Bill
Clinton says race shouldn't be an issue in the Democratic presidential
campaign. Well, then perhaps he should stop talking about it.
The caustic politics of race and gender took center stage in the
Democratic race Wednesday as a combative Clinton campaigned on behalf
of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and lashed out at
the rival Barack Obama campaign and the media for focusing on race.
But it was Clinton himself who dished on the topic when he told an
audience in Charleston that he was proud of the Democratic Party for
having a woman and a black candidate. In response to a question from a
crowd member who asked about "race-baiting" by the media, Clinton said
he understands why Obama is drawing support among blacks, who are
expected to comprise at least half the primary turnout.
"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost
votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be
sure, because of their race or gender _ that's why people tell me
Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president
said. "But that's understandable because people are proud when someone
who they identify with emerges for the first time."
One of the best political strategists of his generation, Clinton may
be hoping to lower expectations for Saturday's primary. He may have his
sights on Feb. 5, when voters in 22 states take part in a national
primary. It would likely work to Hillary Clinton's advantage to have
the electorate polarized by race, given that most Feb. 5 voters will be
white and Hispanic; she won the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly in last
week's Nevada caucus.
Strategists working for the New York senator deny any intentional
effort by Bill Clinton, his wife or even surrogates like Bob Johnson,
who referred to Obama's admitted drug use, to stir the racial debate.
But they say they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding
Obama as "the black candidate," something he has worked to avoid.
One Clinton supporter openly played the race card.
After fielding several questions from a crowd of about 200 in
Kingstree, Bill Clinton called on a black man standing off to the side
of the small stage. The man identified himself as a pastor and told
Clinton that "black America is voting for Obama because he's black."
The man also said Democrats are in a "dangerous position" because if
Obama wins the nomination, voters will put a Republican in the White
House.
"They're not ready to for a black president," the man said.
Several black audience members nodded their heads. Several said in unison, "That's right!"
Clinton responded, "First of all, as an American, I have to tell you I hope you're not right."
He then said that despite the "mean things" said about him "in the
Obama camp this week," he would support the Illinois senator in
November should his wife lose the nomination fight.
"If he wins the nomination, I will do what I can to help him win the election," Clinton said.
"The reason I think Hillary is more electable is not race, it's
this: If there is a security crisis somewhere between now and the
election, the fact that Hillary" has served on the Senate Armed
Services Committee and has visited more than 80 nations "will make it
much harder for them to spook people by saying she can't handle a
national security crisis," Clinton said.
"If they (conduct) one of their standard negative campaigns," he
added, "I think it'll be easier for her to withstand it because she has
so much scar tissue."
Still, he said twice in his remarks that all three Democratic
candidates _ Clinton, Obama and former Sen. John Edwards _ could beat
any Republican nominee in the current political climate.
The pastor who raised the specter of racism later refused to
identify himself to an Associated Press reporter. He was escorted by a
security guard who shooed away strangers.
In Charleston, Clinton scolded reporters for asking about an Obama
supporter's accusation that the Clinton campaign has used race as a
wedge issue like past GOP campaigns.
"This is almost like once you accuse someone of racism and bigotry
the facts become irrelevant," a red-faced Clinton said. "Not one single
solitary citizen asked about any of this, and they never do."
He said the Obama campaign is encouraging reporters to write about race.
"Shame on you!" he told a reporter.
Shame on anybody who plays the race card.
___
Associated Press writer Mike Baker contributed to this column.
Six months ago, Bill Clinton seemed to be settling comfortably into roles befitting a silver-maned former president: statesman, philanthropist, philosopher-king. Now he has put all that high-mindedness on hold -- maybe it was never such a great fit, after all -- to co-star in his wife Hillary's campaign as a coldblooded political hit man.
No, scratch the "coldblooded" part. At times, in his attempt to cut Barack Obama down to size, Bill Clinton has been red-faced with anger; his rhetoric about voter suppression and a great big "fairy tale" has been way over the top. This doesn't look and sound like mere politics. It seems awfully personal.
Obama's candidacy not only threatens to obliterate the dream of a Clinton Restoration. It also fundamentally calls into question Bill Clinton's legacy by making it seem . . . not really such a big deal.
That, I believe, is the unforgivable insult. The Clintons picked up on this slight well before Obama made it explicit with his observation that Ronald Reagan had "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."
