Hillary Clinton & the Independence Party

28 Feb

During the debate the other night, when Russert was done hectoring Obama about what Farrakhan had said about him, Clinton got into a semantic war over “reject” versus “denounce”. She indicated that she had rejected the endorsement of New York’s parasitic Independence Party, implying that Obama’s mere denunciation of Farrakhan’s kind words was inadequate.

Max Tresmond misinterpreted that as applying to 2006, when Hillary was more than happy to appear on the IP line.

I knew the issue arose from 2000, not 2006, so I Googled it. I found this diarist at Daily Kos who found this passage from a 2000-era article:

Mayor and First Lady Reach Out, in Very Different Ways, to a Third Party

Published: April 30, 2000
The two candidates for United States Senate sought the endorsement of the fractious Independence Party here today, but Hillary Rodham Clinton used her speech to attack the group for what she said was the ”anti-Semitism, extremism, prejudice and intolerance of a few shrill voices on both the right and the left.”

Mrs. Clinton added that she welcomed the endorsement of the party, but said emphatically that she would not accept it if the party supported Patrick J. Buchanan for president. ”I cannot and will not as the price for any endorsement embrace or excuse those who use hateful rhetoric that separates and divides,” she said. ”So let me be just very clear: I will not run on a line with Pat Buchanan on the top of the ticket.”

And I found this:

Hillary declared that she would not accept their endorsement if it meant being on the same ticket with Buchanan. And why not? “If this party allows itself to become defined by the anti-Semitism, extremism, prejudice and intolerance of a few shrill voices of both the right and the left, you will be doing yourselves and our state a great disservice.”

But let’s be clear that Hillary Clinton appeared before the Independence Party to seek its little fusiony endorsement back in 2000. She told them that she would only accept it on condition that they didn’t also endorse Buchanan/Fulani.

That’s a whole lot different, and more susceptible to “rejection”, rather than “denouncement”, than an episode when a renowned anti-Semite spontaneously decides, without prompting or solicitation, to endorse you.

24 Responses to “Hillary Clinton & the Independence Party”

  1. hank February 28, 2008 at 9:20 am #

    Quite a mouthful for the absolute SHRILLEST voice on the left. Hearing the sound of her voice is akin to watching a train wreck.

    Oh, and by the way–SHE’S A BITCH. That doesn’t describe her as well as another word that I don’t think some would appreciate. Starts with a C.

  2. John Swanson February 28, 2008 at 11:52 am #

    Hank is so articulate!

    I think he epitomizes the problem that Senator Clinton has in attracting male voters with small genitals who are threatened by a woman who has a strong opinion and speaks her mind about the problems this country faces! Don’t worry most of these people who have such hatred for Senator Clinton do not vote, they just complain.

    The same problem Senator Obama is going to face with Hank and his type this summer when the Senator is painted by the same people as a fundamentalist Muslim Terrorist plant. Remember, it doesn’t have to be true for people to believe these things just repeat it enough and plant it in the voters mind so that when they get in the polling place to vote and they are all alone…it goes off!

  3. mike hudson February 28, 2008 at 2:14 pm #

    hey guys, guess what. the supermarket tabloid the globe ran that pic of obama in a turban last may, AND NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT! here’s the link.


  4. Mike February 28, 2008 at 2:46 pm #

    Thanks for that info Mike, but its too late shes in the dust bin next to Ron Paul. Hey no paper this week? The gazette job must be looking pretty good, well I hope you like cat food.

  5. Russell February 28, 2008 at 2:58 pm #

    John, if people don’t think like you and share your opinions of Senator Clinton, they’re closed-minded and small testicled? It is not because she is a woman with strong opinions and speaks her mind. It is because she is a bitch. There are plenty of women, some even in the Senate, that have strong opinions and speak their minds that have earned the respect of most people across the political spectrum, regardless of gender. Hell, even many women find HRC to be a bitch.

  6. John Swanson February 28, 2008 at 3:21 pm #


    Thats not what I am saying.

    I am saying that Hank has small genitals.

  7. Rob February 28, 2008 at 3:23 pm #

    So hank is Russell’s sock puppet?

    Well, I guess that fits.

  8. John Swanson February 28, 2008 at 3:31 pm #

    Also Rusty, why is Senator Clinton a bitch? can I get a few examples seeing as you seem to be on top of this? Or is it just your opinion?

  9. Russell February 28, 2008 at 3:51 pm #

    Obviously the bitch label is a subjective thing, but generally it’s given to women with an abrasive personality. I think you can see it most often in her tone and the way she carries herself, but if you really need some examples I think her “shame on you, Barack Obama” speech last week, especially in the context of just days before saying how honored she was to share a stage with him is an example. Her ridiculous argument over denouncing versus rejecting was a bit bitchy, too, at least in my opinion. I’m sure you and everyone else on here could come up with a few of their own examples. A classic one dating back years that everyone enjoys was her firing of the entire White House travel office. This was not a common practice for a First Lady or for a change of administration.

  10. Russell February 28, 2008 at 3:53 pm #

    Oh and Johnny, you generalized about certain male voters and HRC haters. You said Hank epotimized them, you did not say it was entirely about Hank.

  11. eac February 28, 2008 at 3:57 pm #

    It is not the size of Hank’s testicles on display here, it’s the size of his mind: small.

    But then, that’s been clear for a long, long time.

    OT: this ‘fact’ is yet another non-issue; can you explain a policy difference between the two candidates that leads you to support one over the other? Because frankly, I’ve come to thinking that really, you agree with Hank but are just too PC to be honest with yourself & readers. The glee with which you keep re-reporting every little bump on HRC’s road to the nomination (or not, as it seems these days) is redolent of suppressed misogyny. All you ever do is criticize her in ad hominem ways- because you ain’t got nothing else! I mean really, you hate her so much you’re presenting evidence of her purported malfeasance from the Drudge Report? Really?

  12. Buffalopundit February 28, 2008 at 4:45 pm #

    Shorter eac:

    If you don’t pick Obama over Clinton due to some specific policy proposal, you are a misogynist.

    Give me a fucking break.

    I think I’ve been pretty clear as to why I prefer Obama over Hillary. Ultimately, for me, it’s leadership and electability. Add in a little Clinton/Bush fatigue for good measure.

    Obama has the leadership skills to create a broad coalition of support. He eschews divisive political games for consensus-building and optimism. Clinton, whom I’ve written just dandily nice things about plenty of times, thanks for asking, is simply too divisive and comes with too much baggage to win in November.

    So, if I was a Clinton supporter and criticizing Obama’s every move, would you accuse me of latent racism? Sorry I support the other guy.

    I reject and denounce the idea that I hate her because she’s a woman, or that I think she’s a bitch. (In fact, use the fucking search function on this blog and look up “bitch” “Clinton” and “WBEN”.)

    Give me a fucking break. Seriously.

  13. Buffalopundit February 28, 2008 at 4:50 pm #

    Also, please cite an example of what you consider to be an ad hominem attack that I made against Hillary Clinton.

  14. mike hudson February 28, 2008 at 5:29 pm #

    lessee….the word “bitch” has appeared on this thread six times in 13 posts in reference to hillary clinton. i wonder what would happen if somebody used the equally offensive word “nigger” in a discussion of barack obama. even just once.

  15. mike February 28, 2008 at 6:51 pm #

    Hudson, give them some time.

  16. mike hudson February 28, 2008 at 7:41 pm #

    surprise surprise….obama turban photo being circulated by REPUBLICAN PARTY. here’s a link;


  17. Buffalopundit February 28, 2008 at 7:51 pm #

    lessee….the word “bitch” has appeared on this thread six times in 13 posts in reference to hillary clinton. i wonder what would happen if somebody used the equally offensive word “nigger” in a discussion of barack obama. even just once.

    I would argue that the “n” word is far, far more offensive than the “b” word. With that said, what do you think would happen?

  18. Buffalo, Buffalo February 28, 2008 at 9:15 pm #

    Now don’t yall be callin Obama’s Mother’s child a Nigger, Nigger, Nigger! The man is half White, so why not call him White. He does have that drop of White blood, ya know. I bet the Martians and the Moon People are getting a kick out of our racist butts. We are all going to live, die, and for many of you- go to Hell. Black, white, yellow or brown skin colors are not going to save none of our asses from that ultimate judgment!

  19. eac February 28, 2008 at 9:40 pm #

    well… first of all, I don’t support one over the other; I happen to think they’re both tools. that said, I would like to think that Obama may, possibly, in a few small but potentially marginally significant ways, be ever so slightly less tool-y; I don’t think that, but I would like to. Should he happen to get the nomination and the office, I’ll at minimum be glad that barrier has been broken, and I certainly wish him no ill will: he seems a nice enough human being.

    And if he does happen to be totally fucking awesome, I’ll eat my damn words as the pigs whizz by and Satan takes a holiday in Buffalo in January to get out of the cold; whatever.

    Beyond that, your summation of my logic is flawed; I don’t think you’re acting in a mysoginist manner AS A CONSEQUENCE of your not supporting her. I think you are revealing a strange hatred for her AS A CONSEQUENCE of the fact that you seem to take great pleasure in writing about her campaign’s missteps- to the sad, sad extent that you are willing to recirculate Drudge (Drudge, good sir: Drudge!) and write extensively on the monumentally insignificant “reject v. denounce” distinction in the last televised shitfest they call a debate. Why are you doing the Republican’s work for them? Your coverage in the past–when, I think, you were less certain and committed to a candidate–was considerably more even-handed.

    She’s on the failboat and you just love Obama, ok; we get it. Get over it, man.

  20. eac February 28, 2008 at 9:57 pm #

    by ad hominem, and I realize I am not using it strictly correctly, I mean that rather than present an argument based on the differences in their platforms, you do indeed (as you yourself admit) go mainly with intangible differences such as “leadership skills” and “optimism.” Your biggest problem with Clinton seems to be her campaign style. Hell, you liked her in the 90’s, you’ve said as well. So in essence, you think Obama will more easily implement plans that are more or less identical to Clinton’s? This is the spark of your fervor? WOW!

    Well, whatever: at least we agree on the amazingly ridiculous flag-pin thing. See- ever so slightly less tooly. Good for him.

  21. mike hudson February 28, 2008 at 10:34 pm #

    the flag pin thing is indeed ridiculous, but if “nigger” is more offensive than “bitch,” in your view, what would even out on the pundit offensiveness meter? “jungle bunny,” perhaps? “spear chucker”? now that we’re assigning ratings to judge the offensiveness of name-calling pejoratives, just where do we come down on this?

    in my view the race was over after wisconsin. i can’t see, given the way the delegates are divided up, her winning after that, even if she does better than expected next tuesday. and as i said, i didn’t vote for her.

    and a correction for eac: pundit didn’t just recirculate drudge, he recirculated drudge lying about the origin of a photo that appeared in the “globe” supermarket tabloid nine months ago.

  22. hank February 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm #

    John Swanson—keep your hands out of my pants—Size doesn’t matter.
    I’m the father of two. And a Grandfather.

    Reminds me of the two guys in the shower in the country club. By the time the short-peckered guy got done talking about his latest conquests, the other said “Wanna trade yours for the one that looks good in the shower?”


  23. jay June 6, 2008 at 6:34 pm #

    This blog is great it has new content, which i havent come across, like the simple but effective layout, so i thought i type a few words. Hey why dont you check my blog at http://pbn-motors.blogspot.com/


  1. Free New York Blog » Our Local Detractors - February 28, 2008

    […] We’ve been labeled “kooks”, “nuts” and worse whenever we’ve participated in most local blogs and forums. The commentors on this post have regularly lambasted us: BuffaloPundit […]

Leave a Reply to John Swanson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: