was overwhelmingly evident in places like South Carolina where black voters initially indicated support for Clinton and then opted for Obama by a huge margin. Regardless of spin, race was indeed the primary and key factor.

Whether you are a white, middle-aged woman is not verifiable and definitely not the issue at hand. However, we can ascertain that you support Senator Obama, which is your right. If you are white, you are among a group that (by percentage) does not support Obama to the same degree that black voters do.

As for the United States being governed by white males for over two hundred years: This country was created, authored, and governed (for the most part) during that same time by the landed, white, gentry. Such is a historical fact, but not one that should govern support for a specific political candidate. But, again, such is your choice, and mine.

You mention judgment in your post. I respectfully suggest that you consider the judgment of a man who would place the importance of his political campaign over his duties as chairman of a Senate oversight subcommittee on Afghanistan while deriding his opponents for their stances on Afghanistan. We have people serving and giving their lives in Afghanistan. I just can't see where a political campaign should take preference.

Coupled with the Rezko affair (for which the trial begins today), we have witnessed quite a lack of judgment on Senator Obama's part (of which the Senator agrees).

All the candidates have been subject to questionable judgment at one time or another. However, the judgment of Senator Obama is just now being subjected to the same scrutiny as that of the other candidates.

We shall see what we shall see...

@Ken,

You brought up the fact that African-Americans are voting for Mr. Obama in large numbers. So are whites - both women and men - old and young alike. I believe that African-Americans, like all voters, are using/will use good judgment in their selection of a candidate.

I'm a white, middle-aged woman - and I am voting for Mr. Obama.

Race and gender are indeed factors in this race - even though I believe that people should vote for a candidate based on the candidate's ability to manage the nation's issues and not based on their skin color or gender. But, if African-Americans - or women - vote for one candidate or the other based on color or gender - that is their choice.

When it comes to African-American voters supporting Mr. Obama - first, because he is an intelligent and somehow already 'wise' individual - and secondly, because he is half-black - I am with them all the way.

I see both Mr. Obama's talents - and his heritage - and I think that Mr. Obama's heritage - and color - makes him what he is today.

222 years - of one nation - being goverened by people who are primarily male and white - flies in the face of this nation's basic and most treasured - creeds.

I am voting for Mr. Obama because I believe that he has the best chance for correcting what is wrong in our nation. BUT, I have no problem telling you that part of my motivation to support Mr. Obama stems from the fact that I would like to see Mr. and Mrs. Obama in the White House - even if it is - 222 years - too late.

No one is 'baiting' me. I am voting for Mr. Obama - because it is the right thing to do - based on his talents - which are only enhanced by his heritage and color. He has lived life - from all different perpectives - and it shows. Yes, I see his color - and I see it - as a very good thing.

This is still America - even if the old racists - don't want to admit it.

It is all about - judgment.

After watching major network news programs yesterday, I noticed "judgment" being coopted as a campaign buzz word by one campaign's supporters with increasing frequency.

Perhaps we shall see whether everyone has exercised good judgment with the outcome and aftermath of the Rezko trial that begins this morning.

Another item on yesterday's news programs that kept jumping out to me were the results of the polls of voters in both Ohio and Texas.

In every poll that considered the demographic of voter race, the black vote was going to Senator Obama by 85 to 90% or more.

In addition, a large majority of the super delegates defecting from Clinton to the Obama campaign were surprisingly enough...black.

However, when considering other demographics with regards to the candidates, racial bias was not evident.

Now, this is not speculation. Go to the polls done by the major networks (including ABC) and check it out for yourself.

Back to judgment: As the judgment is considered in the Rezko trials tomorrow, the race card will undoubtedly again be thrown with great haste.

Taking into consideration the obvious racial bias voters and supporters as indicated in the polls, we should ask "Was there any real racism, or is the card simply being played?"

Will the electorate continue to allow the race baiting evident in some campaigns and the racial bias and attacks of some voters to influence their choice of presidential candidate, or not?

Perhaps the silent majority will finally stand up and say "enough is enough," thus exercising a virtue truly lacking in present campaigns, good judgment.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jack

GWBush lied about the reasons for going to war.
Hillary voted to protect America.
Obama didn't have to vote at all.
He only needs to talk, and talk, and talk ever so smugly about opposing the war without the consequence of voting.
He is a rat.

Go Hillary. It's now or never.

Now that America is safe, he is so smug he can come out crowing about how smart he was to oppose the war from day one. That to me smells so much like a rat basking in the glory and safety from the toils of others.
Obama is an ungrateful and spurious character not worthy to be taken seriously. I do not trust him.
I need to get all these off my chest in 3 different postings to highlite the irresponsibilties of that character, Obama. I repeat...I DO NOT TRUST HIM AND IT WOULD BE A SORRY DAY FOR AMERICA IF HE LAYS HIS GRUBBY HANDS ON THE NORMINATION!

Everybody already knows that we all want change! that is a no brainer and Obama treats the young people as if they are stupid that they don't know that we all want change.

We know that we will get change, that is a given. So, now the key question is, what changes and how those changes are implemented. Look at Bush and Obama's friend in Mass, they were both voted in their office based on hope and the promise to throw out establishment-- none have delivered! that is why Hillary won Mass despite the big endorsers like Kennedy and Kerry! we all know what we get from Bush 'hope and promise'.

Obama's plan so far has been a copy cat of Hillary's and where he tweaks, those tweaks are just plain wrong. For example, when he does not make universal health care a mandate for everyone like social security then it is not a universal health plan.

The Clinton's scandals did not impact people's life such as loosing a son, a house, a job, compare to costly mistakes of inexperienced presidents. We can't cavalierly think that 'oh well, it is only 4 years, we can always vote him out' -- look at the damages that can be done in the first 4 years, then in the last 4 years. Both JFK and Bush have the lucky star that they inherited a strong economy when they became presidents. Look at JFK's mistake with Cuba, and Bush's war. Our economy is in recession, we just don't have the cushion anymore for any more experiments.

Are you willing to loose your job, your house just to give Obama a chance?

Go hillary, go!
Shove it down that peep-squeak for trying to lay it on you that you voted wrongly. You have every reason to be proud for voting to protect America. Rightly or wrongly, the security of America must always come first and paramount. You take ressponsibilty for your vote. Obama does not , because he did not have to weigh the consequences of not acting when America was perceived to be in danger.
That mouth Obama is all talk. He can say anything now because he was never ever brsve nor fortright. He did not need to bear the consequence of that vote, and if he did, he probably would be absent with all sorts of politically expedient excuses, or just vote PRESENT.
How can I be asked to trust one as irresponsible as him to be the Prez of the US of A.

Democrats, must never, never forget how Al Gore lost the 2000 election. He threw in the towel too quickly. If it had been hillary in 2000 we may have been spared the GWBush years of agony and shame.
hillary, battle all the way if you have the slimest of chance to help America. Its wowrth the battle, America is worth it. Do not let some of the democrat wimps tell you otherwise, never, never, never!

des

Bill Clinton must have done something right since he was re-elected for a second term. America was doing well financially. He left us with a huge surplus of money. America had no debt. That's quite an accomplishment considering how bad off we are now. Elect Hillary and Bill can help her fix the economy. Getting two for the price of one is a very good deal. They can get things done twice as fast and repair the damage Bush has done to our country.

Let's see... what did the Clinton Administration actually do in 8 years.

1) Turn a recession into the biggest economic growth cycle our country had ever seen.

2) Created the "high reward employment" ... Since most of you can't remember, the Clinton Administration had drove Unemployment into vitual oblivion and we were all making great money.

3) The Clinton Administration had given America a $1.3 TRILLON SURPLUS and was on the way to ERASING OUR NATIONAL DEBT!

I want to ask all of you one question...?

"IF THE NEXT PRESIDENT COULD CREATE HIGH PAYING JOBS, RE-ESTABLISH AN ECONOMIC SURPLUS, PAY DOWN DEBT WHILE PROVIDING HEALTHCARE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION TO ONE AND ALL... WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THAT PERSON?

If YOU said "yes"... vote for Hillary.

If you think that the Clintons sex life is somehow important to your economic well-being... "you're a fool!" And when the economic recession hits.. I hope you voted correctly. Because if "you all" choose the wrong candidate... My family is leaving the USA and I wish you all the very best... good luck!

It's that simple.