". . . But the past does not exist independently from the present. Indeed, the past is only past because there is a present, just as I can point to something over there only because I am here. But nothing is inherently over there or here. In that sense, the past has no content. The past -- or more accurately, pastness -- is a position. Thus, in no way can we identify the past as past." p. 15

". . . But we may want to keep in mind that deeds and words are not as distinguishable as often we presume. History does not belong only to its narrators, professional or amateur. While some of us debate what history is or was, others take it into their own hands." p. 153

Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (1995) by Michel-Rolph Trouillot

Thursday, May 8, 2008

The Clintons & Their War on Obama

Since Parry says he's known all this since December, why was this information only published post Clinton's poor showing on Tuesday, in May?

Some may believe that dem or rethug matters not at all because they are the same (Hillary's campaign certainly enforces that conviction, doesn't it?), but I still kinda hope that if Obama's in the White House the U.S. may wind down in Iraq, put some breaks on hemoraging all the tax money to Halliburton and Blackwater types, NOT bomb Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and anywhere else.


The Clintons and the 'War on Obama'

by Robert Parry

The Consortium News

May 4, 2008

[ Last December, when I first learned via Clinton insiders that their "oppo"package would include Barack Obama's associations with fiery black preacherJeremiah Wright and Vietnam War-era radical William Ayers, I shrugged atwhat sounded to me like sub-standard fare from the dark side of American politics. ]

[ Besides those two themes, Clinton insiders were plotting how to exploit Obama's past political ties to indicted real-estate developer Tony Rezko,and they even were hashing over how they might slip in suggestions that Obama's dead mother had been a leftist. (When I heard the "oppo" about the dead mother, I really couldn't believe my ears.) ]

[ Even then - in December before the first votes had been cast - the Clintons were so caught up in their ambition to return to the White House that they were veering toward the worst aspects of politics, what is generally associated with the American Right and the most ruthless Republican operatives - guilt-by-association, red-baiting, McCarthyism and racial messaging. ]

And then there's this:

Carol Felsenthal’s new book, Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House, is based on more than 150 interviews with the former president's friends, associates, and enemies.

Felsenthal said today, stressing that this is HER OPINION AND IMPRESSION ONLY (though formed from decades of watching the Clintons in narrow focus), that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, she's going to do her very best subtle sabotage of Obama, hoping McCain's a 1-termer, and go for it again in 2012. FWIW -- which may be less than 2 cents in today's debased U.S. currency.


Renegade Eye said...

Clinton is too transparent. The Democratic Party is not going to allow her to wreck Obama. Howard Dean hates the Clintons. He is in position to deal with her.

I think an Obama presidency will be different than Bush. I doubt if it will be even as reformist as you think.

Foxessa said...

Obama's a corporatist too.

He's not AS corporatist a tool as Hillary, but he's still a servicable corporatist tool.

Even though he's been talking a little less like that lately, with all the shyte the Clintons' organization has been pelting him with.

But he doesn't seem to be all that lusting to make wars where war so far isn't.

Love, C.