Article: PLEASE read this article to understand why some of feel so strongly about Hillary

[Armstead]

This is an article that explains very well why some of us get so worked up about the prospect of giving The Clintons the drivers seat again.

I would add personally that in addition to the social issues the writer talks about, the Clintons' pulled the same Okey-Doke deceptiveness regarding broader economic policies.



http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/13/7672/
Published on Thursday, March 13, 2008 by The Independent/UK
What Wouldn’t Clinton Do to Secure Power?
by Johann Hari

Excerpts:

Some American liberals have been suddenly, violently disillusioned by the Clintons’ tactics over the past few months. But in reality, for people who could see beyond political tribalism, the nature of the Clintons has been plain for a long time.

The idea that Clinton was “the first black President” was always implicitly racist: so screwing around, riffing well in speeches and liking fried chicken makes you black now? In fact, Bill Clinton was prepared to lash black people whenever it was politically convenient, with the quiescence of Hillary. Just after receiving the Democratic nomination for President, Governor Clinton returned to Arkansas to authorise the execution of a black man, Ricky Ray Rector, who was so profoundly mentally disabled that he told the guards to keep his last meal so he could have it tomorrow.

Attacking blacks when an election neared became a habit: in 1996, Clinton signed a package of welfare reform that effectively abolished benefits for poor women after a two-year time-limit. They are disproportionately black - and as a recession hits now, they will suffer severely.

Of course you have to make compromises to achieve power. But at some point, on some issues, you have to say - no, I can’t. I can’t execute this mentally disabled black guy. I can’t plunge millions of kids into poverty. I can’t still insist I was right to back the war in Iraq, when it has killed more than 650,000 Iraqis. The Clintons don’t have that gagging reflex.

Instead, they chose to turn themselves into weathervanes, pointing whichever way the winds of mega-power blow them. This meant that on all the great issues of their time - global warming, spiralling inequality, the foolish “war on drugs” - the Clintons fed and fuelled the right....

...Why did it take us so long to see them for what they are? Partly, it is because the Clintons were blessed with a parade of even greater grotesques as enemies. The right couldn’t attack the Clintons on their genuine scandalous behaviour, because they supported it all: the executions, the abolition of benefits, the crackdowns. So they contrived nonsense scandals, like Whitewater and Monicagate. Today, many of them are serving up stale sexism against Hillary: right-wing host Tucker Carlson has announced, “There’s something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary.” And partly, it is because the nightmare of the Bush years has made even the Clinton years seem like a halcyon heyday....

MORE

[havocmom]

1. thank you

:kick:

[Armstead]

2. Kick....Pretty Please?

[dionysus]

3. kick

[Voice for Peace]

13. ok, since you ask so politely

k&r

[Nedsdag]

47. Double kick!

:kick: :kick:

[Scurrilous]

4. K & R

:thumbsup:

[K Gardner]

5. K&R

[redqueen]

6. K&R

[HamdenRice]

7. The term, "Sista Souljah" was coined for Bill -- beating up on Black people strategically for votes

Neither Bill nor Hillary are racists. They just pander to them when it is strategically useful.

For those who were too young to remember the 90s or have bad memories, the term "Sista Souljah moment" was coined specifically for Bill Clinton -- a reference to his bizarre tongue lashing of a black audience about an irrelevant obscure rapper in order to score points with a white audience.

Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

Sister Souljah moment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

In United States politics, a Sister Souljah moment is a politician's public repudiation of an allegedly extremist person or group, statement, or position perceived to have some association with the politician or their party. Such an act of repudiation is designed to signal to centrist voters that the politician is not beholden to traditional, and sometimes unpopular, interest groups associated with the party <Read: Black people>, although such a repudiation runs the risk of alienating some of the politician's allies and the party's base voters.

Origins
The term originates in the 1992 presidential candidacy of Bill Clinton. In an interview published May 13, 1992, the hip-hop MC, author, and political activist Sister Souljah was quoted in the Washington Post as saying,

“ "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?"<1> ”

The remark was part of a longer response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The quote was later reproduced without the context of the complete interview<2> and resulted in wide criticism from the media. In June 1992, Clinton responded to the quote while giving a speech to the Rainbow Coalition, saying,

“ "If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech."

Reactions

Clinton's response was criticized by members and leaders of the Democratic Party's African-American supporters, such as Jesse Jackson,<3><4> and Clinton was accused by Sister Souljah of being a racist and a hypocrite.<5> However, it is often reported by the media to have also reinforced the image, in the eyes of moderate and independent voters, of a centrist politician who was “tough on crime” and “not influenced by special interests<read: Black people> .”

Clinton's remarks were consistent with his larger strategy: running to the right of the Democratic mainstream on many issues. Clinton went on to win the presidency, and the term Sister Souljah moment subsequently entered the political lexicon.<

<end quote>

The Clintons are not racist. They just play them on TV.

[AtomicKitten]

12. K&R

:thumbsup:

[uponit7771]

8. I just read about the "sistah souljah" moment with Bill, I was in love with both of them and now....

...I feel like kicking myself even though I'd vote for Hillary over McCaint

[KoKo]

9. Why did the RW hate the Clinton's so much they sent Ken Starr after them

dragging their reputation through the mud throughout two administrations. Did the Clintons use Ken Starr for their own benefit? Did they enjoy the way the Corporate Media went after them?

They must be really masochistic. Is that what you are saying? They went through all they went through to side with the Conservative agenda? :shrug:

[havocmom]

11. Bill's tenure in the WH must've slowed the RW march to where we are now

That's the only thing I have been able to figure. Their visceral hate of Clinton, a DEM moderate at best, always seemed so completely out of proportion to anything he actually did. All I can figure is a vendetta authored by bush41 and his bride Frankenstein at the gall of someone running against them and winning, which is sorta like the HRC campaign reaction to Obama, when ya think about it.

Bill slowed down the neocon march and a few worker bees made some dough in the dot com years. The neocons and their corporate puppet masters were in a hurry to smite the American citizens after all the long years putting deregulation and media consolidation carefully in place.

Bill Clinton just messed with their time-line and george the I's delicate ego. He dared to kick sand in the eyes of the anointed ruling class and for that, he had to pay.

As far as the Clintons go, (as an economic unit I seriously can't think it's a marriage anymore) they seemed to get a lot of coin from their efforts during their tenure at the WH and since. And like george I, HRC seems very focused on the place she wants demands in history as the first female president of what's left of the United States of America.

Ego and greed, on both sides of the aisle

[Whisp]

18. This is my take on the whys.

I think the two party system is set up for us like we were drooling idiot sport fans. There is a certain expectation and it is provided to us by these' scandals' which really amount to nothng more than an elaborate contrived soap opera - but it keeps us busy and gossiping and cheering or booing and emotionally invested - meanwhile both parties are from the same sport management team and get away with some serious infractions bhind the scenes while we are distracted with the meaningless fluffery 'scandals' and other shiney things.

the two parties are tighter with each other than they will ever be for the american people.

[KoKo]

20. One of the BEST posts I've seen on DU...in a few years!

Bravo! That folks don't see this shows the influence of the Bush/Cheney Years...and the culture before...

:applause:

[Whisp]

21. thanks, Koko, if you separate the Us and Them 1%ers

things get a bit clearer on what the game really is about.

[KoKo]

23. Ain't that the truth...what the "game" is really about, n/t

[sueragingroz]

24. agreed

In Canada we have a multi-party system... where we end up with minority governments that have to coalesce around the ISSUES that matter most to Canadians.

the more tha i watch american politics... the more bizarre it gets for me.

[Armstead]

63. I wish we had a multi-party system here

[eilen]

36. Exactly

I was certain during that whole Whitewater time that it was a smokescreen to keep us distracted from the real scandalous shit going on (like the selling out of our country, military technology to the Chinese for campaign funds etc.) why did no one get excited about that?

[blm]

26. Get real - Whitewater was cover for Bushies to get INTO Rose Law Firm to protect its biggest

client - Jackson Stephens - the man who brought BCCI into this country and who had been heavily involved in Poppy Bush illegal operations for decades.

Stephens' files needed a full on scrubbing since practically every lawyer at the firm had done some measure of work for him.

Clintons took those attacks because THAT was the cost of power - Stephens set them up to protect BushInc. And Hillary was being set up to continue that protection BushInc always needs from the so-called left.

[BeyondGeography]

10. This dreary circle that we're still caught up in

==Why did it take us so long to see them for what they are? Partly, it is because the Clintons were blessed with a parade of even greater grotesques as enemies. The right couldn’t attack the Clintons on their genuine scandalous behaviour, because they supported it all: the executions, the abolition of benefits, the crackdowns. So they contrived nonsense scandals, like Whitewater and Monicagate. Today, many of them are serving up stale sexism against Hillary: right-wing host Tucker Carlson has announced, “There’s something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary.”

And partly, it is because the nightmare of the Bush years has made even the Clinton years seem like a halcyon heyday.==

[Armstead]

14. I think Obama has (had) the potential to break that circle, but...

the Clintons seem determined to smother the flame of hope and change.

[BeyondGeography]

15. With the help of the rank-and-file

many of whom can't admit they were wrong about these two all along.

[Liberal Veteran]

28. I think of it in some ways as a family thing.

Generally speaking, the right wing was putrid to the core when it came to the Clintons. As a member of the democratic family and given the base and transparent attacks on the Clintons, I defended them.

Now they have turned on their own and I can no longer make excuses for them.

They are...to put it mildly....trash.

[BeyondGeography]

38. I defended them as well and voted for Hillary twice here in New York

I never accepted this re-run for the presidency, on the other hand. I knew they would put the party through hell because so many Democrats wanted an alternative to them, not to mention the overall country. Hillary's unapologetic war vote and she and Bill's increased coziness with the wealthy were two other warning signs. Basically, they're just older, richer and even more cynical than they were before; we need to move on.

[Oilwellian]

16. Great piece

K&R

[havocmom]

17. And one for the afternoon crowd!

:kick:

[justinsb]

19. K & R

I left the Dems and registered as an independent in 96 because in 92 I had voted for a progressive Dem and instead got a moderate Republican

[Cha]

22. That's hilary and bil W clinton..

"Instead, they chose to turn themselves into weathervanes, pointing whichever way the winds of mega-power blow them. This meant that on all the great issues of their time - global warming, spiralling inequality, the foolish “war on drugs” - the Clintons fed and fuelled the right. Hillary is following this approach to the letter. While promising in public to “take on the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies”, she is in fact shovelling more of their cash into her campaign than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Fortune magazine recently ran an adoring cover story calling her “the candidate of business”.

[Why Syzygy]

25. kick & 25

[goodgd_yall]

27. Do you really want Hillary supporters to read this?

I just did and its another piece of shit article attacking the DEMOCRATIC Clinton administration. If you recommend something that isn't obviously biased, you might get me to take it seriously.

[Liberal Veteran]

29. Okay....Hillary and McCain both have more experience than Obama....

...at being beltway trash who will do and say anything for power.

[Armstead]

56. I'm guessing that anything critical would be "biased" in your opinion

[McCamy Taylor]

30. Long on rhetoric short on fact.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. But, if you believe hateful rhetoric devoid of fact, that explains your hatred. Worked for Hitler.

After a few years, he had the German people convinced that Jewish people started all the wars in the world, and Germans are not cretins or anything. Just goes to show that it is true what Lenin and Goebels said, if you repeat a lie often enough you can get people to believe it.

Yeah, there had to be something to Whitewater otherwise they wouldn't have spent so much time and money on it.

If anyone is really interested I can do a close reading and show you the propaganda tricks the author uses to make his case since he does not use facts.

[grantcart]

32. Didn't work so well for Rector though did it?

[progressive_realist]

35. Oh! Oh!

I invoke Godwin's Law.

First time I've ever been able to do that. My lucky day!

:bounce:

[burythehatchet]

37. It's time

good riddance

[Armstead]

59. I don't care if youi disagree but...

by comparing this to Hitler, you are engaging in the same hateful rhetoric you claim the article is engaging in.

Yes, this is propaganda, in that it is a rhetorical article that has a definite point of view. I can show you the "propaganda tricks" in it too.

However, that is the same type of style that is used to express any point of view. An article claiming what a wonderful, successful president Clinton was would only differ in the opinion being expressed.

[bobthedrummer]

33. "Inconvenient truths about the New Democrats, the Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council, etc."

a must read active GD thread started 3-7-2008 highly relevant to OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2973191

[KittyWampus]

49. thanks for always keeping the info out there!

[McCamy Taylor]

34. Author Johann Hari supported the Iraq invasion and then failed to question the bad results

This makes his judgment about a lot of things worse than Hillary's. At least she disavowed the war by 2004.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/04/041029_Siding_with_Iraq.HTM

"But I would add a very important caveat to what I just said. If you go into a war saying you want to side with the Iraqi people then you damn well have to carry on supporting the Iraqi people afterwards."
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=464

At the heart of Hari's argument is the assertion that he is above all concerned for the welfare and wishes of the Iraqi people - he wants to relieve their oppression and suffering, and so supported an invasion to topple Saddam's murderous tyranny.

Notice that Hari's concern is fundamentally moral - his problem was not with Saddam Hussein as such; it was with Saddam Hussein as a cause of suffering to the Iraqi people. And as Hari himself suggests, "If you go into a war saying you want to side with the Iraqi people, then you damn well have to carry on" working to relieve their suffering afterwards.

It makes no difference, from Hari's moral point of view, if the oppressor is Saddam Hussein, Paul Bremer or Ayad Allawi. His support is about relief of suffering, pure and simple - he feels morally obliged to urge action (even violent action) to relieve this suffering, no matter who or what the cause. That much is clear.

The situation "afterwards", of course, is even more morally pressing for Hari because he personally supported the invasion that gave rise to these subsequent conditions. If he was concerned about the fate of Iraqis prior to invasion, then how much more this must be the case in the aftermath of a war which he helped make possible.

The document then goes on to show that this journalist did essentially no articles about the ongoing harm to the people of Iraq that the war---which he supported---was causing them. Which leads one to wonder if he really takes positions out of principle or for some other reason?

Again, always know the nature of the source. How is he different in his actions from Hitchens who also side with the NeoCons---and who also trashes the Clintons? Could this be about politics and a desire to see the war in Iraq go on for 100 years? He is a strong supporter of the Kurds. The Kurds have every reason to want the US to stay in Iraq forever. They would prefer to see McCain president. And since he is not even American he could care less what happens in this country, he only cares about our foreign policy--which will not personally affect him as a British citizen.

[Armstead]

55. The author acknowledged this in the article in the OP

"...Hillary would be unable to make an election issue out of McCain’s greatest weakness - his support for the invasion of Iraq - because she (like me) made the same dumb mistake."

[McCamy Taylor]

58. I suggest the author is a closet Neo-Con who wants McCain to continue the war

possibly to defend the Kurds.

[Armstead]

61. He admitted he was wrong

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=831


After three years, after 150,000 dead, why I was wrong about Iraq
A melancholic mea culpa

2006



A few weeks ago, a small moment – a little line of text – underlined for me how far life in Iraq has slumped. As I was reading a story, the ticker-tape on the BBC News website casually stated: ‘Car bomb in Baghdad; 50 dead.’ There were no accompanying details. When these Iraqi suicide-massacres started to happen in Iraq, I would nervously call my friends out in Baghdad and Basra and Hilla to make sure they were okay. But I soon realised this was antagonising them, driving every bomb further into their skulls – should they store a standard text ‘No, not killed in suicide bomb today’ message and send it out three times a day? So I swallowed hard, waited, and the next day, I looked through all the newspapers for details. Nobody mentioned it. Suicide-slaughters the size of 7/7 are now so common they don’t even bleed into News in Brief.

So after three years and at least 150,000 Iraqi corpses, can those of us who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein for the Iraqis’ sake still claim it was worth it? (I am assuming the people who bought the obviously fictitious arguments about WMD are already hanging their heads in shame). George Packer, a recalcitrant Iraq-based journalist who tentatively supported the invasion, summarises the situation in the country today: “Most people aren’t free to speak their minds, belong to a certain group, wear what they want, or even walk down the street without risking their lives.” In many regions – including the British controlled South – power has been effectively ceded to fascist militias who “take over schools and hospitals, intimidate the staffs, assaulted unveiled women, set up kangaroo sharia courts that issue death sentences, repeatedly try to seize control of the holy shrines, run criminal gangs, firebomb liquor stores, and are often drunk themselves. Their tactics are those of fascist bullies.”

So when people ask if I think I was wrong, I think about the Iraqi friend – hiding, terrified, in his own house – who said to me this week, “Every day you delete another name from your mobile, because they’ve been killed. By the Americans or the jihadists or the militias – usually you never find out which.” I think of the people trapped in the siege of a civilian city, Fallujah, where amidst homes and schools the Americans indiscriminately used a banned chemical weapon – white phosphorous – that burns through skin and bone. (The Americans say they told civilians to leave the city, so anybody left behind was a suspected jihadi – an evacuation procedure so successful they later used it in New Orleans.). I think of the raw numbers: on the largest estimate – from the Human Rights Centre in Khadimiya – Saddam was killing 70,000 people a year. The occupation and the jihadists have topped that, and the violence is getting worse. And I think – yes, I was wrong. Terribly wrong.

The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it’s just the Bush administration screwed it up. But as one anti-war friend snapped at me when I mooted this argument, “Yeah, who would ever have thought that supporting George Bush in the illegal invasion of an Arab country would go wrong?” She’s right: the truth is that there was no pure Platonic ideal of The Perfect Invasion to support, no abstract idea we lent our names to. There was only Bush, with his cluster bombs, depleted uranium, IMF-ed up economic model, bogus rationale and unmistakable stench of petrol, offering his war, his way. (Expecting Tony Blair to use his influence was, it is now clear, a delusion, as he refuses to even frontally condemn the American torture camp at Guantanomo Bay).

The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster. ...

[Samantha]

39. I am very familiar with the case of the executed Black Man

He had raped and murdered a nun, an atrocious crime. And, yes, he was extremely retarded when he committed that crime, and did not know what he was doing. But the crime occurred in the South. In some states, it does not matter what your state of mind is when committing a crime; it only matters what the perceived desirable punishment should be for the nature of the crime. Yes, thousands recoiled in horror when reading of the nun's demise. But many more recoiled in further horror when learning of the disability of the convicted rapist/murderer, and the sentence that had been passed upon him.

The attorney who handled the appeal (which was lost) had to visit the mentally retarded African-American Man and tell him in detail what would happen to him the day of his execution. The condemned man had no comprehension of those words. The response that was reported at that time when the prisoner was asked a question about his last meal was that he wanted to save his DESSERT until afterward.

Bill Clinton traveled to witness the execution in a political maneuver designed to prove to the American voting public he was strong on capital punishment and thus qualified to move to the Oval House. The day the poor man was executed was one of the darkest days in our American criminal justice history. I will never forget that day.

I felt extremely sad when I learned of the rape and subsequent murder of the nun. When I learned who had committed the barbaric crime and the nature of the disability, my first question was why was this man roaming among our free society instead of in an institution where he could be best served (that was indeed the severe nature of his handicap)? Who was responsible for the fact he was not; and my answer to that question was that society was responsible.

Despite the publicity given the crime, the subsequent coverage of the trial and the appeal of the sentence, the presence of a presidential-wanna-be at the execution, in some corners of our society there has no abatement to condoning the execution of the mentally retarded. As a person against capital punishment overall but a realist who does not expect it to disappear from the United States in my lifetime, I continued to be both saddened and outraged this punishment is without reservation by our criminal justice system unhesitatingly sentenced upon those who have no concept as to the difference between right and wrong, and no comprehension of the severity of criminal acts they have committed.

And so on the discussion of capital punishment alone, I consider George Bush* and Bill Clinton as political brothers. That might not be a fair statement to Clinton supporters because of the difference in sheer numbers of death sentences George Bush* signed while Governor of Texas, as opposed to those Bill Clinton approved, in my book the impact of the above case and the horror of its ending puts the two politicians on the same depraved page.

[McCamy Taylor]

40. Are you talking about Ricky Ray Rector, the murderer who shot himself in the head

and then his lawyers said they could not execute him for capital murder because he had shot himself in the head during a suicide attempt after shooting a police officer and had brain damage from that?

Here are the details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

On March 21, 1981, Rector and some friends drove to a dance hall at Tommy’s Old-Fashioned Home-Style Restaurant in Conway. When one of Rector’s friends was refused entry after being unable to pay the three dollar cover charge, Rector became incensed and pulled a .38 pistol from his waist band. He fired several shots, wounding two and killing a third man. The third man, Arthur Criswell, died almost instantly after being struck in the throat and forehead.

Rector left the scene of the murder in a friend’s car and wandered the city for three days, alternately staying in the woods or with relatives. On March 24, Rector’s sister convinced him to turn himself in. Rector agreed to surrender only to Officer Robert Martin, whom he had known since he was a child.

Officer Martin arrived at Rector’s mother’s home shortly after three p.m. and began chatting with Rector’s mother and sister. Shortly thereafter, Rector arrived and greeted Officer Martin. As Officer Martin turned away to continue his conversation with Mrs. Rector, Ricky Ray Rector drew his pistol from behind his back and fired two shots into Officer Martin, striking him in the jaw and neck. Rector then turned and walked out of the house.

Once he had walked past his mother’s backyard, Rector put his gun to his own temple and fired. Rector was quickly discovered by other police officers and was rushed to the local hospital. The shot had destroyed Rector’s frontal lobe, resulting in what was essentially a self-lobotomy.

Rector survived the surgery and was put on trial for the murders of Criswell and Martin. His defense attorneys argued that Rector was not competent to stand trial, but after hearing conflicting testimony from several experts who had evaluated Rector, Judge George F. Hartje ruled that Rector was competent to stand trial. Rector was convicted on both counts and sentenced to death.

If you are talking about some other case, please give links. This case is different in that the crimes were committed by a person who knew right from wrong, and he damaged his own brain trying to commit suicide after trying to kill a police man . The damage can not have been total since he could obviously talk, eat and function later. The judge is the one who decided he was competent. I disapprove of the death penalty, but there are neurological conditions that would give a person a short term memory deficit that might explain him saving the pie for later and even change his expression of emotion that would not make him unable to understand other things. A gunshot wound is very different from mental retardation.

People, please try to be exact and avoid posting misleading information.

I would love to hear more about the retarded nun killer, but I can not find him mentioned on the internet.

[Samantha]

51. No, I read the thread quickly late last night and only caught the

line in the article (the first part) about the execution of the mentally retarded African American man. I also saw Clinton's name. Perhaps a further description and details of the crime you describe were explained later, and had I read further, I would have recognized that the crime was different. However, I could not read past the few points I mention now because it was too painful.

The crime I talk about happened some time ago, when I worked at a law firm in the late 80s thru the mid 90s. The info I posted was not based on links. I will try a little later this afternoon to see if I can find that case reported on the net. It was in the newspapers, and the public followed it to learn if that State would actually executed a mentally retarded person. I am not sure how old you are, but I am surprised you did not catch the headlines (unless you were of course too young). So I will see if I can find more detail posted later today, and if I find it, I will get back to you.

Sorry for the confusion.

Sam

[Samantha]

53. I have been reading some of these cases and have not found

the precise one. Here's some text on a similar one. I will post the link but you will have do a separate search to get more info. In this case, a mentally man was executed for murdering a nun, but despite appeals from the Pope was not spared the execution to which he had been sentenced.

"Recent cases include Johnny Frank Garrett, a juvenile offender, executed in Texas in February 1992. He was convicted of the rape and murder of an elderly nun in October 1981 when he was 17. Chronically psychotic and brain-damaged, Garrett had a long history of mental illness and was severely abused as a child, both physically and sexually (the jury which sentenced him to death was not made aware of this significant mitigating evidence). A psychiatrist who examined him while on death row described him as "one of the most psychiatrically impaired inmates" she had ever examined, and he was described by a psychologist as having "one of the most virulent histories of abuse and neglect...encountered in over 28 years of practice." Clemency was denied despite appeals from nuns belonging to the convent of the murdered nun, and from other religious leaders including the Pope."

This is a similar case, but not the same one. Right time frame, similar circumstances. The nun who was the victim in this crime was murdered in her bed. The nun in the story with which I am familiar I believe was murdered in a cemetery. I'll check again once more later tonight to see if I can find that exact case.

There was a reference in the article posted in the original thread to the condemned man saying he would save his last meal until afterwards. The condemned in the story with I am familiar asked to save his dessert until later....

Found it, among others, including the one you discussed, here:

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510011994?open&of=ENG-2M4

This is very tough reading for me, reading thru all these cases. Tough to handle ....

Here is another find that might interest you on the case above, as well as a general discussion on reasons why executing mentally retarded persons for crimes, is barbaric:

http://books.google.com/books?id=S-B-iky44zEC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Johnny+Frank+Garrett+murder+nun+&source=web&ots=cwoAjWcAry&sig=yRwJX0Gse59fbhGJju7C0j-b05U&hl=en#PPP1,M1

[Armstead]

54. You had thr right case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

Controversy over execution

Rector was subject to a unique overlap of controversies in 1992 during his execution in Arkansas. A question of the morality of killing someone who was functionally retarded. An oft-cited example of his mental insufficiency is his decision to save the dessert of his last meal for after his execution.<1> In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of people with mental retardation in Atkins v. Virginia, ruling that the practice constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Rector was African-American, adding to racial questions relating to the death penalty.

Role in 1992 Presidential campaign

By 1992, Bill Clinton was insisting that Democrats "should no longer feel guilty about protecting the innocent" and took a position strongly supporting capital punishment. To make his point, he flew home to Arkansas mid-campaign to affirm that the execution would continue as scheduled. Some considered it a turning point in that race, hardening a soft public image. Others tend to cite the execution as an example of what they perceive to be Clinton's opportunism, directly influenced by Michael Dukakis and his response to CNN's Bernard Shaw when asked during a campaign debate on October 13, 1988 if he would be supportive of the death penalty were his wife to be raped and murdered.

[McCamy Taylor]

57. You people are as bad the MSM making up stuff to prove that the Clintons are evil incarnate.

The condemned man was not mentally retarded. He was normal when he shot the police man whom he asked to come arrest him, then shot himself in the head as part of a bungled suicide attempt. You can get focal neurological damage that will decrease your short term memory, i.e make you understand what you are told then forget about it later that does not impair you in other ways. Since he could talk and eat, he was not brain dead (in which case they would not have tried him).

When you compare someone who was mentally competent when they committed the crime to someone who grew up mentally retarded you are doing a disservice to those who really are mentally retarded. I believe the original post played upon our sympathy for the condemned man portraying him as a victim of society, but in fact he opened fire on a room of people, shot three, killed one for no good reason, then tried to kill the police man who was there to help him, before trying to kill himself.

This is not the case that was described in an attempt to pillory the Clintons.

Posters at DU apparently believe that they can write anything in their attempts to promote Obama's campaign---even if they might be slandering the next Democratic nominee.

[donheld]

41. That sums it up quite well.

[Perry Logan]

42. Standard Clintophobic rant. In truth, normal people like the Clintons just fine.

[cali]

43. Sorry, dearie, you aren't the arbiter of what normal people like or don't

like. Not even remotely.

[Perry Logan]

44. Am so. I'm perfectly normal in...almost all ways.

[roseBudd]

46. With unfavorables that high apparently at least half the country is not normal

[Nedsdag]

48. Perry Logan, you are practically a Republican.

Better yet, Perry Logan isn't your real name, right? Is your real name Joe Lieberman?

[roseBudd]

45. The GDP post that took my breath away asserted that Obama unfairly stole Hill's black base

As if decades of African Americans voting for every white face that came along with a D after their name entitled Hillary to the black vote. Must of been her ebonics she does so well depending on the audience.

[susankh4]

50. Just wait

Common Dreams will attack Barack too. If they haven't already. Anyone who can possibly win an election is too mainstream for them.

[LWolf]

52. I understand. It's why I've never supported her.

I just think that Barack Obama is equally bad news. There is no "lesser of two evils" vote for me.

[McCamy Taylor]

60. Here is Source watch on the author---a proven liar who just loves Christopher Hitchens

Read this and then tell my why this guys opinion piece written in beginning 101 propaganda style should make me reconsider my own views about the Clintons?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Johann_Hari

Face it guys. You are easy bait for any one who writes anything that fans the flame of the hatred that you need to feel to help you conduct dirty tricks for your candidate. Writers on the left who pen bullshit like this are nothing but pornographers appealing to your anger rather than your libido.

Here, I can do it.

Clinton got her start in politics because her husband committed adultery, Smother Obama in his cradle like a SIDS, Do things really go better with coke?, She will pull out the knife and stab him in the back, It is practically Nixonian. Do you think Obama shared drugs? Do you think Obama sold drugs?

Know where I got all that? Right off MSNBC, mostly Tweety. You guys just eat it up.

Here is what you are doing to the Democratic Party. Not Hillary. You. At this very moment, because you can not recognize the real enemy, the press which divides and conquers.

:nuke:

We stand together or we fall alone.

[Armstead]

62. The article did not convince me of anything -- And you are being arrogent

You are being arrogent when you assume that those who have the gall to dislike and disagree with the Clintons are "easy bait" and that we have been lured into a trap of being traitors by "writers on the left."

You also are using right wing rhetoric when you use the word "haters." Are you an Obama hater?

I posted this OPINION PIECE because it encapsulated what I have observed and believed about the Clintons for years -- after enthusiastically supporting them for the first few years when Bill was first elected.

They -- Bill particularly as president -- constantly either stuck a sharp stick into the eye of liberalism (including MODERATE liberalism) or caved into the right wing.

Please feel free to disagree. But I would suggest that if you really do give a shit about "unity" that you stop your own hateful rhetoric against peopel who are just as loyal to the Democratic Party as you.

[McCamy Taylor]

65. You posted a piece of propaganda at DU for the purposes of inciting hatred towards the Clintons.

[Armstead]

66. No I posted it because it expressed how many of us feel

It is propaganda. I agree. Just like every pro-Hillary article and every pro-Obama article and every other opinion piece ever written.

It doesn't pretend to be an objective news article.Nothing wrong with that. Politics is propaganda.

Get over it.

[McCamy Taylor]

67. Here is why it is offensive propaganda. It contains lies, racism, fear mongering.

This article, imo, is neither factual nor informative. It is a propaganda piece.

Propaganda employs lies and distortions rather than facts. It uses illogic rather than logic. It uses rhetoric rather than logic too. And most of all it tries to make the reader afraid.I will show why this piece is propaganda just like the stuff Lenin and Goebels wrote.

Easy to say Obama has a "chasm-wide appeal" Here are the polls. The author did not quote a poll. Why not?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104968/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-Slight-Edge-Over-Clinton.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- The race for the Democratic nomination remains close, with Gallup Poll Daily tracking showing that 49% of Democratic voters nationwide prefer Barack Obama and 46% Hillary Clinton. In recent weeks, Obama usually held a slight edge. However, he held a statistically significant lead in only a few of those releases. One of those instances was Friday's release, when Obama led Clinton 50% to 44%.

3 nonstatistical points are a “chasm wide appeal”. Ok, that was lie number one and we are in the first sentence.

It says Obama “conquered” Mississippi a red state.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

The state had 2 million eligible voters in 2004.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=MS&ref=rrw

Obama pulled in a quarter of a million. Obama is going to need more than that to win the general election. And recent polls are showing that some Hillary supporters are angry about the perceived sexism in the race.

Second lie and distortion and we are in the first paragraph. But the imagery of Obama “conquering” a state sure sounds good. Right out of the civil war. Maybe he came to free the slaves.

“a slo-mo remake of Florida in the year 2000.” FEAR MONGERING ALERT. I don’t know what the hell this is supposed to mean (since he will not admit that the right wing and the press and Bush and Rove are behind any of this which really would make it like Florida) but it sure sounds scary.

That is the first paragraph. Good propaganda always packs a punch in the first paragraph.

“It is clear… anyway, anyhow” That is a judgment call. Presumably he will make his case. I will check back later to see if he made his case.

Ah, the Florida and Iowa charge. Guess what he did not mention about Iowa. Obama’s dirty Iowa trick. The real reason Obama and few other dems got off the ballot there.

http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264

Iowans are by and large straightforward people. Given that, it should come as no surprise that to the average Iowan, the Michigan ballot situation seems pretty cut and dried: Democratic presidential hopefuls who honor their four-state pledge and support the nomination calendar won't be on the Wolverine State's ballot. As with most things in life, and especially politics, the situation is more complicated.
Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.
Lie by omission. Naughty boy.

Superdelegates. The whole idea of a Brit telling us what our Superdelegates are for is a bit surreal. You know, we have a convention after state by state primaries instead of a straight up and down one day vote for reasons that might not have been covered in the authors British schools. Maybe he should not present himself as an expert. These exist to settle ties or draws---such as those which exist when some states primaries become invalid or there are too many winners. Those are the way the rules are written. The Obama camp argues that Mich and Florida can not be seated because they broke the rules. Well, following the same logic, the Superdelegates can not be dispensed with because they are part of the rules and the rules are what keep the whole thing fair.

See, this is what happens when you start using logic.

“dismissing Obama as akin to the black firebrand Jesse Jackson” I find this offensive as all hell, and I can not believe that all these people at DU are giving this creep applause for writing this. Jesse Jackson is a revered civil rights leader. He is a man of peace. I respect him more than Hillary, Bill and Obama combined. I wish that he was running for president. Clinton said nothing derogatory about Jackson---and Jackson’s suggestion when he was interviewed about the matter was for all parties to be at peace. Which is what Hillary did. She brought the Big Dog back on the porch and muzzled him.

As for the African tribal dress, who are you going to believe Drudge or Hillary?

No logic at all in paragraph two, one lie of omission, one slur against Jesse Jackson, one distortion of the facts—case not proved. That was a waste of time.

“Some American liberals”. You know on a standardized test, whenever the question begins with “some” you mark it true and go on. As Blake said “Everything possible to be believed is an image of the truth.” But that does not make it true for most people.

Paragraph four, he calls Toni Morrison a racist. Oh joy. And then he makes it worse.” so screwing around, riffing well in speeches and liking fried chicken makes you black now?” That is not what Morrison meant, you nasty SOB, you. I have already written about the Rector case. See my posts above. I hate the death penalty, but on the other hand, this is a man who wrote that Iraqis would not mind getting bombed if it meant they could get rid of Saddam, so it makes you wonder if he really cares about Rector or if he is just trying to make a rhetorical point. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, despite repeated criticism, he failed to use his forum as a journalist to draw attention to the plight of Iraqi citizens under the occupation. Humanitarian pleas sound more sincere coming from the pen of a man with a history of humanitarianism.

Next paragraph. Yes, welfare reform did take money away from the mostly white but disproportionately minority women on welfare. However the improved economy helped everyone. The author is playing games when he seeks to blame the Clintons for the current recession. That is Bush’s fault.

“I can’t still insist I was right to back the war in Iraq, when it has killed more than 650,000 Iraqis.”Hillary only says she was right to give the president authorization to go to the UN. She does not say that the invasion of Iraq was right or that the war was handled correctly. The author was all for invasion. Hillary stopped backing the war before John Kerry did---Russert talked to her about it on NBC in early 2004. That was while the left wing press in England was still chastising the author for his reluctance to champion the cause of the Iraqi civilians suffering because of the invasion which he supported. Another distortion.

“the Clintons fed and fuelled the right” That is why the right wing press hounded them almost out of office and why they call Hillary a lesbian a bitch a Satanist a robot anytime they mention her and joke about assassinating her and her husband. And why cares what Fortune writes? They are as high in my estimation as the author. “shovelling more of their cash into her campaign than any other candidate” Is he kidding? Who is the one who issues regular press releases about how his grosses rival the economies of Western European countries? Obama. Two more lies and a fact which is irrelevant.

Ooops. I have been so busy keeping up with the lies and distortions that I have forgotten to list the deliberate use of rhetorical charged but empty words. Words like “mega-power” “lash black people”FEAR MONGERING ALERT “greater grotesques”…

I have to give up. This is not a reasoned out case for why the Clintons do not measure up to the working class dream. I could make that. I know what workers right are all about. I do not think that the author knows or particularly cares. He is just writing to draw attention to himself.

But , since all propaganda saves its best bits for the first and last---since these may be the only parts the reader scans—I will scroll on down….oh lord have mercy.

With their latest lunge at power, the Clintons have shown us how they should be remembered when the end credits roll - as a greasy stain on the bright blue dress of the Democratic Party.

Yes, indeed. It all comes back to Clinton’s penis, doesn’t it?

[Scurrilous]

64. K & R

:thumbsup: