-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
Tensions are running high between the Clinton and Obama camps at this week’s Democratic National Convention.
From the Politico.
As Democrats arrived here Sunday for a convention intended to promote party unity, mistrust and resentments continued to boil among top associates of presumptive nominee Barack Obama and his defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
One flashpoint is the assigned speech topic for former president Bill Clinton, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday night, when the convention theme is “Securing America’s Future.” The night’s speakers will argue that Obama would be a more effective commander in chief than his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
The former president is disappointed, associates said, because he is eager to speak about the economy and more broadly about Democratic ideas — emphasizing the contrast between the Bush years and his own record in the 1990s.
This is an especially sore point for Bill Clinton, people close to him say, because among many grievances he has about the campaign Obama waged against his wife is a belief that the candidate poor-mouthed the political and policy successes of his two terms.
This is supposed to be a coronotaion for Obama but with the unhappy Clinton’s and the left wing demonstrators that are protesting because they feel Obama isn’t left wing enough for them there appears to be less unity than the Democrats hoped for.
Share This
About the author
Don Irvine is Chairman of Accuracy in Media. He is active on Facebook and Twitter. You can follow him @donirvine to read his latest thoughts.
4 Comments for Clinton Unhappy with Convention Role
People (like Obama and the commenter above) who claim the 1990s were not prosperous are like those who insist the bullet that took off half of JFK’s head off in Dallas came from a block away and behind the car. What a delusional population we’ve become. Obama for President?????
Here’s what the media hasn’t reported about the election.
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html
YRM, perhaps you should read this article, then the book itself, it has been vetted as accurate:
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy
I and many people I know lost money under Clinton, who would NOT use the CBO numbers, and instead used a private accounting firm to show a false economy.
To mention me in the same sentence with Obama is not only a true insult to my intelligence but is also severe misinterpretation of my comments. Is there any mention or implication of Obama in my comment whatsoever? Did I not imply I favored McCain to win the election? How someone gets from my comment that I want Obama for President is totally absurd.
Yes, false economy is a good way of describing many aspects of the events of the 1990s.
By “economic record” and “political and policy successes,” are they referring to the economic reports that were allegedly cooked to artificially inflate the stock market in the late 1990s? Bush inherited the fallout for that and was thus blamed for it by people that don’t have greater than a second-grader’s understanding of economics.
Are they referring to the gutting of the military and intelligence-gathering capabilities through the 1990s for the purpose of balancing the budget – in a time that we could least afford to cut the military? That’s nothing short of sabotaging our national security from within, and we’re still paying for it. What “peace dividend” came from that in the face of the building terrorism in the 1990s?
When will the Clintons and their spin machine fade away for good? Maybe a McCain victory will do it once and for all.