Barack Obama campaigns with sign that says, "No Clinton Dynasty"

[itsrobert]

Nice.

At the march, he has someone with a sign walking along side him that says "No Clinton Dynasty"

[Fresh_Start]

1. I didn't realize that Chelsea was running for office

when did that happen?

[tekisui]

2. I don't have a problem with that.

Especially the way Bill has been an embarrassing attack dog.

[bdamomma]

16. makes you wonder who is running anyway??

why does Bill have to fight Hillary's battles?

[Renew Deal]

3. Besides the fact that I agree with that, how do you know the campaign did it?

:shrug:

[ccpup]

4. if Hope and Change don't work

dig a little deeper into the Desperation Barrel.

[MNDemNY]

6. That's "Hope for Change".

[sufrommich]

5. Pretty vapid excuse for"vote for me".nt

[MethuenProgressive]

7. "Vote for me and Hope I'll change!"

:rofl:

[Fresh_Start]

8. Should we call Obama the Cheney dynasty?

after all they are related by blood

[Metric System]

9. He's using another Rethug talking point?

Nice. Peggy Noonan would be proud.

[MoonRiver]

21. And don't forget Ronny Raygun.

Obama's hero must be bursting with pride from the darkside.

[bluedog]

10. the "reincarnated Reagan " Dynasty n/t

[Armstead]

11. More accurate to say No Clinton/Bush Dynasty

Jeb in 2016

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. got a photo, or link or something?

or is this on tv?

[quickesst]

13. Of all the shots....

taken at the Clintons, the "dynasty" horse-shit has got to be the most inane. You have Bill, who was president, elected twice. Is that a dynasty? I don't think so, unless you want to include every administration that has ever presided twice. Add Hillary Clinton, and you have two Clintons who could be president. How, with the very farthest stretch of the imagination, do you get a dynasty? The most ignorant part of this inanity, is placing the Bush family in the same lot as the Clintons. Unless you are a highly imaginative, and paranoid individual, it's clear to anyone who embraces logic as a guiding point for their views, that the Clintons and Bushes are near diametric opposites. (at this point, people start slamming their keyboards in retaliation to the above comment, incorporating the very traits stated, paranoia, and imagination, to bolster their delusional thinking.) Of course, the simple, and obvious retort to the "dynasty paranoids is, noone appointed Bill president, we did. Noone will appoint Hillary Clinton president. We will. The closest anyone can come to dynasty claims, and that's a stretch, would be the election farce of 2000. When Ming the Merciless joins the family, let me know. I might consider expending a thought to dynasty at that point. Thanks.
quickesst

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. i think we should have more than two families being president

in the last 20 years, and possible last 28.

[earthside]

19. 'Dynasty' is a Code Word ...

... for oligarchy.

And that is exactly the road we are headed down with Clinton(s).

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton(s)

The founders of this REPUBLIC will be rolling in their graves if Hillary Clinton(s) is elected.

You think this won't be a big issue in the general election? Many Democrats argued mightily against George Jr. in 2000 for the same reason. Now, after that sad experience, it is an argument with even more power.

With other good candidates for president, why would the Democrats, the party named for 'democracy', chose oligarchy instead?

[sufrommich]

27. Since when are "oligarchies' democratically elected?

Or 'dynasties" for that matter.It's a dumb right wing talking point dreamed up to diminish her popularity.

[earthside]

30. Let me name some ...

China, Cuba, Iran ... for starters.

How about Russia.

They have elections and they are all oligarchies.

As a result of the Era of Bushism are we going to join that infamous list, too?

[maddiejoan]

28. Founders like John Adams?

Oh wait.

nevermind.

[earthside]

32. Of course, never mind.

John Quincy Adams was elected twenty-five years after John Adams. They were of different political parties. They were of different political philosophies.

And JQA wasn't a very good president, either. He lost re-election.

Even with the significant differences between the Bush-Bush/Clinton-Clinton(s) and the Adams oligarchies, the comparison makes the argument that this kind of 'governing elite' behavior is a bad idea.

[stray cat]

14. I'm not in favor of a continued dynasty for president

I like Hillary ok but shy away from her partly because I don't want dynastic presidencies transfering from Bush one term to Clintons and back and forth. Too much potential for entrenched power.

[jlake]

17. That's the only thing he offers -- he ain't a Clinton.

[redqueen]

20. And pretty speeches.

[maddiejoan]

18. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton

or as I like to call it:

Failure/Success/Failure/Success

[Fresh_Start]

22. thank you for that summary I enjoyed it NT

NT

[wyldwolf]

23. The sign might as well have read, "Screw your vote."

[AX10]

24. Where was all the dynasty talk in 2000?

[BenDavid]

25. Okay before the looney tunes have their say, just stop and think

a moment the condition of this country was when WJC took office. Now think in what great shape the country was in when WJC handed it off to the incoming president.In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion. Remember the 1993 Deficit Reduction Bill passed in the Congress without ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN vote....Here is some of what the right was saying. "Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." —Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." —Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." —Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas) and what did that bastion of liberal reporting :sarcasm: Wall Street Journal say in 1993:A Vote for Clinton’s Economic Program Becomes
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks.....What did this same paper say three(3) years later:Scary Deficit Forecasts For Clinton Years Fade As Tax Revenue Grows-------It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill And a Steady Economy.

Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after the clinton economic plan enacted in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down.

This is another of conservatives’ hidden agendas: they keep promising workers that if we cut taxes on the wealthy and the economy grows, their wages will go up. But when wages even start to go up—for whatever reason—conservatives do everything they can to slow down the economy. They never openly tell the public about the second part of their strategy when they discuss taxes, economic growth and wages.

I know I only touched upon the economy but this again seems to be the big issue for this election, and this can only be a plus for HRC. She will not present a broad plan now during these primaries but once she has the nomination and the rights candidate chosen then you will see exactly what HRC will propose and it is again THE ECONOMY, STUPID....

Whitewater was a non story the right tried to embarass the Clintons. NOTHING! Actually this could have been over in December 1995 when the firm of Pillsbury, Madison, Sutra hired by the right released its report and found that neither Clinton did anything illegal and we had to wait years later when Starr said the same thing....

Monica, I agree made me mad as hell with WJC, but the public did not want WJC impeached. The right did not hear what the public was saying about this. They had the fever and were going to impeach irregardless. Yes, it was easy for the House controlled by the right to pass the articles but then again the Senate did not charge WJC. So when a right winger says WJC was impeached be sure to tell them to tell the rest of the story, that WJC was found NOT GUILTY of all charges.

Yes, you can still be pissed with WJC for the Monica scandal, but step back for a moment and see the over-all 8 years of CLinton and as we go forward into this election, in my reality it would not be a bad idea to elect another Clinton to clean up the mess left by another Bush......

And I thank you
Ben David

[ClericJohnPreston]

26. Who else is Obama

going to throw under the bus, while pandering for votes.

He already has embraced Reagan, bashed the gay community, and the entirety of the Bill Clinton Presidency. He stated he would not run a divisive campaign, and has instantly gone negative. Sure, Obama can be trusted.

I thought he was a mere sound bite sloganeering speech-giver. It is nice to see he has extended his sloganeering to mere signage now. His campaigning is disgraceful, playing down to the lowest elements of divisiveness. He insults his own followers by giving preacher-cadenced speeches and ustilizing obvious manipulative dirty campaigning.

With each day, the desperation and true persona emerges.

His "Howard Dean Moment" is coming.

[beastofbourbon]

29. I would have to see that to believe it , you can carry any kind of sign at a democrat event anyway

.......but if so does this happen with his approval ?

[bluedog]

33. pics upon yahoo

?







http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080121/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc_33

[opihimoimoi]

31. No NOOBS either.....Obama is a NOOB...amateur in high politics...