Let's take a moment to consider that remark. Whether it was advisable for Obama to play the role of presidential historian in the midst of a no-holds-barred contest for the Democratic nomination, it's hard to argue with what he said. I think Bill Clinton was a good president, at times very good. And I wouldn't have voted for Reagan if you'd held a gun to my head. But even I have to recognize that Reagan -- like Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union -- was a transformational figure, for better or worse.
Bill Clinton's brilliance was in the way he surveyed the post-Reagan landscape and figured out how to redefine and reposition the Democratic Party so that it became viable again. All the Democratic candidates who are running this year, including Obama, owe him their gratitude.
But Obama has set his sights higher, and implicit in his campaign is a promise, or a threat, to eclipse Clinton's accomplishments. Obama doesn't just want to piece together a 50-plus-1 coalition; he wants to forge a new post-partisan consensus that includes "Obama Republicans" -- the equivalent of the Gipper's "Reagan Democrats." You can call that overly ambitious or even naive, but you can't call it timid. Or deferential.
Both Clintons have trouble hiding their annoyance at Obama's impertinence. Bill, especially, gives the impression that Obama has gotten under his skin. His frequent allegations of media bias in Obama's favor recall the everybody-against-us feeling of the impeachment drama, when the meaning of the word "is" had to be carefully parsed and the Clinton White House was under siege.
Obama hit back in an interview that aired Monday on "Good Morning America," saying the former president "has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling" and promising to "directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate."
For Obama, it's clearly an added burden to have to fight two Clintons instead of one. But at the same time, there may be benefits in having Bill Clinton take such a high-profile role in his wife's campaign that the missteps and disappointments of the Clinton years are inevitably recalled along with the successes. Whatever the net impact, there appears to be no plan for Bill Clinton to tone it down -- not with the nomination still in doubt. The Clintons don't much like losing.
So forget about the Bill Clinton we've known for the past eight years -- the one who finds friendship and common ground with fellow former president George H.W. Bush (a Republican, last I heard), who dedicates most of his time and energy to the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, who speaks eloquently about global citizenship, environmental stewardship and economic empowerment. Forget about the statesman who uses appropriately measured language when talking about transient political events, focusing instead on the broad sweep of human history. Forget about the apostle of brotherhood and understanding whose most recent book is titled, simply, "Giving." That Bill Clinton has left the building.
There's a battle to be fought against an upstart challenger who has the audacity to suggest that maybe the Clinton presidency, successful as it was in many ways, didn't change the world -- and that he, given the office, could do better. Some things, I guess, just can't be allowed. Bill Clinton obviously has decided that history can wait.
Yeah, a risky game as more and more people might find it hard to vote for the Clintons - especially if the Republicans nominate someone with cross-over appeal like McCain
Reminds me of this video (may need to replace Guiliani at the end with eventual the republican nominee)
I don’t understand why it is made such a big deal about Bill Clinton saying “fairy tale†stuff about Obama.The more this stuff goes around the more it looks like Obama is nothing but a “Cry Babyâ€.He was on all morning channel yesterday complaining about Bill Clinton.Well he is running to be the President of US and this will be nothing compare to what he will get from Republicans IF he gets the nomination.Remember Swift Boat against Kerry on 2004.He looked pretty strong and matured after the Iowa victory but these days he just looks like another pathetic politician, who just criticizes their rival with out any original plan.And all this nasty fight between Hillary and Obama, well its him who started first on last Saturday CNN debate by saying Hillary was on Wal-Mart board.He may be a nice guy but with his current attitude he lacks the toughness to be US president.
I agree it is not as big a deal as some in the media make it out to be because this is politics as usual. You throw whatever you have in your arsenal at your opponent. Some of Obama's supporters are whining no doubt but others are enjoying it because this is exposing the viscous side of the Clintons that just might work well to Obama's advantage .
Regardless of who wins the nominations the Democratic party, going by present trends, might come out a much more divided party than anytime in recent memory and this could damage the party's prospects in the general elections.
I say Obama should use his surrogates to throw mud right back at Clinton - but the he's running a 'different kind of campaign' and as a result he might have become a victim of his own rhetoric.
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 instantaneously
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, who 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,
Rickey pulled 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.
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.
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.[citation needed] 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.
Rector was executed by lethal injection.
It took medical staff, with Rector’s help, more than fifty minutes to
find a suitable vein. The curtain remained closed between Rector and
the witnesses, but some reported they could hear Rector moaning. The
administrator of the State Department of Corrections Medical Program
said “the moans did come as a team of two medical people that had grown
to five worked on both sides of his body to find a vein. That may have
contributed to his occasional outbursts.†The state later attributed
the difficulty in finding a suitable vein to Rector’s heavy weight and
to his use of an antipsychotic medication.
Rector was the third person executed by the state of Arkansas since Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), after new capital punishment laws were passed in Arkansas and that came into force on March 23, 1973.
Bill Clinton's critics from the anti-capital punishment left have
seen the case of Rector as an unpleasant example of what they view as
Clinton's cynical careerism. The writer Christopher Hitchens, in particular, devotes much of a chapter of his polemical attack on Clinton, No One Left to Lie To
to what he regards as the immorality of the then Democratic candidate's
decision to condone, and take political advantage of, Rector's
execution.[2]
THE Democrats are in the midst of making an historic choice between
nominating their first female presidential candidate or their first
black presidential candidate. And who is everybody talking about? A
certain 61-year-old white male with a habit of waffling on about the
old days, falling asleep in public and turning puce when crossed.
For most ex-presidents retirement is a golden time. They top up
their personal fortunes, polish their reputations, perform good works
and indulge in their hobbies (skydiving, in the case of George Bush
senior). Richard Nixon turned himself into a foreign-policy sage. Jimmy
Carter builds houses for the poor. Ronald Reagan wrote movingly about
Alzheimer's before the disease silenced him.
For years Bill Clinton trod the same path. The Clinton Global
Initiative is widely regarded as a model of its kind. Mr Clinton teamed
up with Mr Bush senior to raise money for the victims of the Asian
tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. The mere mention of his name was enough
to put the devotees of Davos and other such gatherings into a swoon.
But over the past few months Mr Clinton has downgraded himself from
global statesman to political hatchet-man. No former president has
inserted himself so wholeheartedly into a presidential race. (Mr Bush
senior stayed in the background of his son's campaign, and declined to
get stuck in even after John McCain won in New Hampshire.) Mr Clinton
has not only dismissed Barack Obama as a roll of the dice and a
purveyor of fairy tales. He has also ripped into awkward reporters and
wandered into the Nevada caucuses to canvass for his wife. He is
spending more time campaigning in South Carolina than the candidate
herself. Mr Clinton seems intent on playing Spiro Agnew to his wife's
Nixon, but with one important difference: Agnew went after the other
side.
Mr Clinton's behaviour has caused consternation in the upper ranks of his party. Jonathan Alter reports in Newsweek
that two leading party figures who are neutral in the race, Ted Kennedy
and Rahm Emanuel, have told Mr Clinton to change his tone. Several
black leaders have publicly upbraided him.
Some of Mrs Clinton's confidants are also worried that their
attack-dog has a touch of the mange. Mr Clinton's stump speeches tend
to narcissism—particularly when he is reflecting on his glory years in
the White House. He claims that he never supported the Iraq war, a
statement that does not stand up to a couple of minutes' research on
the internet. He fell asleep during a service in honour of Martin
Luther King at a church in Harlem (“Bill has a dreamâ€, quipped the New York Post).
Is Mr Clinton damaging his wife's presidential chances as well as
his own reputation? This seems unlikely in the short-term battle
against Mr Obama. The former president is armed with the biggest
megaphone in the business. This could prove particularly important in
the battle for mega-states such as California and New York, where
advertising is prohibitively expensive and free press is manna from
heaven. The Clintons' double-barrelled attack has put Mr Obama on the
defensive—not a position that brings out the best in him. It has also
succeeded in its chief aim: defining him as a black candidate, and an
inexperienced one at that.
But the longer-term effect could be more harmful. The more Mrs
Clinton relies on her husband, the more she undermines the most
compelling arguments for her candidacy. Take the notion that she is a
feminist pioneer. Mr Clinton's omnipresence not only reminds us that
his wife made her political career by attaching herself to his
coat-tails. Only a spouse could have survived the debacle of
“Hillarycareâ€. It also reminds voters that her first instinct when the
going gets tough is to turn to her husband.
Or take her claim that she stands for “smart change†or “real
change†or whatever the latest slogan is. This was always going to be a
difficult pose for Mrs Clinton to maintain. But her hip-and-thigh
relationship with her husband underlines her two biggest weaknesses—her
scandal-ridden past in the White House (remember Marc Rich? Or the
free-loading Rodham brothers?) and the dynastification of American
politics. When he retired from the presidency, Mr Clinton left the
customary letter to his successor alongside the letter Mr Bush senior
had left for him eight years before. Does the world's greatest
democracy really want to give Mr Bush a chance to make a similar
gesture?
Another rolling disaster?
The biggest damage is to Mrs Clinton's claim that she will be an
effective chief executive. Mr Clinton's frenetic role in the campaign
surely prefigures the role he will play in the White House, advising
here, meddling there, and using the access to top-secret information
that his position as an ex-president affords him to second-guess the
most sensitive decisions. Who will hold Mr Clinton accountable for his
actions? How will the White House function with an ex-president and a
vice-president vying for influence? (One insider once termed the
“three-headed†relationship between the Clintons and Al Gore a “rolling
disasterâ€.) The Clintonians like to describe their bosses as
complementary figures who act as “force multipliersâ€. But in the 1990s
what actually got multiplied was confusion.
All this will be material for the Republican attack machine. By most
reckonings the Republicans should be doomed. But the Clintons' tactics
are alienating blacks and young people. The Clintons are in the process
of doing the impossible: making the 2008 election a referendum on them,
rather than on the Republicans. And the Republicans are inching towards
nominating their one candidate, Mr McCain, who has broad popular
appeal. If what ought to be a stroll in the park in November becomes a
real fight, then the Democrats will know who to blame.
the clintons are trying just a tad bit too hard to win favor from the obama and neutral supporters. not just the race card, they've, time and again, played the age/experience card, gender card or the glamor card (with the cleavage show and all haha), emotional card (when she literally cried in one of the the press conferences--don't remember the venue) and now the race card. and i agree with johnny there. they're all parts of the bloody game that politics is. obama should come up tougher against all these, what to me are, cheap acts from the clintons. all of 'em, including obama, could have done better.
the question is where would all the black women votes swing in favor of with/after this? not that only they're offended by racial discriminations but they were already divided between clinton and obama and my guess would be, if obama can keep his cool, it will only prove more beneficial for him in the long run. i think he is a touch nervous after the loss in Nevada and NH caucuses.
oh well, that said, dirty politics everywhere innit?
Agree. Obama needs to do more of what he is does in the ad below. I can't wait for the SC primary to be over. The Clintons will kick his butt if he continues to play their game. Bill changed the tone and nature of the game and set the agenda for the last one week - now Obama needs to do the same if he wants to win this thing.
He he Mansion, true, MSNBC has been almost as hard as 'Fox Noise' on slick Willy. It was fascinating to see Buchanan, of all people, coming to the Clinton's defense.
Here's the victory speech (in case anyone wasn't watching):
Buchanan, always gets me...but i dont think he was defending the clintons, actually i dont think anyone in right mind wud defend the clintons unless they'r on clintons payroll.....i think pat was more being sarcastic and actually critising clintons...this whole theory of white backlash amazes me, i dont see it happenning,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and to be honest sometimes these so called pundits are way over thier head....damit learn something from that stupid NH poll....;)
I have respect for McCain (and Giuliani and Paul) although I dont agree with them on many things. I lived in Mass when Romney was Governor and, my god, his flip flopping makes Kerry look like a kid. I respected him much more as a governor than I now do as a presidential candidate.
I think the nature of Tsunami Tuesday is such that it will turn all punditry on its head - never before have so many diverse states held their primary at the same time from what I heard - and with only ten days to go, I guess we will have to take what the pundits say with lots of salt and spice.
ya, romney...he has had several diff views depending on whats he running for, when he was running for gov, he had a diff view on health care, immigration, war...and now its diff,,but again thats the part of being a politician.
but ya somehow these pundits really freak me out,,,,,u really do have to ask urself twice if its really an analogy or just their own interpretation of the polls...but anyways....its a great day for US...definetly something that will go down in history as something that reshaped US,,,a female candidate,,,a balck candidate,,,when US has never had a president who wasnt male, christian and white..
the thing with demo.. is , they end up killing themself and their base...but with the numbers of demo..showing for primary...i mean even today in sc it was 200k more thann in 04....they might just get lucky....
al am waiting for is hilary to get nominated ( not that i support her ) and john and lets see them make history.
obama..hes great..honestly he makes me wonder if we could ahve a black democratic version of regan...but he's lost a lotta momentum..ya he won by a large margin but for gods sake , it was SC....
Mansion, true, this was South Carolina and he won because of the black vote. He was trailing Hillary by some twenty points amongst all demographics up until a few weeks ago in SC. Check out this interesting analysis about the demographics of the vote. That is not to say he cannot win non-blacks. Iowa, New Hampshire(where the delta was 2%) and Nevada have shown he can. What he has stacked against him is time. With eight days left now and 22 states across several media markets and timezones, time might be his biggest enemy.
As for the Democracts loosing, yeah, they have produced disastrous candidates like Kerry and Gore. And Massachusetts, my former home state, has a history of producing embarrassing candidates (take note Romney supporters .. he he). I think however that the current crop of candidates are pretty formidable - at least they appear to be so up till now. Same thing on the Republican side if the nominee is McCain or Guiliani.
It's going to be a good match in November regardless of the nominees.
OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved
by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and
hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president.
This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a
presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.
My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are
intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed
their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics
because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed
that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long
after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his
ideals.
Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has
a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief
to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things.
In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put
aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
We have
that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other
candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that
may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country —
just as we did in 1960.
Most of us would prefer to base our
voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals
are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from
strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood
education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a
larger role than usual.
Senator Obama has demonstrated these
qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not
just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn
around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an
elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing
the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the
face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special
gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer,
but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political
process.
I have spent the past five years working in the New
York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own.
There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working,
innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless,
defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help
our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their
future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’
grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.
Senator Obama is
running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about
the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character
in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama
made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing
the war in Iraq from the beginning.
I want a president who
understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and
encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around
him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of
those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the
world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our
spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of
us to get involved.
I have never had a president who inspired
me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the
first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president
— not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
Caroline Kennedy is the author of “A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.â€
I used to like Bill but now thats slightly shading away...
May be Big Mac used to control his brain and tahs what made him so popular but ever since he had surgery....neither his brain nor his mouth is under control..
His anger, hes always tempting to fight with Obama and his third grade comments is just going to help him lose more votes. He should just sit back and relax and shut his hole. that might help Hilary to get some more votes since it her who wants to be the president not Bill.Its not Bihar where Rawadi Devi(kala akchar bhais barabar) can be CM buz of Lalo...unless they want to turn America into Bihar
This is OBAMA ERA. Everyone will fade away in front of him. BIG OLD BULLY - both Clintons will understand this over time when they realize they are out from competition.
man i am loving this. dunno what future has in store for my man obama but the SC's result was too good, a bit overwhelming as well, at least for me :D :P. it was there for the taking anyways but didn't know it would turn out to be a knock-out thrasher hahahaha...piece of cake in the end, no? :D
waiting eagerly for the super tuesday :D would love to see clintons wet their undies HAHAHAHA. i have my fingers crossed though :P
What are your first memories of when Nepal Television Began?
निगुरो थाहा छ ??
ChatSansar.com Naya Nepal Chat
Basnet or Basnyat ??
NRN card pros and cons?
Sajha has turned into MAGATs nest
Toilet paper or water?
TPS EAD auto extended to June 2025 or just TPS?
Biden out, Trump next president, so what’s gonna happen to TPS, termination?
Nas and The Bokas: Coming to a Night Club near you
and it begins - on Day 1 Trump will begin operations to deport millions of undocumented immigrants
मन भित्र को पत्रै पत्र!
Will MAGA really start shooting people?
Democrats are so sure Trump will win
Tourist Visa - Seeking Suggestions and Guidance
From Trump “I will revoke TPS, and deport them back to their country.”
I hope all the fake Nepali refugee get deported
Anybody gotten the TPS EAD extension alert notice (i797) thing? online or via post?
Nas and The Bokas: Coming to a Night Club near you
NOTE: The opinions
here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com.
It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address
if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be
handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it.
- Thanks.
