Clinton Takes Her Ball and Goes Home...

[atxtraveler]

Clinton Blindsided By Scheduled Event With Palin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/17/clinton-blindsided-by-sch_n_127064.html)


WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has canceled an appearance at a New York rally next week after organizers blindsided her by inviting Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, aides to the senator said Tuesday.
Several American Jewish groups plan a major rally outside the United Nations on Sept. 22 to protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Organizers said Tuesday that both Clinton, who nearly won the Democratic nomination for president, and Palin, Republican candidate John McCain's running mate, are expected to attend.
That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters.
Clinton aides were furious. They first learned of the plan to have both Clinton and Palin appear when informed by reporters.
"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."
A McCain-Palin campaign official, speaking on condition of anonymity because Palin's schedule for Monday has not been announced, said only that Palin tentatively planned to attend the rally.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, did not immediately return messages Tuesday seeking comment, nor did other organizers of the rally. Other event sponsors are the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, United Jewish Communities and the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.
Both McCain and Obama have made strong appeals to Jewish voters, particularly in critical states like Florida. Obama has emphasized to Jewish audiences his commitment to Israel's security, and has worked to dispel doubts created by false rumors that he is Muslim.

[quash]

Not really. She won't appear. Taking her ball and going home would mean she had the event cancelled. And since Clinton is NY senator it would have been far more appropriate for Palin to withdraw.

[nein51]

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."
I think someone is confused with the definition of partisan. If you have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican that is not a partisan event. In fact, having only the Democrat speak might be more partisan.
Not really. She won't appear. Taking her ball and going home would mean she had the event cancelled. And since Clinton is NY senator it would have been far more appropriate for Palin to withdraw.
Neither should withdraw. Clinton isnt running for President, you know she is bitter about it (everyone does) and she isnt a Barak supporter no matter how many times she says it on stage. There is no reason both people couldnt speak. If either group were really desiring of "across the aisle" politics then having both of them there would not be an issue at all.

[atxtraveler]

quash... I am not sure how you think she is not putting on the pouty face and running.... she clearly does not want to be at the event...

[quash]

quash... I am not sure how you think she is not putting on the pouty face and running.... she clearly does not want to be at the event...

Don't put words in my mouth. You chose to use the "take the ball and go home" language. That clearly implies that the game will not go on if she leaves with the ball. At least it did in my neighborhood ball games.

The game will go on. The event will be held. If it makes you feel better that she seems to be pouting, fine.

The event organizers should have thought it out the way the writer did: "That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign".

I see Clinton defusing a potentially explosive situation. In her state. Palin had a chance to show some class and defer to the Senator's state. Instead it becomes a chance for the Thought Police to decide what Hillary was thinking. I don't claim to know that, only that the event will go on without her, and without a sideshow.

[Volunteer]

Clinton is behaving like a child. If you can't even attend an event with another American citizen, and you can't show any solidarity against a truly bad guy, then you aren't even close to being qualified to be President.

Grow the hell up Hillary.

[atxtraveler]

OK, I understand where you are arguing the ball part... in our neighborhood, someone else always had a ball at the ready. Typically, when one of the kids got his feelings hurt, he would take his ball (especially if it was the current game ball) and leave. Another ball would inevitably take its place and carry on.

As for Palin deferring because it is Clinton's home state? Clinton is out of the race. She is a wash up for this particular go-around, meanwhile New York is becoming a battleground over the Jewish-American vote. There is no way Palin should gracefully back out against someone who is not in the race. Especially if she has been invited by the organizers. I like the strong move by Palin NOT to back down to a democrat that is not even in the race!

[Volunteer]

Don't put words in my mouth. You chose to use the "take the ball and go home" language. That clearly implies that the game will not go on if she leaves with the ball. At least it did in my neighborhood ball games.

The game will go on. The event will be held. If it makes you feel better that she seems to be pouting, fine.

The event organizers should have thought it out the way the writer did: "That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign".

Why would Palin and Clinton at the same event be explosive?

I see Clinton defusing a potentially explosive situation. In her state. Palin had a chance to show some class and defer to the Senator's state. Instead it becomes a chance for the Thought Police to decide what Hillary was thinking. I don't claim to know that, only that the event will go on without her, and without a sideshow.

I certainly don't understand why Palin and Clinton wouldn't be able to get along long enough to attend this event.

[quash]

I think someone is confused with the definition of partisan. If you have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican that is not a partisan event. In fact, having only the Democrat speak might be more partisan.

Neither should withdraw. Clinton isnt running for President, you know she is bitter about it (everyone does) and she isnt a Barak supporter no matter how many times she says it on stage. There is no reason both people couldnt speak. If either group were really desiring of "across the aisle" politics then having both of them there would not be an issue at all.

Rather than quibble over what makes an event partisan, the question is what the focus was to have been. Without Big Names it was a protest, with Two Big Political Women the main point gets lost. Perhaps "non-partisan" is what the organizers should have been going for.

This does not appear to have been an opportunity for politicians to demonstrate "across the aisle" politics; it was a protest event. And now it's a chance for Hillary haters to talk about her. BFD.

Hillary could have played it differently. All she had to do was make a couple of phone calls behind the scenes and I bet you 10 bucks Palin gets uninvited. Then it's up to the event organizers to play the spin, not Hillary's shrill staffers.

[quash]

I certainly don't understand why Palin and Clinton wouldn't be able to get along long enough to attend this event.

I was forced to watch 4 hours of CNN yesterday while getting my car repaired. That's about six months worth. This is not about the two women getting along, at all.

This is about a media that would see a catfight whether one took place or not. I can see Palin getting a bump from that; Hill, not so much, maybe a dead cat bounce.

The media was probably drooling at the prospect. It wasn't the Hillary staff that labelled the pairing as explosive, it was the writer. The media.

[quash]

Clinton is behaving like a child. If you can't even attend an event with another American citizen

Spare me. Palin is not just another American citizen.

[quash]

OK, I understand where you are arguing the ball part... in our neighborhood, someone else always had a ball at the ready. Typically, when one of the kids got his feelings hurt, he would take his ball (especially if it was the current game ball) and leave. Another ball would inevitably take its place and carry on.

As for Palin deferring because it is Clinton's home state? Clinton is out of the race. She is a wash up for this particular go-around, meanwhile New York is becoming a battleground over the Jewish-American vote. There is no way Palin should gracefully back out against someone who is not in the race. Especially if she has been invited by the organizers. I like the strong move by Palin NOT to back down to a democrat that is not even in the race!

Can you at least acknowledge that Clinton is the NY senator?

[atxtraveler]

Can you at least acknowledge that Clinton is the NY senator?

I understand that Clinton is the NY senator, but the UN is international space, and does not belong to NY.

I also believe that all candidates should forgo their senate seat during a presidential race, or at least nominate a proxy to handle their current elected job during such a race. I feel it is a great disservice to Arizona, NY, and IL that their senators are not voting on issues they were elected to vote on.

[ChipOC]

This was a great move by the GOP. They make the democrats look partisan, get headlines, and move to support the Jewish lobby all in just showing up.

[The Banterer]

I would imagine the reason Clinton doesn't want to go anymore is because Palin is only going to campaign, and Clinton doesn't want to be a part of that. Would Palin have gotten an invite 1 month ago? No, the only reason she'll be there is because she's running for VP.

[ChipOC]

That's politics Banterer, but don't think that Clinton wasn't going as part of a campaign.

[atxtraveler]

The senate seat should be interesting.... but Hillary... are you looking out for our interests, or your interests? You walked out on us on the UN protest!

[tommie]

She was right not to attend. Why set up a cat fight?

[atxtraveler]

She was right not to attend. Why set up a cat fight?

Two arguments here...

She is the senator (quash's argument), and her constituents set it up.
She is a 2012 presidential hopeful.

My argument is that it looks horrible because she looks like she is running from a national issue that affects her constituency, and is afraid to share the spotlight with another powerful woman that makes her look unprepared.

[ChipOC]

Bush was able to avoid the nutjob from Iran, I think she could have avoided Palin.

[Texas Golfer]

She was right not to attend. Why set up a cat fight?

You think Hillary couldn't act like a grownup? I didn't see a problem with Obama and McCain at the 9/11 function. If Obama can act like a grownup but Hillary can't, maybe the Democrats selected the right candidate afterall.

Shouldn't the cause be greater than the individuals?

[Bexar Fan]

My argument is that it looks horrible because she looks like she is running from a national issue that affects her constituency, and is afraid to share the spotlight with another powerful woman that makes her look unprepared.
Worse, it looks like she avoided a cat fight because she is a scaredy cat.

Bush was able to avoid the nutjob from Iran, I think she could have avoided Palin.
Exactly.

[Volunteer]

Spare me. Palin is not just another American citizen.

OK, where is her citizenship? The point is Hillary behaved like a child. The Iranian president is a bad dude. It would seem that Hillary would be willing to share a stage with Palin in supporting the protest. I might understand if Palin was a convicted felon or maybe a serial killer - but she is not. She is merely a candidate from another party. It appears that liberals now insist on demonizing the competition. How absurd.

TG's point is correct. Obama and McCain managed to share a stage together for the 9/11 ceremony.

This is BS.

[Volunteer]

Questions: Are democrats immature? Why do they act like little children?
Are they so consumed with hatred that they can't get along with others of different political persuasions? Do they actually believe that people with opposing views are inherently evil? It would certainly appear so.

[ChipOC]

The point is Hillary never STOPS playing politics even when it comes to right and wrong in the world.

[LordByron]

I do not blame Sen Clinton one bit. There is no need for to help perpetuate the Sarah charade.

[atxtraveler]

I do not blame Sen Clinton one bit. There is no need for to help perpetuate the Sarah charade.

Lord... you are normally a little more eloquent with words... please, let us know what you mean.

[quash]

OK, where is her citizenship? It appears that liberals now insist on demonizing the competition. How absurd.


Uh, what? Are you seriously contending that "Palin is not just another American citizen" implies she's a foreigner???

Meanwhile, nobody is addressing what I believe to be the heart of the argument: that the media reaction (in advance, thank you) is what caused Hillary to back out. It was gonna be a no win, and the issue would be lost.

And how in the world is Senator Clinton's backing out capable of being described as "demonizing the competition"? Can you get me a quote like that, cuz it ain't in the story above.

Finally, how many of you would even know about this event if only Sen Clinton appeared?

[Texas Golfer]

As it turns out, no elected official will be there. After Obama, Biden, and Hillary said no, they disinvited Palin.

[ChipOC]

As it turns out, no elected official will be there. After Obama, Biden, and Hillary said no, they disinvited Palin.
That seems stupid. They got their press as quash pointed out. They should have reached out to more elected officials to get even more press.

[tommie]

Avoidance is a lost art. How often do you like it when an athlete speaks instead of walks away? Good for Hillary.

[Bexar Fan]

So the protest will not have the weight of a national figure, and as a result have even less influence on the international community than it might have had. All because of partisan bickering. No wonder we have so many crisis. We as a country lack the will or the intellect to combat our slide to mediocrity.

[Texas Golfer]

So the protest will not have the weight of a national figure, and as a result have even less influence on the international community than it might have had. All because of partisan bickering. No wonder we have so many crisis. We as a country lack the will or the intellect to combat our slide to mediocrity.

What I'm finding curious is, since when do we have to get an invitation to a protest?

[Wacoso]

She was right not to attend. Why set up a cat fight?

Maybe they'd kiss?

[quash]

As it turns out, no elected official will be there. After Obama, Biden, and Hillary said no, they disinvited Palin.
That's just stupid. Also sets off my conspiracy meter: was the intent from the beginning to arrange a conflict? What happened to the goals of the protest?

Apparently the organizers are saying they don't want a political event. Once you make the decision to invite politicians you have a political event.

TG: I can't find anything that says Obama or Biden were ever invited. Where did you get that info?

Pure speculation, which is what McCain did when he said the Obama campaign was behind the dis, but I suspect this: the organizers are probably Democrat leaning folks. Somebody thought twice about what Palin had to gain from appearing - foreign policy street cred and stroke with the Jewish community. Decided to put party ahead of event. Or decided that putting party ahead of event would generate media, and any media is good media. <cynicism off>

[Texas Golfer]

TG: I can't find anything that says Obama or Biden were ever invited. Where did you get that info?

I'll see if I find it again. They didn't say no as much as they said they had previous commitments.

[atxtraveler]

I think it is better that Palin had her invite rescinded. After all, if McCain passes away in office, Palin will be responsible for dealing with Mohammed Azerbajian or whatever his name is from Iran...

[LordByron]

Lord... you are normally a little more eloquent with words... please, let us know what you mean.
I consider Sarah a poor choice for John McCain's VP runningmate. At best she is nothing more than a governor of a small state awash in oil money that even my old granny could run. I'm not a Hillary fan but putting Sarah on stage with Hillary simply elevates Sarah in the minds of everyone but her devoted followers.

Thank you for asking me in a nice way instead of the way some attack posts they may disageee with. Your response has been duly noted.

[LordByron]

So the protest will not have the weight of a national figure, and as a result have even less influence on the international community than it might have had. All because of partisan bickering. No wonder we have so many crisis. We as a country lack the will or the intellect to combat our slide to mediocrity.
I more or less blame our slide on Bush Jr.

[Texas Golfer]

I more or less blame our slide on Bush Jr.

Your side blames Bush Jr. for all of your woes. If a Democrat gets bit by a snake trying to retrieve their golf ball from the woods, it was Bush's fault for not ridding the world of snakes.

[nein51]

I consider Sarah a poor choice for John McCain's VP runningmate. At best she is nothing more than a governor of a small state awash in oil money that even my old granny could run. I do too LB. As a republican I was sorely disappointed. I think it is a gimmick...though from the influx of cash it might just work.

[ChipOC]

I consider Sarah a poor choice for John McCain's VP runningmate. At best she is nothing more than a governor of a small state awash in oil money that even my old granny could run. I'm not a Hillary fan but putting Sarah on stage with Hillary simply elevates Sarah in the minds of everyone but her devoted followers.

Thank you for asking me in a nice way instead of the way some attack posts they may disageee with. Your response has been duly noted.
It motivated the base which has been ****ed at McCain for his "maverick" ways. It was a shrewd pick to rally them and to try and get woman only voters. It may just work.

[atxtraveler]

LB... I do like the pick the more she talks. She does have a way about her that says "I don't care for status quo" in a way not even Barack can touch. The interview they played on one of the news programs last night really showed her coming out swinging about how she does not care to be influenced by lobbyists like the others.

I am excited personally, which frankly pre-Palin, I wasn't.

[Volunteer]

Uh, what? Are you seriously contending that "Palin is not just another American citizen" implies she's a foreigner???

Meanwhile, nobody is addressing what I believe to be the heart of the argument: that the media reaction (in advance, thank you) is what caused Hillary to back out. It was gonna be a no win, and the issue would be lost.

And how in the world is Senator Clinton's backing out capable of being described as "demonizing the competition"? Can you get me a quote like that, cuz it ain't in the story above.

Finally, how many of you would even know about this event if only Sen Clinton appeared?

No, I was making light of your point that since Palin is identified with another political party that this somehow justifies Clinton's decision to bail on the event. I don't buy it.

Frankly I'm just weary of all the BS that goes on with politics. Everything is political. Now we can't even stand next to someone from the other party to oppose a truly bad guy. IMO the democrats are much more guilty of this particular disorder.

[quash]

No, I was making light of your point that since Palin is identified with another political party that this somehow justifies Clinton's decision to bail on the event. I don't buy it.

Frankly I'm just weary of all the BS that goes on with politics. Everything is political. Now we can't even stand next to someone from the other party to oppose a truly bad guy. IMO the democrats are much more guilty of this particular disorder.

Palin is no more just another Republican than she is just another American. Senator Clinton could, and has, stood next to Republicans at events. Girl on girl action is irresistible, and that messes up the purpose of the event.

I fail to see why this incident is cause for blaming Democrats for excessive partisanship. Why won't anyone condemn the organizers, for ignoring or creating the explosive potential or the media for running up with lit matches when they find a pile of gunpowder? Or at least acknowledge, even if Palin is of course blameless and perfect, that at least the organizers and media share some blame in the mess. If you can't then you're part of the problem that you yourself describe.

[ChipOC]

Here is the supposed speech Palin would have given. Actually praises Clinton on her stance.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1023408.html
The speech Palin never gave: Ahmadinejad dreams of Final Solution http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif Tags: Ahmadinejad (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/tags/index.jhtml?tag=Ahmadinejad), Clinton (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/tags/index.jhtml?tag=Clinton), Iran (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/tags/index.jhtml?tag=Iran) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/tags/tag_arrow1.gif
In the speech which Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was to have delivered at a Monday rally protesting the UN appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, she was to have said that the Iranian president "dreams of being an agent in a 'Final Solution' - the elimination of the Jewish people."

Her appearance in the rally in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza was cancelled in a flap between protest organizers and Hillary Clinton, who had also been scheduled to speak. Clinton aides were quoted as saying that they had been "blindsided" by the decision to invite Palin, which they called a partisan move. In the ensuing controversy, Clinton withdrew her participation, and Palin's invitation was rescinded.

The text of the speech follows:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif Advertisement
I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country - leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York - to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan - and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.
He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" - the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation."

Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman -not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons ? they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed. If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!
Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech - a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports. We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.
We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps -which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization. Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

[Texas Golfer]

Here is the supposed speech Palin would have given. Actually praises Clinton on her stance.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1023408.html

I still think the Democrats will replace Biden with Hillary before the VP debates. Biden will feign an illness that will preclude him from continuing so the Dems can make this move. I think the Dems feel the need to combat Palin with another woman to ensure their chances in November.

[ChipOC]

I still think the Democrats will replace Biden with Hillary before the VP debates. Biden will feign an illness that will preclude him from continuing so the Dems can make this move. I think the Dems feel the need to combat Palin with another woman to ensure their chances in November.
I heard Biden criticized an add that Obama approved that attacked McCain. That may be the beginning of the swap.

[Volunteer]

Palin is no more just another Republican than she is just another American. Senator Clinton could, and has, stood next to Republicans at events. Girl on girl action is irresistible, and that messes up the purpose of the event.

I fail to see why this incident is cause for blaming Democrats for excessive partisanship. Why won't anyone condemn the organizers, for ignoring or creating the explosive potential or the media for running up with lit matches when they find a pile of gunpowder? Or at least acknowledge, even if Palin is of course blameless and perfect, that at least the organizers and media share some blame in the mess. If you can't then you're part of the problem that you yourself describe.

I think calling this an explosive environment is excessive. Putting Clinton and Palin in a cage with machetes would be explosive. Sharing the same stage .... not so much.

So you really believe that Palin and Clinton couldn't share the same stage without causing some sort of black hole that would suck the entire western world into oblivion? - see I can use hyperbole as well.

And what exactly did Palin do that deserves any blame? Other than accept the invitation that is.

To Clinton (and most democrats) everything is partisan. I think that's a pretty sad and doesn't bode well for the future of this country. I guess we could look at blaming the press or the organizers for not realizing that Clinton would be vehemently opposed to sharing a stage with Palin. Blaming someone else is, after all, the democrat way.

[quash]

I think calling this an explosive environment is excessive. Putting Clinton and Palin in a cage with machetes would be explosive. Sharing the same stage .... not so much.

So you really believe that Palin and Clinton couldn't share the same stage without causing some sort of black hole that would suck the entire western world into oblivion? - see I can use hyperbole as well.

And what exactly did Palin do that deserves any blame? Other than accept the invitation that is.

To Clinton (and most democrats) everything is partisan. I think that's a pretty sad and doesn't bode well for the future of this country. I guess we could look at blaming the press or the organizers for not realizing that Clinton would be vehemently opposed to sharing a stage with Palin. Blaming someone else is, after all, the democrat way.

It mat be excessive to call it explosive, but those aren't my words, nor my hyperbole. See the original article where THE MEDIA used that phrase.

I find your final sentence highly ironic. Unless you're a Democrat.

[Volunteer]

It mat be excessive to call it explosive, but those aren't my words, nor my hyperbole. See the original article where THE MEDIA used that phrase.

I find your final sentence highly ironic. Unless you're a Democrat.

The toxic speech today comes primarily from the democrat side of the aisle. Yes, conservative TV/radio pundits engage in this activity, but I'm talking about elected officials. Certainly elected republicans engage in vitriolic speech, but no where near the level favored by the democrats.

Our political parties simply must be able to get along in order to govern this train wreck of a country. The democrats, IMO, are, at this point in time, the biggest road block.

Hillary shouldn't care what the media said about the appearance. She could make nice for a few minutes. Show the world some damn solidarity.

[ChipOC]

Biden doesn't even know what their campaign is supporting....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Biden_No_coal_plants_here_in_America.html?showall

Some great rope line video from Joe Biden's recent Ohio swing, where he was asked by an anti-pollution campaigner about clean coal -- a controversial approach in Democratic circles for which Obama has voiced support, particularly during the Kentucky primary (http://polwatchers.typepad.com/pol_watchers/).
Biden's apparent answer: He supports clean coal for China, but not for the United States.
"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."
"We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama. They do, on paper, support clean coal.
The answer seems to play into John McCain's case that Obama has been saying "no" to new sources of energy.
In the primary, Biden opposed Obama's push for clean coal, which is seen as a way of maintaining or expanding America's coal-burning power plants -- many of which are in rust belt swing states.
"I don't think there's much of a role for clean coal in energy independence, but I do think there's a significant role for clean coal in the bigger picture of climate change," he told Grist (http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/29/biden/) last year. "Clean-coal technology is not the route to go in the United States, because we have other, cleaner alternatives," he said, but added that America should push for a "fundamental change in technology" to clean up China's plants.
Biden also was not shy on his own clean energy credentials.
"The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me 20 years ago," he said, apparently referring to the 1986 Global Climate Protection.
Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/17/biden-no-coal-in-america/) has some more context, and Jake Tapper reports (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-on-bidens.html) that Obama this morning rebuked Biden on a separate issue, his quick opposition to a federal bailout.
Today, Senator John McCain pounced on Biden's remarks.
"I am going to put in place the priorities and policies that will create jobs in Ohio. One important way that we are going to create jobs here is with the development of additional nuclear plants and through investments in clean coal technology," he said. "[Obama's] running mate here in Ohio recently said that they weren’t supporting clean coal."
Biden spokesman David Wade responded by calling McCain's statement "yet another false attack from a dishonorable campaign."

He continued: "Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama and Senator Biden support clean coal technology. Senator Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies."
But the error here does seem to be Biden's, and his remarks, and his apparent return to his primary position Tuesday, were striking because just three days ago, he praised the possibilities of coal to a crowd at the United Mine Workers of America annual fish fry in Castlewood, Va.

“You know we have enough coal in the United States of America to meet out needs domestically for the better part of the next hundred to 200 years,” Biden said before launching into a critique of McCain’s energy priorities, slamming his support for billions in tax breaks for oil companies as the industry rakes in record profits.

“Imagine ... what Barack and I can do taking that $4 billion … and investing it in coal gasification, finding out what we can do with carbon sequestration, finding out how we can burn the coal that you dig that can free us from being dependent on foreign oil countries and at the same time not ruin the environment. That’s within our capacity to do it, if you give me $4 billion I promise you, I promise you we will find the answer,” Biden said.

He linked the ticket’s support for coal with their call to have U.S. automakers produce plug-in electric cars. “Where’s that [electricity] come from? That comes from a utility. What do utilities burn? They burn coal mostly.”

[ChipOC]

I heard Biden criticized an add that Obama approved that attacked McCain. That may be the beginning of the swap.
And another one TG...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-on-bidens.html

Obama on Biden's Initial Opposition to AIG Bailout: 'Joe Should Have Waited'

September 23, 2008 9:41 AM
"What has been clear during this entire past ten days is John McCain has not had clarity and a grasp on the situation," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's Matt Lauer in an interview that ran this morning.


Lauer was talking about how Obama hit Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., for flip-flopping on the AIG bailout -- saying he opposed it one day then announced he supported it the next day.
But, as Lauer pointed out, scarcely three minutes after McCain said he opposed the AIG bailout last week, "in an interview with Meredith Vieira, Joe Biden, your running mate was asked the exact same question: 'should the federal government bail out AIG?' And he said, 'No, the federal government should not bail out AIG.'" (As we noted at the time (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/does-obama-supp.html).) "And I think that, in that situation," Obama said, "I think Joe should have waited, as well."
"But it's the kind of thing that drives people crazy about politics," Lauer said. "It sounds like you were trying to score some political points against John McCain using his words, when your own running mate had used very similar words."
"No, hold on a second Matt," Obama said. "I think what drives people crazy about politics is the fact that somebody like John McCain who, for 26 years, has been an advocate for deregulation, for 26 years has said the market is king and then starts going out there suggesting somehow that he's a populist who's been railing against Wall Street and regulation -- that's what drives people crazy about politics."

[Texas Golfer]

The toxic speech today comes primarily from the democrat side of the aisle. Yes, conservative TV/radio pundits engage in this activity, but I'm talking about elected officials. Certainly elected republicans engage in vitriolic speech, but no where near the level favored by the democrats.

Our political parties simply must be able to get along in order to govern this train wreck of a country. The democrats, IMO, are, at this point in time, the biggest road block.

Hillary shouldn't care what the media said about the appearance. She could make nice for a few minutes. Show the world some damn solidarity.

I agree. How can we expect the rest of the world to fall under democracies when we show it doesn't work here.

I, somewhat, expect partisanship during election campaigns but, after the elections are over, I expect the country to be their primary concern. Instead, after one election, they're posturing and getting ready for the next election leaving the country with nobody in Washington concerned about the people.

If one party says the sky is blue, the other party will say it's green. Enough already!

Every candidate of the opposite party of the administration always asks if we think we are better off than before their opponent's presidency. Hell, we are no better off than we were decades ago.

[Bexar Fan]

Hell, we are no better off than we were decades ago.

And on that note.....

http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

[quash]

Hell, we are no better off than we were decades ago.

In which decade did the Golden Age end?

[Bexar Fan]

This from Jay Leno on the cancellation: Hillary Clinton canceled an appearance at [a] rally [this] week in New York after learning that Sarah Palin would be there. And ironically, Bill Clinton had previously canceled after finding out Hillary would be there.

[ChipOC]

This from Jay Leno on the cancellation: Hillary Clinton canceled an appearance at [a] rally [this] week in New York after learning that Sarah Palin would be there. And ironically, Bill Clinton had previously canceled after finding out Hillary would be there.
I hear he rescheduled when he found out Palin would be there. :drool: