US elections: Jimmy Carter tells Barack Obama not to pick Hillary Clinton as running mate

[book_worm]

Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: "If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

Carter, who insisted that he would have been equally against an Obama-Clinton pairing if the former first lady had won the nomination, made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian's Weekend magazine, to be published on Saturday. The interview was conducted before the final round of voting last night confirmed Obama as the party's presumptive nominee.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/04/uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[Lucky 13]

1. Proud to be first rec and kick.

Gobama

[saracat]

2. I don't want Hillary to be VP but really Carter is not one to give politcal advice.

That is really a joke.

[book_worm]

6. I don't know he has had experience winning a presidential election.

[saracat]

23. He also lost big time.And he was an incumbant .

[reggie the dog]

71. He lost because

he stressed energy conservation decades before Americans were mature enough to hear about it.

[bhikkhu]

74. Thanks for that. He was "my" president when I was still in high school

and he was right.

The hardest thing was watching him go down in flames before the Reagan RW machine...its been a thirty year tide that's turning now, and I'm really glad he is still here to see and to be a part.

[Merlot]

97. I'm with you

And I think his advise makes sense. He was a very smart man ahead of his time. He saw what the future of big oil was going to do to America and tried to change it. By speakig about conservation, he went up against big oil. And we've all seen how that turns out for people. He was just one of the first.

[Why Syzygy]

79. .. and Bush had a Tehran surprise. The hostage situation

was a major player. He could have overcome the poor economy issue.

[klook]

99. The Iranian embassy hostages were 80 percent of it.

High gasoline prices were the other 20 percent.

[Why Syzygy]

104. I was selling houses and interest rates were in the 20% range.

The Fed didn't like him too much either.

[klook]

106. Oh, yeah - forgot that one.

I was a home "owner" at the time, paying 14% on an adjustable-rate mortgage and damn glad I could get that good a rate.

Fortunately, it only adjusted downward, but those were very hairy times financially. The Reagan economy continued to suck for many of us, as well, despite the "Roaring '80s" propaganda.

[Why Syzygy]

107. I sold a 14% assumption, and it was the best deal in town.

My brokers kept telling buyers that interest rates would never go down again. :eyes:

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

68. And you are???

...the joke is when posters ignore historical facts and blow misconceptions all over forums.

[sandrakae]

3. I Love you Jimmy, but STFU. These 2 have divided the Party.

I'm afraid he won't win withouht her. People should keep in mind, that Barack Obama did not run away with this nomination. We need all Democrats to take back this whitehouse.

[Growler]

7. Nah

Every one of Hillary's supporters (minus a few 1000) will vote the Democratic ticket in November.

[sandrakae]

9. I hope your right!!!!!!!

[book_worm]

10. most sensible democrats will.

[Independent-Voter]

24. I think you're probably right. The bitter, shrill ones make the most noise, but that's about it.

Her supposed support is soft, as evidenced by her being over 20 million in the hole That's BEFORE the May numbers have come in. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she doubled that when it's tallied up.

[jobycom]

49. Yes we will, but that's not the only issue.

There were a lot of independents excited by Clinton, either for gender or experience or fond memories of the 90s. Those may go to McCain. But for each of those Obama loses he'll probably gain someone excited about him, either for race or his message or his youth.

But you and Carter are right. Obama doesn't need to court the Clinton voters, any more than Clinton would have needed to court the Obama voters had she won. Time to go after the deciderers--the middle voters. And I say this as someone who would like Obama more if he chose Clinton--Don't do it, Captain. Full speed ahead.

My question, though, is will any of Obama's voters jump ship when he abandons the progressives and moves to the middle, or will they understand that he's posturing (in ways they condemned Clinton for doing)?

[mopinko]

15. and we need all the people who have freakin' had enough of billary.

seriously. and we are the boots of this campaign. we say hell no.

[Lilith Velkor]

21. My sentiments exactly. n/t

[Frisbee]

59. I respectfully disagree...

and believe he will have a harder time winning with her (he would probably still win). In addition, I don't think Bill Clinton being around is such a great idea, he would steel too much of the spotlight away from Barack. There are many excellent choices available, he does not need to choose Hillary unless he himself sincerely believes she is the best option. I can think of better options (IMHO) that are basically there for the taking.

[JDPriestly]

61. Obama should choose someone for VP who is close to Hillary,

but not Hillary. Hillary may have some suggestions. Wes Clark came to my mind.

[BearSquirrel2]

85. People should remember ...

People should remember that her candidacy was on life support in the form of $30 million in debt and Republican disruptors crossing over in droves to keep her in the hunt for an outcome that was all but certain back in February.

[treestar]

96. ITA, a lot of Democrats wanted Hillary

Their votes have to be kept.

[Growler]

4. Yay Carter

Smart man!

[Ikonoklast]

5. President Carter hits the nail on the head.

No need to add anything to this, no parsing, dissecting, spinning.

This is succint and absolutely true.

[HockeyMom]

8. He would get HER supporters

and lose everybody else.

[saracat]

22. He wouldn't get her supporters. Or not many.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. We get it. You're a bitter, hate-filled sore loser.

That's really YOUR problem, though.

[saracat]

27. I can't believe you want her as VP? And you don't really think she would help

his ticket no matter what you think of me?

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. I don't want her as VP.

And I really don't think she'd help Obama's chances by being on the ticket, and would probably in fact hurt them.

[saracat]

31. See, in some ways , we agree!

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. Except you agree because you are consumed by bitterness and hope Obama loses.

Which I have no respect for.

[saracat]

34. I don't hope he loses. I don't care if he wins or not. There is a difference.

I am not going to campaign "against " him.I am just not going to campign for him. I am not going to vote FOR McCain.And I have never said I would.

[AZBlue]

44. In politics, inaction is the same as action.

Not supporting or campaigning for him is the same as supporting or campaigning against him. The same goes for not voting/voting for the opponent, but it seems you at least won't go that far.

[saracat]

48. That is nonsense.It is the same as "nothing" which it exactly is.

I am not going around badmouthing him to potential voters or contributing to his opponent. In a few days I will be posting nothing about him here.But that is as far as I can go.

[reggie the dog]

72. Will you vote for Obama in November?

[bhikkhu]

75. That's been answered elsewhere repeatedly...sorry to say

[reggie the dog]

80. well what is the answer?

[ExPatLeftist]

82. Ah, apathy about the future of our nation. How commendable... n/t

:eyes:

[BearSquirrel2]

86. Even Hillary supports ...

Don't forget a LOT of Hillary supporters are not Hillary supporters. The tide turned for Hillary after McCain won the nomination and bored Repulicans started crossing party lines to vote for her in droves.

[DeeDeeNY]

53. Exactly

[NJmaverick]

11. President Carter is right

He may not have been a great motivator and leader, but he was rarely wrong. This would be yet another time he is correct.

[book_worm]

12. I think he was a great motivator and leader :)

[NJmaverick]

18. Carter's Presidency didn't go as well as hoped

His ideas were brilliant. Had he enacted most of his plans and visions, the Country would be so much better off. Unfortunately things didn't go as well as they should and we ended up with Reagan.

[bhikkhu]

76. The country chose Reagan, it might as well be said

The majority chose him. They were entirely wrong, and picked a path we are paying for abundantly now, but it was hardly an accident.

One of those "admit your mistakes" deals. It wasn't me, but I was there and watched way too many people fall for his crap.

[ekwhite]

95. Yep, the "ME" generations screwed the country big time in 1980

We are still paying for that one. The really funny thing is that the Fundamentalists hated, and still hate Jimmy Carter, despite the fact that he is a devout Southern Baptist.

[klook]

100. RW fundamentalists REALLY hate real Christians

-- you know, the ones who believe we should coexist with people who aren't just like us, we should help the poor, overcome prejudice, etc.

They prefer secular meanies to truly compassionate Christians.

[Doityourself]

13. I agree.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Jimmy Carter is a wise man and an first class humanitarian. n/t

[redqueen]

16. So... under the bus with Carter now, is it?

:rofl:

[saracat]

37. Nah. He is under a different bus from when he quit the Navy without having enough respect for

Rosalyn to tell her and forced her to move in with his overbearing Mother gainst her will. He mentioned she didn't speak to him for days but she got "used to it". That was when I tossed him under the bus. I lost a lot of respect for him.

[reggie the dog]

73. what????

Where were they supposed to live? In the street? It wan not permanent. It also has nothing to do with his politics.

[ExPatLeftist]

83. Smear anyone and everyone that is not for Hillary...

WTF does your comment have to do with any of this other than to attempt to use ad hominem against one of the greatest humanitarians our nation has ever had.

When you have won a Nobel prize, then someone somewhere might give a fuck what you say about Carter.

The sour grapes are poisoning you.



PS Irony: Someone asks if Carter is now under the bus, and you say no and then slime him for some ancient and forgotten personal matter. You are really a class fucking act.

[Rose Siding]

89. Ask Rosalyn if he respects her, if he loves her

Meanwhile, he didn't sleep around or humiliate her in the most public ways possible. Is that kind of behavior easier for you to forgive?

How low can you go? My hope is that at some point you come to regret saying such hateful things and that you find some peace.

[jasmine621]

17. i agree with Carter. Obama should be free to name a partner he is

comfortable with and Hillary should want no part of a possible loss in the GE. She would be blamed. She needs to get out by the end of the week, get some kind of agreement to help settle her campaign debts, take a break and come back swinging on behalf of Obama. If she does, she will be the heroine of Dem party by the time of the convention. Mindless voters do not remember much as proved by their memory of 1988 and 1984 and 2000, and 2004.

[stillcool]

19. Obama/Clinton like oil and water...

I have grave concerns. Not only for Obama, but for the Democratic party.

[TahitiNut]

20. I agree 100% with Jimmy - it'd be a combination of negatives.

It seems obvious that there is NO synergy between Obama and Clinton - and synergy is exactly what Obama needs in a running mate.

[ej510]

26. I think that he is saying that this may be too much change for america.

Which would eliminate any other woman canidate.

[Tippy]

29. Jimmty Carter is a wise man....might not be a bad idea to follow his lead on this...n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. He may be right. He may also be wrong.

Nevertheless, I question whether this was an opinion that should have been expressed. Obama does not need to be painted into any corners.

FWIW, I am a Hillary supporter, and think she could do more good as Senate Majority Leader.

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. She hasn't the seniority to be Majority Leader.

There are a lot of other Democrats more senior than she who are in line for the position. And there will be a lot of strained relationships when she returns to the Senate, I should think.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Reid has failed. Time for someone new who will push universal health care.

Is Reid the most senior Democratic senator?

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. I think he's probably done about as well as can be expected with a razor-thin Dem majority.

51-49. Are you not familiar with legislative procedures and party-line voting that make that sort of narrow majority a less than ideal environment for sweeping reform?

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. 51 votes should be enough.

My former boss had a sign in his office "if you have 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."

Reid should be able to do what Gingrich did with an equally small majority in the house.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Different bodies, different traditions, different procedural rules.

[jlacivita]

62. don't forget Lieberman is one of those 51

the only reason the dems have a majority is because he caucuses with them, even though he's an independent.

it really is a razor thin majority with the threat of him switching sides always looming

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. I suspect he still has balls. You're not twisting 'em right Harry. n/t

[ExPatLeftist]

84. I think that he is helping Obama to make the decision that is a foregone conclusion

Obama is in a difficult situation - he probably does not want to take Hillary as running mate, but is under a lot of pressure (and her hostage situation) to do so.

If respected party elders like Carter voice this opinion publicly, it allows Obama to select another running mate and say that it was based on the wishes of the party rather than his own personal preference. It may even cause Clinton to pull her name to try to save some face when she sees that many higher ups in the party are against it.

So I think Carter is helping Obama with this.

[Imagevision]

36. Wasn't Hillary part of the "old school politics" Obama spoke of?

[Kierkegaard]

90. Absolutely.

That was a key phrase he used again and again to separate himself from the 'old guard.' How hypocritical would it look for Obama to have claimed that Hillary was part of the culture that created so many of the issues he promises to address and then turn around and choose her as a running mate? The M$M is licking their chops at the prospect..

[Myrina]

92. Yes, which is why it would be a mis-step to ask her, IMO ...

... among the many, many other reasons for him to avoid Lady MacBeth ...


:scared:

[Catherina]

38. Thank you President Carter n/t

[AspenRose]

39. Wisdom.

.

[AntiFascist]

41. Very interesting n/t

[Scurrilous]

42. K & R

:thumbsup:

[AZBlue]

43. Excellent advice from a very wise man.

[genna]

45. Who says politically correct means not telling the truth in the way you see it.

"If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

:hippie:

[David Zephyr]

46. Jimmy Carter now joins Ted Kennedy in giving Obama the same advice.

I hope he heeds it.

[jobycom]

47. I'm a Clinton supporter, and that's exactly what I've been saying for a while.

Choosing the VP is about numbers. You choose someone who will bring the most to your ticket. Clinton won't bring anything to Obama that he doesn't already have (or won't get by November), at least in terms of numbers. (She would bring experience and wisdom and other crucial governing skills that Obama lacks, but that doesn't matter--the VP doesn't run things). And, exactly as Carter says, she will compound the negatives on the ticket. Carter isn't insulting Clinton or Obama by saying that, he's simply doing to math.

A counter to that argument, though: most of the people who won't vote for Clinton because she's a liberal woman and the people who won't vote for Obama because he's black or they believe he's Muslim or some other bigoted reason are likely to be the same people, and they aren't too likely to vote for any Democrat. So the numbers of people driven away by that compound ticket may be low.

But they are still negatives that Obama would have to overcome, and there's no reason to start out that way. She brings too little, costs too much, to be his choice. Even if that's who I'd most like to see.

[Lerkfish]

50. that's a good analysis

I would also add that I have trouble believing that she or her husband would be able to, even if they tried, avoid upstaging Obama frequently.

[jobycom]

51. Probably true. Bill moreso than Hillary. nt

[Catherina]

69. ! Thank you n/t

[Kixel]

91. Plus-

To use a West Wing analogy-that's too much voltage at the bottom of the ticket. When all else fails, trust Donna. Or Josh. I can't remember which one said it?

[seafan]

52. UK Guardian: Jimmy Carter tells Barack Obama not to pick Hillary Clinton as running mate

US elections: Jimmy Carter tells Barack Obama not to pick Hillary Clinton as running mate





Jonathan Freedland
June 4, 2008

Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.
"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."
Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: "If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."
Carter, who insisted that he would have been equally against an Obama-Clinton pairing if the former first lady had won the nomination, made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian's Weekend magazine, to be published on Saturday. The interview was conducted before the final round of voting last night confirmed Obama as the party's presumptive nominee.

The intervention of the former president - regarded as the senior elder of the Democratic party by some, and as a walking reminder of electoral failure by others - comes just as speculation of a joint Obama-Clinton ticket is building in the US. Lanny Davis, a close Clinton adviser and friend, has launched a petition drive and website - and written directly to Obama - urging him to appoint his defeated rival.

.....

Meanwhile, Bob Johnson, the Clinton backer and founder of Black Entertainment Television, has announced that he hopes to persuade the Congressional Black Caucus - the umbrella group for African-American members of Congress - to lobby for an Obama-Clinton partnership.

.....

The former president said: "What he needs more than a southerner is a person who can compensate for his obvious potential defects, his youthfulness and his lack of long experience in military and international affairs."
For that reason, Carter says he favours Sam Nunn, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who hails from his own state of Georgia. "That would be my preference, but there are other senior Democrats who would have similar credentials to Sam Nunn," he said.

And guess WHO is behind this brand-new threat **letter** to Obama, to pressure him to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate???


Why, it's US Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), none other than Hillary's national co-chair who opposed a revote for FL's primary, blamed the DNC instead of the Florida Democratic leaders who were responsible for the debacle in the first place, and trashed DNC Chair Howard Dean for issuing sanctions after he warned them that an earlier primary would, indeed, bring consequences of loss of delegate power.


Debbie Wasserman Schultz.


The same Debbie Wasserman Schultz who will not campaign for fellow democrats in her area who are running against her close Republican friends, the Diaz-Balart brothers and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami, otherwise known as "The Terrible Trio". Debbie should just switch parties. She is not a progressive Democrat.


The same Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, and claims that *none of her constituents* are pushing for impeachment of Dick Cheney or George W. Bush.


The same blind, partisan loyalist to Hillary Clinton, who is now pushing Barack Obama to seat "her girl" as his vice presidential choice. This is pure extortion.


Who does this woman think she is?

Thom Hartmann just asked her day before yesterday on his radio program if she thought that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6233572">her continued inflammatory rhetoric wasn't contributing to the rancor and increased damage to the Democratic Party. She didn't answer the question.




US Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D(?)-(FL)



Congressional Clinton backers mull letter to Obama

Members of Congress who support Clinton are weighing a joint letter to Senator Barack Obama pressing him to put Clinton on the ticket, a congressional aide confirmed.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida has suggested the letter, which would aim to represent the voices of female members of congress and those from swing states and key demographic groups.

The letter hasn't been drafted yet, though, and as with much of the day's vice presidential buzz, Clinton's supporters seem to be pressing ahead in the absence of clear direction from the candidate, who is meeting with her top advisors -- though not her husband --at her Arlington headquarters today.

"It’s still sort of in the premature stage of whether it’s going to happen or not," said John Bowman, Wasserman-Schultz's chief of staff. "She’s mentiond (sic) the idea but it hasn’t gone further."

FURY DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO DESCRIBING THIS ANY MORE.

[OhioChick]

54. I Agree. n/t

[Mike L]

55. What does Carter know? He wasn't reelected and the economy was terrible under him. em

[Forkboy]

63. I feed off your bitterness.

And it's a big meal. :P

[Baby Snooks]

67. He was a wonderful president...

He was up against public sentiment with regard to the hostages in Iran who were conveniently released the day Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were sworn into office. A coincidence? Not at all. Part of the deal that we know about only because of what little we know about Iran-Contra. The little we found out before George HW Bush became president and then Bill Clinton became president and swept it all under the rug.

As for the economy, Jimmy Carter inherited the economy of Richard Nixon which was decimated by a war. Just as the next president will inherit the economy of George W Bush which has been decimated by a war. We will have inflation comparable to what we had under Jimmy Carter. The Fedearl Reserve is simply hoping that by pumping billions into the banking and equities sector that they can keep the inevitable at bay until after the election. Although now that Barack Obama is the candidate, they may decide to let it go under. So everyone can blame the Democratic Congress. Which they will. And would have anyway right after the election. And some already are.

The Clintons belong at Nuremberg along with the Bushes. As do those who support the Clintons and the Bushes.

Madeline Albright was not secretary of state under George HW Bush and her comment about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children being worth it was a reflection of the position of Bill Clinton.

When Jimmy Carter left office, he devoted himself to helping the poor.

When Bill Clinton left office, he devoted himself to himself.

Jimmy Carter was a horrible president? He was a wonderful president. And still is. The only decent one we have at this point.

[ForeignSpectator]

81. Amen but what was this Albright quote? That's news to me...

...you have a source for this?

[Baby Snooks]

93. There are many sources...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Just one of many sources. She said it and only "regretted" it after it created outrage. Which it still does. And always will.

Reality is the Clinton administration, following the policy set in place by the Bush administration, was targeting the children. Believing that would force a grieving nation to rise up against Saddam Hussein.

It only made a grieving nation, and other nations, to hate us that much more.

Perhaps that is what Dick Cheney meant when he said Iraq conspired against us - it and other nations rejoiced on 9/11. Half the world, really, rejoiced. Their hatred of us and our policies so great that they rejoiced in tables being turned on us for once.

Jeremiah Wright spoke the truth. As did Osama bin Laden. Jeremiah Wright spoke the truth out of love. Osama bin Laden spoke the truth out of hatred.

[ForeignSpectator]

103. I know I could have googled it myself but thanks!

What a horrible statement to make.

Well, and then bill is the biggest humanitarian with his foundation, right? He and poppy bush, great humanitarians, how disgusting this hypocrisy is...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. I'm so proud of my former governor and president! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

60. Thank you, Jimmy Carter!!!!!

[rpannier]

64. Carter is not the first person I'd turn to for that kind of advice

But I'm not a carter fan.
So I admit a bias

[DirtyDawg]

101. If you're not a Carter fan...

...then you haven't done much homework. Even a cursory look at the facts of the Carter Administration would reveal that whatever perceived shortcomings that you and others attribute to him can be laid at the alter of the 'embedded Washington Establishment (Democratic as well as Republican), and primarily in the name of Teddy Kennedy. Carter and his team got elected on a platform of an outsider that would 'bring the best' to Washington and make some changes...changes that the country was looking for...only to find that Washington would have none of it. He was fought at every turn. The Washington media corps was enlisted by the insiders - hell, they were part of the insiders - to make him and his people look weak and ineffectual and they succeeded.

You bitch about inflation - he inherited it from the Nixon/Ford regime but got the controls started with the appointment of Paul Volcker to the Fed under whose leadership we, once again, became fiscally solid. You complain about the price of gas - given today's experience that's pretty-much a laugh - but it was being forced by 'friends of the GHW Bush/Republican/Big Oil Bunch - but given the opportunity to launch his, Carter's, energy policies, we wouldn't be worrying about it now and 4,000 American servicemen and women would still be bouncing their babies on their knees. He alone saw to it that the only real peace Israel has known came about through Jimmy Carter's vision and doggedness, along with Sadat's bravery (of course he paid the last full measure for it) and Begin's willingness to go along. He made the tough decision about the Panama Canal - in the face of predicted doom - that has proven to be absolutely the correct one. The one time he tried to 'go along' and be cooperative with those that wanted to get the Shah some cancer treatment - Repugs that were responsible for putting him in power in the first place - it backfired and we had the hostages...hostages that would have been home, safely, long before they were if it had not been, again, for GHW Bush and his murdering henchman, William Casey, that arranged for them to keep 'cooling their heels' in Iran just to make sure they remained the central issue in the 1980 campaign - a deal that was arranged through Israel (ironic ain't it?) which delivered $5 billion in arms to Iran in exchange for holding onto 'em for a while longer (and McLame keeps saying it was because RR was perceived as tough, the only thing tough about them was that they operated like the Mafia, nothing was too illegal, too underhanded, too deceitful if it got 'em what they wanted)...and, by the way, that little transaction led to the whole Iran/Contra deal that also got swept under the rug, in part with the assistance of Bill Clinton (yet another reason we don't need no more Clintons near the WH)

So before you introduce your 'knee-jerk' comments about Carter, spend a little time reading, you'll find that we allowed a good and capable man to be vilified and marginalized and in exchange we got Reagan and the Bushes - Jesus, how 'effin' bad has that been?

[rpannier]

109. Since I never cited any of those instances that you mentioned your outraged is misplaced

I live and work in Korea. Mention Carter's name to many on the left here and you get a look of sickness from them.

Why?
The Gwang-ju Massacre.

When the pro-Democracy demonstrations were occurring the Carter administration became concerned that the demonstrations could seriously injure his re-election chances.
The Carter Administration gave the Korean Government (the product of a coup) the green light to quell the demonstrators.
Conservative estimates put the number of people killed around the peninsula region at somewhere between 2000-4000.
More probably 8-10 thousand people were slaughtered.
This doesn't include the thousands that were jailed.
Or the number of police who lost their jobs for refusing to fire on the demonstrators.

The Carter Administration made no effort to pressure the military government into securing the safety of those that were arrested
Former Korean President Kim Dae-jeon (much younger of course) was a leader of the pro-Democracy demonstrators.
He was scheduled to be executed and the US government (read The Carter Administration) was mute.

I have been living in Korea for over a decade. I am married to a Korean woman who is from Gwang-ju (Gwang-ju is spelled both Kwang-ju and Gwang-ju in English).
She was in high school when it happened and remembers it quite well.

I have provided a series of links below that will give you a lot of information on the Gwang-ju massacre. The most informative is probably the kimsoft links.


http://www.informationdelight.info/encyclopedia/entry/Gwangju_Massacre

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/usknew.htm

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/kwangju3.htm

http://todayshottopic.com/2007/08/26/gwangju-massacre-1980/

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Gwangju_Democratization_Movement

http://libcom.org/history/1980-the-kwangju-uprising

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4557315.stm

In closing: I have spent a significant amount of time reading. In May of 1980, Carter was more concerned about the possibility of taking another hit on the international scene which could have further damaged his chances of re-election, than in doing the right thing.
Carter is a man held in very low regard by many on the left here in Korea because he didn't stand up for Democracy here.

So, this is why I don't really like the man. I was a Junior in High School when he lost to Reagan. I was disappointed he lost.

That being said, I would appreciate in the future that you show me the courtesy of asking why I think something, rather than going into a tirade without having any knowledge as to why I think the way I do.
I have always tried to provide people with that consideration. I may have fallen short at times. Maybe I did with you, I don't know.

But, as I noted in my beginning statement... You got my reason(s) totally wrong

[New Dawn]

65. K&R

[Baby Snooks]

66. Carter's only mistake...

Jimmy Carter's only mistake was listening to the CIA about the Shah of Iran - the CIA of George HW Bush. He will never admit it but that opened the door to where we are now. And ten years later, we saw the proof of the complicity of George HW Bush in the downfall of the Shah through Iran-Contra and we will never really know the depth of his involvement because Bill Clinton came into office and swept it all under the rug. More than anyone else at this point, Jimmy Carter knows where this country is and where it needs to go finally. And Hillary Clinton will not take us in the direction we need to go any more than Bill Clinton did. The Clintons are like the brooms of the Bushes. To sweep everything under the carpet for them.

Hopefully others will give the same advice to Barack Obama. As for her supporters threatening to vote for John McCain if she is not on the ticket with Barack Obama, take your vote for John McCain and stick it up Hillary and Bill Clinton's ass that they have shown finally for all to see. They are no longer a part of our American dream. They are, as they have always been, part of the nightmare we are all tired of.

[harun]

98. Iran did everything they could to throw that election to Reagan, they wanted to punish

the people of the United States with right wing nut jobs. There is a good account of it in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Persian-Puzzle-Conflict-Between-America/dp/0812973364/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212675779&sr=8-1

[Baby Snooks]

102. And reward the main right wing nut job...

The reality is that what we know as Iran-Contra was begun long before the presidential election began. Iran-Contra was just part of it.

This administration keeps talking about "trading with the enemy" and in fact sent one of its own enemies, Oscar Wyatt, to prison for "trading with the enemy" and yet all these years Halliburton has traded openly with Iran. Just through a "foreign subsidiary."

The Bushes are woven into the intrigue of Iranian politics and have been since the 1950s during the first attempt to depose the Shah.

What the Bushes remove, sometimes they like to put back.

And if it were possible, they would put Reza Pahlavi back on the Peacock Throne. Complete with the same strings they put on his father.

That is not possible. So off to war we may go with Iran. Unless more rational minds prevail. Which so far they seem to be.

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. thank you President Carter

[symbolman]

77. Absolutely, my main man Carter speaks the Truth

Obama would fare better if he tied a dead animal around his neck and let it rot off the whole GE than to have Clinton as a running mate..

Aint gonna happen, how do I know? Because Obama has Principles, and she has none, so why blow HIS race for the White House with the addition of her as an anchor...

She's 80's, he's the FUTURE...

[Why Syzygy]

78. kick

Wise man.

[susankh4]

87. Jimmy Carter is no expert on party unification.

Just sayin'

[Clear Blue Sky]

88. Good advice. Hope Obama listens...nt

[invictus]

94. K & R

[TexasObserver]

105. If Obama made Jimmy Carter his VP, he'd be assured a safe term as president

That would be one way to stop them from ever considering impeachment against him. Can you imagine the GOP putting Jimmy Carter back in as president?