Obama mailer: Clinton years bad for Dems

This mailer is obviously not sent from the official Obama Campaign. I've recieved a number of mailings from them, and they are always of the highest quality in their presentation and message. Please check your sources before you print falsehoods.

If Clinton did this she'd be crucified. What happened to his hope? Things I've heard negative from his camp that they got a pass on "Michele Obama - If you can't keep your own house, how can you keep the White House", Obama - "My wife and I said it's now or never, this is it", I guess this is a threat that if he doesn't get his way he's through (I watched him say this out of his mouth, not from a reporter). Obama - "I can get her voters can she get mine?", of course she can if you don't pull them away. There are just as many people in the poles that say they will support either candidate that wins the nomination, but then people won't know if Obama is a spoiler or not unless he lose's and that's not going to happen because the media won't let it.

Oh yeah, Remember Gore wouldn't let Clinton near his campaign with a ten foot pole. He distanced him self. Bill is the only democrat in recent history to win two terms. Gore would have won if he had used Bill. Remember the Republicans with Gore and Kerry.

I agree Hillary played the snub to the hilt, if it had been me I would have shrugged and said "I didn't consider it a snub, he was uncomfortable with the situation. It takes experience to be able to deal with those kind of situations." BECAUSE that was the truth, He was uncomfortable with what Ted Kennedy had done. He didn't just support Obama, he tried to give a beat down for as much good as it did him. Even if she loses, she'll remember that he couldn't get Mass or CA.

Hillary Clinton's candidacy is a violation of the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution. She served by way of her husband Bill Clinton the two term limit. She has already enjoyed the same power and influence that her husband did during his term as he has admitted her role in the White House. By way of marriage, she was sharing the income with husband Bill Clinton and therefore cannot receive the same privileges since the two terms have been used for Mr. & Mrs. Cliinton. If elected, Former Pres. Clinton would again have access to the same privileges as before and be in violation of the 22nd Amendment. Pres. Clinton often quoted that America got two for one. Due to marriage laws, community property laws, Sen.Clinton has already served by way of marriage and admittance that she has already served.

As I recall that first year of the Clinton's administration did include the healthcare debacle that Hillary lead in Congress. Largely as a result of her efforts, Newt Gingrich was able to lead the Republican revolution which gave the GOP control of both the House and Senate at the first midterm of the Clintons' term. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

MA is Hillary's, but fair is fair. CNN under the title of 'Clinton twists Obama's words' has linked an article from FactCheck.org. 'You've Got Mailers!'

They point out some damaging spins...

Obama 08, Idaho

Barack is lying. 72 percent of his supporters will be happy with Clinton. 70 percent of her supporters will be happy with him....

Hmm, if there's an argument to be made, its Hillary who will get more of his!

First of all how do we know if it is from the Obama camp. It was distributed in Alaska only. Maybe one of his supporters were over zealous! Is that not the excuse that Clinton used in response to the attacks she and Bill delivered to Obama. I don't think this came from the Obama camp, so let's not make assumptions.

This could not have come from the Obama camp. First of all it was only distributed in Alaska! The six or fifteen votes in Alaska was not worth the trouble. Now, California would be a diffrent story. Maybe is was sent by an over zealous supporter. After is that not what Hillary said of her supporters and Bill when they attacked Obama's character.

No surprise here. Hillary is a polarizing figure that would jeopardize chances for a democratic victory in November and if she did squeak through we'd be right back to partisan politics and business as usual. Does anybody really doubt that?

Their positions are so similar, why risk the Clinton baggage? And why nominate someone universally mistrusted by half the county (the GOP) and distrusted by a significant percentage of her own party? I am an indpendent. I will vote for Obama, but I will not vote for Hillary.

As far as her big lead with older voters . . . goodness, baby-boomers have been dictating, cultural, political and corporate culture for decades. How about giving us a break, there's a lot of mess to clean up. How do you think it got here? If your collective and dominant judgment were that good we wouldn't be in this mess. Give up the gender affinity already (what a mockery of the democratic process) and vote for Obama for the sake of your kids and grandkids.

No surprise here. Hillary is a polarizing figure that would jeopardize chances for a democratic victory in November and if she did squeak through we'd be right back to partisan politics and business as usual. Does anybody really doubt that?

Their positions are so similar, why risk the Clinton baggage? And why nominate someone universally mistrusted by half the county (the GOP) and distrusted by a significant percentage of her own party? I am an indpendent. I will vote for Obama, but I will not vote for Hillary.

As far as her big lead with older voters . . . goodness, baby-boomers have been dictating, cultural, political and corporate culture for decades. How about giving us a break, there's a lot of mess to clean up. How do you think it got here? If your collective and dominant judgment were that good we wouldn't be in this mess. Give up the gender affinity already (what a mockery of the democratic process) and vote for Obama for the sake of your kids and grandkids.

Clearly Obama is far from the uniter he claims to be. I along with many friends can testify to the prosperous times of the '90's. Personally I hold the Clintons in far more esteem than Obama who is trying to paint a bad picture of Hillary when he says he doesn't think his voters would support her in the general election. Of course, the Clintons have campaigned for him during his senate run, and they will do the same again if he is the nominee in the general. The media continues to treat Obama with kids gloves, because if they try to get anything definitive out of him it might be construed as racist. Hopefully America will come to realize that Obama is not the Savior they have been waiting to deliver them from Politics as usual. Hopefully it won't be too late.

What a coincidence! I was just thinking to myself what if Bill Clinton had not been the nominee in 1992. Sadly, the Dem field was strong in 88, with Biden and Gore (losing, sadly, to the swiftboater Dukakis who himself got swiftboated), but weak in 1992.

Well, what if Bill Bradley or Al Gore had been #42?

I think you don't get Newt Gingrich (a product of Hillary healthcare plus obsession with gays in the military in Y1 of Clinton I). You get better technology and less banking on the internet boom, so maybe stable growth and less speculation. So you don't get a housing crisis in 2008. You don't get Bush II because there is no Monica Lewinsky. You might even avoid 9/11, depending on what you do about the USS Cole, and how many Afghans you bomb in response to growing chatter. With no Bush II, you don't get Iraq.

What do you get? Maybe you still get NAFTA, but you almost certainly get the Kyoto Protocol, which would have slowed the 90's economy so that its growth did not later need to burst, and put us right where the Europeans now are.

We get to keep majorities in Congress in 1994...

More importantly, we (and I mean, me too) don't spend all our time, energy, and political capital defending Bill Clinton from the right wing. They hated Bill, called him a liar, and now we know why. Did he do so much for the country and the party that it was worth all the effort and time to defend him for all his scandals? It seems we spent more years coming to bat for him than he spend going to bat for us.

Check this out, italian second largest party leader uses obamas ....yes we can , in a press confrence as they go into elections

http://mediacenter.corriere.it/MediaCenter/action/player?uuid=7699cc2a-d4d7-11dc-b2ef-0003ba99c667

What a coincidence! I was just thinking to myself what if Bill Clinton had not been the nominee in 1992. Sadly, the Dem field was strong in 88, with Biden and Gore (losing, sadly, to the swiftboater Dukakis who himself got swiftboated), but weak in 1992.

Well, what if Bill Bradley or Al Gore had been #42?

I think you don't get Newt Gingrich (a product of Hillary healthcare plus obsession with gays in the military in Y1 of Clinton I). You get better technology and less banking on the internet boom, so maybe stable growth and less speculation. So you don't get a housing crisis in 2008. You don't get Bush II because there is no Monica Lewinsky. You might even avoid 9/11, depending on what you do about the USS Cole, and how many Afghans you bomb in response to growing chatter. With no Bush II, you don't get Iraq.

What do you get? Maybe you still get NAFTA, but you almost certainly get the Kyoto Protocol, which would have slowed the 90's economy so that its growth did not later need to burst, and put us right where the Europeans now are.

We get to keep majorities in Congress in 1994...

More importantly, we (and I mean, me too) don't spend all our time, energy, and political capital defending Bill Clinton from the right wing. They hated Bill, called him a liar, and now we know why. Did he do so much for the country and the party that it was worth all the effort and time to defend him for all his scandals? It seems we spent more years coming to bat for him than he spend going to bat for us.

Let it be set on record... that Obama is starting his subtle hit jobs and dirty tricks on the Clintons. Watch his rhetorics go personal. When the Clintons give him a doze of his own medicine, he better not be accusatory of them for negative politicking. Obama cannot have it both ways... pick a fight and then cry foul when retaliated upon. If Hillary is really polarizing, he would not find himself struggling this hard to beat her despite all the hypes, the black block votes, and his heavy-weight endorsers. There is much respect that goes to the fact that Hillary wins against all odds and thrives on working hard. Hillary's presidency will strengthen the Democratic Party because she will deliver. Political losses are most likely for Democrats under a president found full of rhetorics and no tangible results.

On Hillary’s Recent Accusations. Hillary’s political stock always rises when she can assume the role of victim. Her multi million dollar advisors are no fools and this is a last ditched attempt to provide her with a day or two where she can assume this role in the news cycle.