News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


33|175:175

About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.


Bill Clinton flips out at superdelegates meeting when Richardson's name comes up

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 16:00:00 PM EDT


This guy doesn't need to be anywhere near the White House again. He can't control himself in public any more. (SFGate):
"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.

But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

The rage-a-thon continues below the fold.
Pam Spaulding :: Bill Clinton flips out at superdelegates meeting when Richardson's name comes up
"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns."

Turning toward the much more classy Richardson, look at how he addressed being called "Judas" by Clintonista James Carville. (WaPo):
My recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation -- particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.

While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.

Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack -- driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president.

I repeatedly urged Democrats to stop attacking each other personally and even offered a DNC resolution calling for a positive campaign based on the issues. I was evenhanded in my efforts. In fact, my intervention in a debate during a particularly heated exchange was seen by numerous commentators as an attempt to defend Sen. Clinton against the barbs of Sens. Obama and John Edwards.

As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.

More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.

This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.

Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton's wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?

And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.

As for Mr. Carville's assertions that I did not return President Clinton's calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Preview
This is a perfect preview of what a Clinton presidency will be like.  Clinton has become a loose cannon and cannot be trusted to keep his mouth shit.  I don't believe he has enough impulse control to not yell at government employees or journalist or diplomats if his wife is the President.  

Thanks, Pam for posting Richardson's wonderful reply to Carville.  I posted it a few days ago in some discussion about Carville, but I don't think enough people saw it since it was at the end of a thread.  Richardson is thoughtful, smart, reflective--qualities that are not valued in this sound bit culture, or not valued enough.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report


Typo?
Bwahahaha! Thanks for the laugh Lev, even though I'm guessing you didn't really mean "keep his mouth shit." You just made my day a lot sunnier though.

I too was delighted with Richardson's reply to Carville. Reading it just makes me sad he didn't get further in the race for the Democratic nomination.


[ Parent ]
That's what I get--
--for trying to type when the dogs are barking, the phone is ringing, and  the sun is shining (in Michigan!!!!!!).

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

[ Parent ]
Bill Clinton's Comments
If I were Bill Clinton, I'd be angry too. His statements as reported above seem both true and appropriate. Only fools could be shocked by them.

You can't at least...
...change your word order or something? I read The Moderate Voice, you know.

[ Parent ]
True and Appropriate
Absolutely.  Richardson owes the Clintons loyalty till death, no matter what they do or say, no matter what they run for or run from.  He is a made man.  He is a serf.  He is a field hand.  He has no will of his own.  I'm no fool, and I'm shocked shocked at Richardson thinking for himself.  It must have been some kind of brain fever.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

[ Parent ]
Good Cop, Bad Cop
Bill gets mad and says what's on Hillary's mind. Then, she just shrugs it off and says, "I didn't say it. My loose-cannon husband did."

I'm afraid that would be what the Clinton presidency would be like. Bill would do all of Hillary's dirty work -- and he owes her that much.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.


wow
the clintons are power hungry wacks, im sick of them.

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

WOW...
was my immediate response, too. Holy Hannah... back away from these people very, very slowly...

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

[ Parent ]
Off topic but important
 Ted Kennedy is now on the non trans inclusive E.N.D.A. bandwagon. Maybe I should just move to Australia. Would that make the gays happy? Probably not, they'd probably still send vast amounts of snail mail and email begging me to support their causes and promising yet again to help secure my right to live and work and support myself "next time". For some reason it's always next time which always seems to add up to never for me.

Not off topic one bit.
  It fits 100%,  A divided LGBT is the same as a divided Democratic party.  

 Hurtful words will be said about the other.  Some will try to unite, other will have such a bad taste in their mouths they will just stay home or vote against out of spite.

 I will not vote for Hillary period. The Clintons have just turned me off.  

 Will I vote for McCain. Not sure.

 But if the Democratic Candidates, Senators and Representatives keep wanting to toss Trans over board I WILL VOTE FOR McCain as a protest vote.

 Lets do the math.  1 vote staying home that could have gone to the Democratic Candidate does help McCain and makes it harder for the Democratic Candidate.  If I vote for McCain it makes it worse.

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
Please don't
What is the chance Democrats would get a clue on transgender rights from such protest votes for Republicans? Zero. It would only benefit the enemy and harm us even more. I could not take another Republican administration. I don't know what I'd do if that happened, it would be so depressing. I feel depressed even considering the possibility. Please don't overreact in such a politically suicidal way.  

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls


[ Parent ]
I will know what I am getting this way.
  I don't like the sound of another Republican administration.  But I will know what to look forward too.

 You see, I have no clue where the Democratic Party really stands when it comes to LGBT civil rights. Do you?

 During the ENDA dismemberment of the LGB-T last year, I did alot of research on every Democrat in office.  I looked into the voting records of both Hillary and Obama. And found one thing, neither fully supports LGBT civil rights.  The hopes of something positive when Ted Kennedy attached the MATTHEW SHEPPARD ACT to the deffence spending was a hope, and than was let loose. GO FIGURE.  And now Ted wants to remove us Ts.  FUCK THEM.

 All these professional stratigests give these campaigns input on which way the wind is blowing to get their boss elected.  and they must be telling them to dump us Ts and they might win re-election.  

 Well this football is tired of being kicked on 4th and goal from the 1 yard line.  I will wait for a 99 yard run back to get back in the game.

 And my vote for McCain, I will send a letter to the Democratic Candidate explaining my one vote.  And it will be as below.

As a registered Democrat, I voted against you as a protest vote.  You have taken my vote for granted and I am tired of that.  I have voted for candidates in the past hoping you would support the civil rights of LGBT Citizens of America, only to let us down.  I will regret that you did not make it into office, but you left me no choice. With a rebublian in office I know the challenges I must face as an LGBT Citizen.  With you I have no clue where I stand.

 

 And there you have it, I will know what kind of Enemy I face.



If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
We'll be screwed even worse
But it's OK, since you will know exactly how much worse.

OK, I get the rhetorical point of this stance. But in practical terms it's just not worth it. This election will have far-reaching consequences in the real world and is too crucial to play rhetorical games with.

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls


[ Parent ]
I agree
Now is not the time for a protest vote.

Just in one area, it could undermine our rights, all our rights.  A GOP presidency will further strangle the federal courts, stack the Supreme Court even more against us, install more toadies, thugs and morons in every govt. department that affects our lives.

And that's just for starters.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report


[ Parent ]
more on Calif
I wrote on my blog about lesbian state Senator Carole Migden's melt down at the convention.  The showdown between her and open gay man Mark Leno who is now in the Assembly and is running against Migden for her Senate seat was out in the open warfare.  Screaming, cursing, legions of supporters marching through the halls.  Senator Migden has become her worst enemy and lost the party endorsement after winning her caucus.  Over 600 delegates signed a petition asking that the previous endorsement be rescinded which it was.  Thus there is no party endorsement in this VERY big battle.

This is costing Hillary thousands of votes
The grim spectre of Bill roaming the halls of the West Wing for 4-8 years is exactly what is causing the poll numbers to draw closer and closer.

Today Public Policy Polling released a new poll of 1,200 PA voters showing Obama 45% Clinton 43% - erasing a 26 point deficit from just 17 days ago.

http://www.publicpolicypolling...

Political surrogates like Carville can say stuff like this, but when the spouse of the candidate goes bananas it causes the middle of the road types who vote on 'feeling' to re-think.

Granny might even be more likely to vote for 'that nice young man John McCain'

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.


Why this matters
The reason why this matters is that in November, we are not just voting for individual candidates, we are voting for an entire network of political appoinments. When Bush was voted into office, it was no surprise that we got Rove & Ashcroft, as well as convicted Iran-Contra perjurers Poindexter & Abrams, and a whole mess of other political appointees selected on the basis of cronyism rather than competence.

Carville is an asshole. Wm. Clinton is a loose cannon. But when they both make public statements that quid pro quo corruption and cronyism are moral perogatives in the primary proces, that is a suspicious coincidence. It raises the question of whether two men independently hold the same opinion, or whether that's one of the common points of ideology that unites the Clinton campaign.

And if independent political dissent is such a big deal now in the primaries, how will that play out with critical political appointments such as the Department of Education, EPA, FDA, NIH, NASA, DOD, CIA, DHS and the DOJ? If a former political appointee is a "Judas" for coming to his own opinion in a presidential primary, what kind of obedience will be expected of appointees in office when it comes to the difficult job of saying, "we cannot recommend or implement that action?"  


Hmmm...
More like a 7% lead.

It's not Hillary, it's Bill...
Bill Richardson endorsement of Obama is not Billarys main problem. What doomed her campaign is the memory of the disastrous politics, policies and presidency of Bill Clinton.  

The GLBT communities remember Bill Clintons support for antigay discrimination by the military when he caved in and signed DADT. We remember him jumping on the DOMA bigot's bandwagon and rushing to sign it just before he came up for reelection. We particularly remember that as soon as the ink dried on his signature on that piece of bigot filth that he hustled his hypocritical ass over to southern religious radio stations to pay for ads boasting about it. Ads so outrageous that even his lapdogs over at HRC felt compelled to yap once or twice.

Antiwar people remember the large number of civilian causalities, especially among children, that resulted from his embargo of food and medicine and his missile attacks on Iraq. Clinton 'justified' his murder of Iraqi children  with lies about Iraqi 'weapons of mass destruction', a theme later repeated by George Bush and Hillary Clinton.  

Working people remember his support for union busting measures like NAFTA and his Dixiecrat agenda that decimated welfare, medical care and unemployment insurance.

And everyone remembers that his support for 'deregulation' of banking and financial institutions that released corporate predators to feed on us and that is the direct and sole cause of the sub-prime crisis.

The Democrats problem is that there are no significant differences between Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, and only cosmetic differences between them and McCain. They and their parties support the war, attacks on our standard of living and homophobia.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  


Polarity
What I find amazing are the comments here.  I started out the primary season in favor of Hillary but okay with Obama, Richardson, or anyone, really, except Edwards.  But the anti-Hillary types are so hateful and Obama has done nothing to discourage them (despite his high-minded rhetoric about moving on) that I seriously question whether I will be able to vote for him should he squeak out the nomination by disenfrachising Florida and Michigan voters.  My presidental vote won't matter much in my state, but if he can secure the libertarian nomination, then I am leaning toward Mike Gravel.  It is unhinged crap and a candidate impotent (or unwilling) to discourage it that is losing votes for Obama in the general election.

It's easier to support 'poor widdle picked on Hillary'
and to be against Obama (who has not said anything about the HRC bashing) than to examine WHY the bashing occurred in the first place?

Good morning Geraldine Ferraro; nice to see you here today! ;)

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."


[ Parent ]
Both candidates have spoke out against ire and invective
"The anti-Hillary types are so hateful"? You can find comments on both sides that are despicable. How exactly is either candidate supposed to stop supporters at any level from trashing the other candidate? It strikes me as a bizarre rationale for voting for anyone.  

And why have you bought the "Obama is disenfranchiding voters" line? You don't have the facts straight, and facts are stubborn things. I am a Michigander, I know what happened here, and Obama did not disenfranchise anyone--how dare you blame him (or anyone else not responsible) for something he had no control over?  The Democratic party establishment all the way up to our Governor defied the DNC, so we ended up with a mock primary here: only one of the then-three main candidates was on the ballot.  Edwards (my choice) and Obama were not.  You call that a fair election?  People weren't even allowed to write in a candidate.  How are these votes at all valid or reflective of the will of the people?

Michigan's Democratic establishment disenfranchised us.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report


[ Parent ]
"disenfranchising"? again?
Does this lie ever stop being spread? People who use that term either know they are lying or swallowed the lie whole. We've discussed it before on this blog; you might want to read up on the issue before you keep accusing a presidential candidate of trying to deny people the right to vote.

Do you know how incendiary a charge that is? Do you realize what you're saying, when you so casually accuse Obama of denying Americans one of their most treasured rights? And the anti-Hillary types are hateful? Check the mirror.


[ Parent ]
Enough!
I'm going to repeat something I said over at the Moderate Voice: Democrats who support Clinton and Democrats who support Obama need to understand the difference between an opponent and an enemy.

Seriously, let's take a cue from the two candidates. They (I'm not getting into their surrogates) are turning their ammunition on McCain and making the case themselves against McCain, not each other.

Of course there are going to be "reports" from this or that "source" saying that this or that thing was said. The press benefits from a dogfight and will not encourage a discussion of the issues. When I look at what's in the speeches in recent days, I see the sort of primary we should have had all along. Now, can we foot soldiers follow the lead?

There will, of course, be gossip and incidents, but I see the ship being righted in such a way that I don't have a problem with Clinton staying in. I personally think she will end behind in delegates and the popular vote, but hey, making the case for herself against John McCain helps everyone. Besides, a complete victory may be the only way to get her more rabid supporters to be able to support Obama in the Fall (and, I suppose, the unlikely vice versa).


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Report TOS Violations



Join the Blend Chat Room



Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox