[-V-]

thumbs-down

This is one bright woman. But no. Why? Because she is a woman :eek:.

I should say, because she plays it safe like a woman may need to, but that doesn't cut it with me. She is too aware of the political hurdles she must jump to capture swing voters who might perceive a woman as soft and she plays that card too well (e.g. pro Iraq war etc..)

My personal preference would be for a woman President. Not because they are due. Because America is due. Woman, in general are the superior gender of the species in our current evolutionary/sociological state. They have a much better balance of all the intellectual and emotional aspects of what it means to be human. Without as much of the flaws of the human ego that men are raised with.

Of course they do go out of balance for a couple of days each month. That requires that the female candidate has a competant running mate to fill in during those "periods".

[MAGI]

:p

I really wish Hillary would forget about the presidency and do what she can do so well! Stop playing the middle and blast the HELL out of ALL that is wrong in OUR country today.

From the git go this dictatorship has us ALL in a squeeze!

We cannot get full "truth" on ANYTHING!

If anyone can get headlines......it is Hillary! I WISH SHE WOULD START HAMMERING!

and no, I don't want her to run.............in 2008, but SHE CAN BE A MAJOR PLAYER FOR DEMOCRACY!

[-V-]

Alas, it is official. The headline reads:
"Clinton Says ‘I’m In to Win’ 2008 Race"

Personally, I was more interested in reading another headline that appeared on my home page many headlines below it entitled:
"Sperm secrets of male seahorses uncovered"Unlike other animals and humans in which the female becomes pregnant, male seahorses carry their unborn in a pouch on their body and give birth to their young.

Apparently, it doesn't always take a woman. For seahorses, and election '08, unfortunately, it is going to take another male, unless Oprah or Streisand decides to run ;)

[NeoCon Newbie]

Alas, it is official. The headline reads:
"Clinton Says ‘I’m In to Win’ 2008 Race"

Personally, I was more interested in reading another headline that appeared on my home page many headlines below it entitled:
"Sperm secrets of male seahorses uncovered"

Apparently, it doesn't always take a woman. For seahorses, and election '08, unfortunately, it is going to take another male, unless Oprah or Streisand decides to run ;)No Hillary in 2008. She has got to be the worst democrat in this country as hard as that is to believe. The only person worse then Hillary is Hitler all though they have similar ideas. If anybody deserves to be president its Jeb Bush.

[FDRfollower]

No Hillary in 2008. She has got to be the worst democrat in this country as hard as that is to believe. The only person worse then Hillary is Hitler all though they have similar ideas. If anybody deserves to be president its Jeb Bush.

Hiya DS. At this point in your "relationship" with us, pause and consider what is happening. As you've perhaps noticed, your karma points are quickly dwindling towards negative numbers, which, if you continue the direction you seem to be going, will soon restrict you to only posting two posts a day.

Now, if the purpose of your visits, is to spew purile, kindergarten level name calling, based on whatever Jacoban radio ditto-clone is spouting at the time, and calling Hillary Clinton Hitler is classic rabid radio format, along with calling for Democrats to be burned alive, shot, stomped on, lynched, etc.

Since you're young, its quite likely you're aware of how the net works, i.e. posting for the purpose of creating inflamatory arguement, that is, trolling. Why not try something different, talk to us. We're all humans. Everyone has different ways of thinking.

[Jane of Arc]

I'm impressed FDR. That was very well said. You are quite the mensch!

[haus]

Oooh. Well said, indeed! Stinging ripostes like this really highlight the Republican brain-trust.:dissapointed:

[cat's meow]

...your pic never made it numbnut.

[FDRfollower]

Hiya DS. Try this.

http://www.strawberrydragon.com/gimages/illustration/troll.jpg

Meet your POL persona, as it stands so far. We've had a ball-busting conservative type go though a major change for the better here, so everyone has the possibility to reform.

The picture was gotten off of www.strawberrydragon.com, and theres some funny animations that you might enjoy. You can kill the link after a short while ~V~. Thanks.

[NeoCon Newbie]

Try this on for size dumbass.
Clinton one-liners
Clinton and Gore: They have what it takes to take what you've got!

"Carter is no longer the worst U.S. President"

"I am Clinton of Borg. Your incomes will be assimilated."

Thank you, Bill Clinton, for costing me my job. I will repay you in 1996.

Hey Hillary! Shut-up and redecorate!

My other car was cancelled by the Clinton Tax Bill.

It's the spending stupid!

If Clinton was the answer, it must have been a real stupid question!

Clinton in 1996--NOT!!

I'm not Fonda Clinton

Rodhamhood: She steals from everyone to give to the government.

Bill Clinton is living proof why stupid people shouldn't vote.

Voter: "The joke's over, bring back Bush."

Chrysler Corporation is adding a new car to its line to honor Bill Clinton. The Dodge Draft will begin production in Canada this year.

When Clinton was asked what he thought about foreign affairs, he replied, "I don't know. I never had one."

If you came across Bill Clinton struggling in a raging river and you had a choice between rescuing him or getting a Pulitzer prize-winning photograph, what shutter speed would you use?

Chelsea asked her dad, "Do all fairy tales begin with once upon a time...?" Bill Clinton replied, "No. Some begin with 'After I'm elected...'"

President Clinton will be starring in his own TV show next season. It's called "Welcome Back Carter".

Did you hear it took three secret service agents to hold Hillary's hand down during the swearing-in ceremony?

If the Clinton's divorce before 1996, who will get the house?

When Clinton was asked about Roe vs. Wade, he replied "I think the Haitians had better row because it is too far to wade."

Clinton's mother prayed fervently that Bill would grow up and be president. So far, half of her prayer has been answered.

The money clip of the 90's will be a penny stuck in a paper clip.

Bill Clinton's 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not commit thyself!

Bill Clinton has been mistakenly characterized as a "yes man" when he is really a "yes ma'am."

The problem with a government-run trust fund is that there is too little of either.

Clinton should be proud. He has done more in six months than Jimmy Carter in four years.

Isn't putting Bill Clinton in charge of a trust fund as insane as putting in a draft-dodger as Commander in Chief?

Clinton only lacks three things to become one of America's finest leaders: Integrity, vision, and wisdom.

Asked about his views on euthanasia, Clinton replied, "Youth in Asia are just like kids everywhere else."

Diapers and congressmen need to be changed frequently for much the same reason.

Clinton is doing the work of 3 men: Larry, Curly, and Moe.

If 50% of adults are illiterate, how come Bill only got 43% of the vote?

The good news about Clinton's health care is that everyone will be covered. The bad news is that it will be with dirt.

If character is not an issue, why isn't Ted Kennedy president?

Clinton floated a strike on baseball's opening day but most of his pitches are high and to the left.

If Clinton wanted legislation to burn down the Capitol building, Republicans in the Senate would introduce a compromise bill to burn it down over three years.

Food stamps are rationed so what makes you think government-run health care won't be?

No one can call Clinton a cheap taxpayer. Look at how much he is costing the taxpayers.

When Bill's Congress passes a law, it's a joke...but when Hillary tells a joke, it' the law.

Ever since he met JFK, Clinton wanted to be president in the worst possible way...now he's succeeding beyond his wildest dreams.

Oxymoron of 1994: Whitewater Development.

[FDRfollower]

More of these HERE (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm)

If this is your hero, it certainly reflects on you.

The Dumbest Things President Bush Said in 2005

10) "It's totally wiped out. ... It's devastating, it's got to be doubly devastating on the ground." --turning to his aides while surveying Hurricane Katrina flood damage from Air Force One, Aug. 31, 2005

9) "I'm occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the second term." --Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005

8) "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." --Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

7) "I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the mother in me." --Washington D.C., April 14, 2005

6) "Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers.
For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled." --explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

5) "I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?" --in a note to to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a U.N. Security Council meeting, September 14, 2005

4) "We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." (Laughter) --touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005

3) "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

2) "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his handling of the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005

1) "You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

[FDRfollower]

Laura Bush could possibly be as ambitious as Hillary, except she always seems zonked out on heavy medications, due to her alcoholic husband.

[MAGI]

sheesh..I'm trying to be low key,
but ~V~ has me going with one of his POL Editorial Picks today. I posted it on the Main thread but that article led me here (DAVOS) with a great explanation of W.J. Clinton and how he used our trust to incoropate the Reagan/Bush/bush plan for OUR Nation!:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/faux

snip

an excerpt:

"It's impossible to understand why Democratic Party leaders collaborated with Republicans to establish NAFTA unless reference is made to cross-border class interests. There was no compelling economic or political reason for Bill Clinton to make NAFTA a priority in his first year as President. In economic terms, nothing was broken that needed fixing. Politically, NAFTA and the WTO that followed traded away the interests of the Democratic Party's blue-collar electoral base while creating a bonanza for Republican constituencies on Wall Street and in red-state agribusiness.

But Clinton was more Davos than Democrat. Tutored by financier Robert Rubin, a prodigious fundraiser who became his Treasury Secretary, Clinton embraced a reactionary, pre-New Deal vision of a global future in which corporate investors were unregulated and the social contract was history. Indeed, in all three countries it was the leaders of the political parties that had historically claimed to represent ordinary people--the Democrats' Clinton, the Liberal Party's Jean Chrétien and the Institutional Revolutionary Party's Salinas--who delivered NAFTA to their global corporate clients, undercutting their own constituencies. "NAFTA happened," said the then-chairman of American Express, "because of the drive Bill Clinton gave it. He stood up against his two prime constituents, labor and environment, to drive it home over their dead bodies."

A year later, in November 1994, enough angry Democratic voters stayed away from the polls to give the Republicans control of the House. Since then, many working-class Americans, feeling abandoned by the Democrats, have responded to the Republican definition of class struggle as a fight over gun control, school prayer and abortion. The Democrats have still not recovered. "

snip

That is on page 2.

So, you can see why I'm so against Hillary and that element of the Democratic party..............and the reason our unfair Media IS for Hillary, because our Plutocracy will remain in the very hands they desire!

[Jennifer_SFBA]

From Mother Jones, Talk Back:

http://www.motherjones.com/letters/2007/03/backtalk.html

"...

Forget what Hillary says and what other people say about her. Look at her voting record.

Pro-war? Check.

Pro-tax cuts? Check.

Pro-torture? Check.

Pro-corporations? Check.

Anti-choice? Check.

Anti-privacy rights? Check.

Anti-gay marriage? Check.

Anti-immigrants? Check.

Anti-working class? Check.

Anti-unions? Check.

Anti-environment? Check.

That's why true progressives hate her."

Lisa Aug
Waddy, Kentucky

[MAGI]

Scott Ritter's anylysis of Billary and our pre-emptive war with Iraq:

Thanks to angie on firedoglake.com

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm


Published on Saturday, March 3, 2007 by AlterNet
See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter




skip

In April 1998 Bill Clinton promised Congress that his administration would provide all support necessary to the UN inspectors. In May 1998 his National Security Team implemented a new policy which turned its back on the inspectors, seeking to avoid supporting a disarmament process which undermined the policies of regime change so strongly embraced by Bill Clinton and his administration. When I resigned in August 1998 in protest over the duplicitous policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I was personally attacked by the Clinton administration in an effort to divert attention away from the truth about what they were doing regarding Iraq. Four months later Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, referred to in glowing terms by Hillary Clinton as she endorsed the policies of deception that led our nation down the path towards war.

"So it is with conviction," Hillary said at the moment of her vote, "that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him -- use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein -- this is your last chance -- disarm or be disarmed."

It turned out Saddam was in fact already disarmed. And it turned out that Hillary's husband, President Bill Clinton, knew this when he ordered the bombing of Iraq in 1998. Hillary can try to twist and turn the facts as she defends the words she spoke when casting her fateful vote in favor of a war with Iraq. But no amount of re-writing history can shield her from the failed policies of her very own husband, policies she embraced willingly and whole heartedly when endorsing war..


Run, Hillary, run. But your race towards the White House will never outpace the hypocrisy and duplicity inherent in your decision to vote for war in Iraq.


Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" (Nation Books, 2005) and "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2006).

I trust Scott Ritter, he did his best to keep us from invading Iraq.....................

Billary made a terrible mistake, and we are paying for it!

As we will continue paying, if Hillary gets the (Democratic ?)nomination.............................

[MAGI]

Hillary knew exactly what she was doing when she gave bush the right to invade Iraq! She was following her husband's lead:

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkpg=http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070320_scott_ritter_robert_scheer/&linkid=32334

Click onto:
Part One, Hillary Clinton, Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Ritter says Hillary lies!

Scott Ritter's anylysis of Billary and our pre-emptive war with Iraq:

Thanks to angie on firedoglake.com

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm


Published on Saturday, March 3, 2007 by AlterNet
See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter




I trust Scott Ritter, he did his best to keep us from invading Iraq.....................

Billary made a terrible mistake, and we are paying for it!

As we will continue paying, if Hillary gets the (Democratic ?)nomination.............................

[Thelonious]

I have met several earthworms this week who would make fine presidents compared to the current shrubbery.

Black, woman, hispanic, I DON'T CARE. Anyone but Bush and the Bushites. (Both McCain and Romney have kissed up to the Wacko Right enough to disqualify them too)

[Thelonious]

Blaming Hillary for the war will just increase the vote for Nader. 600, I think it was, it just 600 fewer people has voted Gore instead of Nader... there would never have been an Iraq war and subsequent occupation...

[Thelonious]

Newbie, Did you actually read that before you posted it ??? ???

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Though I'm not at all progressively excited about it, I think Richardson/Edwards is able to win the 08' election. I don't think America is ready to vote for a woman President, unfortunately, and from my progressive point of view, I would never vote for Hillary. America does have a racist streak, so, I don't think America is ready to vote for any Presidential candidate who is non-caucasian either, unfortunately too. America is very far away from voting for the best, the brightest and the most politically progressive.

[MAGI]

Billary is fightin' hard, but it falls on deaf ears................

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/23/bubba-dont-sista-souljah-us/#comments

Friday, March 23rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Bubba, Don’t Sista Souljah Us
By: Jane Hamsher


Oh Bubba, what were you thinking? Our lunch…it was so beautiful…are we being "Sistah Souljah'd" already?

Former President Bill Clinton yesterday complained that "it’s just not fair" the way his wife, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is being depicted for her controversial Iraq war vote.

Speaking to hundreds of supporters on conference call, the former president said, "I don’t have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this," but "to characterize Hillary and Obama’s positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous.

"This dichotomy that’s been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."

I don't know if Bill quite understands that much of the netroots hostility the Clintons generate is the result of his trashing of Ned Lamont on Larry King. Nobody really doubts that he saved Lieberman in order to protect Hillary's war voting record and keep the heat off of her. Perhaps he doesn't even care. But the fact is that Hillary has yet to take a real leadership position in challenging this president — has she ever really challenged this administration on its abuse of power in a meaningful way? We saw how pissy the Boy King became today when Nancy Pelosi got under his skin. He clearly doesn't like it when women publicly spank him. If Hillary ever chose to do likewise, I'm sure we'd hear about it.

In additon, her continued statements about "maintaining a military presence" in Iraq, or showing up at an AIPAC luncheon to say things like this …

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table."

…make people who don't like the prospect of war with Iran feel really, really hinky.

But it does raise the question — who exactly is Bill trying to cozy up to with these comments? Was this some kind of dog whistle signal to specific donors before the filing deadline to help his boy Terry McCaulliff rake in some key sector of cash?

Enquiring minds, Bubba. Enquiring minds.

[MAGI]

Billary doesn't find much love on firedoglake either. Read the comments on the the url:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/23/bubba-dont-sista-souljah-us/#comments

[MAGI]

I find this article, very interesting...............

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661.html?nav=rss_politics

THE gurus | Mark penn
Clinton's PowerPointer
With Data and Slides, a Pollster Guides Campaign Strategy

By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 30, 2007; Page A01

" It was fairly simple, Mark J. Penn said calmly to Vice President Al Gore, reporting the findings of an exhaustive survey he had conducted in the early stages of the 2000 presidential campaign. Voters liked Gore's policies. They just didn't like Gore.

snip


If Clinton seems cautious, it may be because Penn has made caution a science, repeatedly testing issues to determine which ones are safe and widely agreed upon (he was part of the team that encouraged Clinton's husband to run on the issue of school uniforms in 1996).

If Clinton sounds middle-of-the-road, it may be because Penn is a longtime pollster for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council whose clients have included Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) .

If Clinton resembles a Washington insider with close ties to the party's biggest donors, it may be because her lead strategist is a wealthy chief executive who heads a giant public relations firm, where he personally hones Microsoft's image in Washington.

And if some opponents see Clinton as arrogant, her campaign a coronation rather than a grass-roots movement, it may be because of the numbers wizard guiding her campaign and the PowerPoint presentations he likes to give on the inevitability of his candidate.

snip

As her position has evolved, from initial support for President Bush to fierce criticism of the war's management, Clinton has sought a careful balance, one that maintains her image of strength on national security while not antagonizing the staunchly antiwar elements of her party. Asked repeatedly by antiwar Democrats to apologize for her original support for the war, Clinton has refused. Penn has been among her strongest backers on that score, according to Clinton's advisers, agreeing that to apologize would be disastrous both politically and on the merits.

It was Penn, famously rumpled and awkward in public, who picked a fight at a Harvard forum this year when he disrupted a mild exchange between consultants to accuse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of equivocating on Iraq. Penn's outburst seemed designed to reach antiwar Democrats by shifting attention away from Clinton's initial support for the war by arguing that she and her main rival have similar approaches to ending it.

"When they got to the Senate, Senator Obama's votes were exactly the same" as Clinton's, Penn told the panel. "So let's not try to create false differences when we both agree it's time to de-escalate, when we both agree it's time to end this war, and let's be clear that Senator Clinton thinks that, Senator Obama thinks that."

His remarks enraged David Axelrod, a senior Obama adviser, who called the characterization dishonest.

Penn plays down his role in advising Clinton on Iraq. "I'm definitely not a national security adviser," he said in an interview in his office. "I think I understand the issue. But I leave that to the policy advisers who are very close to her."

To Penn, 'Strength Is Critical'


In their $5 million Georgetown mansion, Penn and his wife, Nancy Jacobson, a former staff member for Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) who is now a fundraiser with the Clinton campaign, run something of a salon for like-minded friends. They recently threw a book party for Jeffrey Goldberg, the New Yorker writer, to celebrate the release of his memoir on Israel. On another occasion, they hosted David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, for a dinner party and political discussion.

Penn has deep roots in the national security wing of the Democratic Party, along with other centrist Democrats -- some of them Jewish and pro-Israel, like Penn -- who saw the merits of invading Iraq before the war began.

"Penn has always believed that strength is critical for running the country, and that people want to have a president who's going to be willing to defend the country -- that's the number one criteria," said Al From, the chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council, who considers Penn a friend.

Penn gained his foreign policy expertise working on numerous campaigns overseas, especially in Israel. In 1981, he and business partner Doug Schoen helped reelect Menachem Begin, one of the most right-wing prime ministers in the country's history, and emerged with a new outlook on the Middle East. "We got a chance to experience firsthand the perils and possibilities that the state of Israel presents," Schoen said in an interview.

In a pivotal moment, the pollsters watched as Begin launched airstrikes against a developing Iraqi nuclear facility, Osirak, in the middle of the campaign. "In the end, bombing the Osirak reactor became a metaphor for the type of man that Begin was and the steps he was willing to take to safeguard Israel's security," Schoen wrote in his autobiography, "The Power of the Vote."

Ever since, Penn has been a prominent advocate of conveying strength in foreign policy. As recently as the 2004 presidential contest, Penn argued that Democrats would lose if they failed to close the "security gap." His client list includes prominent backers of the Iraq war, particularly Lieberman, whose presidential campaign Penn helped run in 2004, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose campaign he advised when Blair won a historic third term in 2005."

.................................................. .................................................. ...............................

Pretty much not a We The People candidate, IMVHO................

[greyjack]

how has Hillary even been able to get this far, who is backing her? She seems to be a parallel to the current Bush, to me at least.

People were frustrated at the Democratic party from the Clinton admin., Bush had family ties to a previous president, he won the election and now the country is worse for it. People are frustrated at the Republican party from the current Bush admin., Hillary has family ties to a previous president... Its like everyone just changed costumes and we are going to see the same play again with different actors.

are there no other good Democratic candidates out there?

[Thelonious]

are there no other good Democratic candidates out there?

There is a strong field of Democratic candidates. If you haven't heard of them, I suggest reading a newspaper. :rolleyes:

[Jane of Arc]

how has Hillary even been able to get this far, who is backing her? She seems to be a parallel to the current Bush, to me at least.

Its like everyone just changed costumes and we are going to see the same play again with different actors.

:sunny: Welcome to POL, greyjack! :sunny:

I understand your quandry when you ask "who is backing her?" And who is backing Obama, also a Rhodes Scholar as was Bill Clinton. And who's financially backed the Bushes?

Every American should be asking the same thing. Isn't there something wrong with a line-up of presidents/vice presidents that reads:



1980 - Bush (The most powerful behind-the-scenes vice president in US history with Reagan slowly deteriorating from Alzheimer's.)

1984 - Bush

1988 - Bush

1992 - Clinton

1996 - Clinton

2000 - Bush

2004 - Bush

2008 - Clinton?

What will it take for Americans to wake the hell up? Is the brainwashing that good, that hypnotic? Is the media propaganda that insidious, that believable?

Excellent point greyjack, thanks and please stick around!

[greyjack]

I have to admit i haven't actually heard of them, I get most of my news from the radio since I have no cable TV or newspaper. If Hillary does win does this mean that Jeb Bush will run in 2012 or 2016? Or is Cheney going to be too old to run another Bush through the White House.

[Thelonious]

GreyJack,
If you're getting your news from Rush Limbaugh, you are not only uninformed but also misinformed and disinformed. Since you clearly have internet access, I might suggest...

www.washingtonpost.com
www.nytimes.com
www.airamerica.com
or even
www.cnn.com

[MAGI]

GreyJack,
If you're getting your news from Rush Limbaugh, you are not only uninformed but also misinformed and disinformed. Since you clearly have internet access, I might suggest...

www.washingtonpost.com
www.nytimes.com
www.airamerica.com ****(MAGI)
or even
www.cnn.com

and, my favorites:

http://www.firedoglake.com/ a 24/7 blog with real people and links supporting their views

http://www.opednews.com/

[Thelonious]

Hillary-Bashing only increases the chances of an elderly President McCain going for a triple surge in Bagdad.

Hillary is our country's best expert on the Health Care Mess. Hillary is a brilliant lawyer, with more White House experience than any other candidate. Who is supporting her? People with brains, who want to see some practical positive change in this country.

[Jane of Arc]

Thelonius,

Isn't there a small, tiny, itsy-bitsy, teenie-weenie, little part of you that says there's something wrong with a historic line-up of VP & Prez that reads:

BUSH - BUSH - BUSH - CLINTON - CLINTON - BUSH - BUSH - CLINTON?

Doesn't it make your sphincter twitch just a little? Honestly?


PS - I know plenty of people with brains who know her to be a globalist hawk with the weight and backing of corporations like Wal*Mart and Murdoch's News Corp. The media giants have carved out her "niche" as the (supposed) "front runner" for 3 years forcing her into the spotlight of American consciousness. If you can't see the set-up happening right before your eyes ... well ... what can I say?

[Thelonious]

BUSH - BUSH - BUSH - CLINTON - CLINTON - BUSH - BUSH - CLINTON?


Using the same logic I can make a line that reads

Reagan - Reagan - Qualye - Gore - Gore - Chenney - Chenney - GINGRICH?

and it proves absolutely nothing.

Hillary Clinton is a hard-nosed mean-assed politician. That's what it takes to get elected. (If I believed that all elections are completely rigged as you do, I wouldn't vote at all, much less discuss politics on line. In fact I'd take up bowling or some other hobby)
About once a century a truly nice guy with real principles gets elected (Jimmy Carter is a great example), but he then finds that you have to have a real big mean streak to get anything done in Washington (this is the same in every other country I have ever lived in, or read about). But most truly nice guys with real principles get crushed like Dukakis did.
Look at some great leaders from the last century. FDR was a real mean pragmatist. He got a lot done. LBJ was a huge power broker who ran the senate with an iron fist, then pushed everyone around, until his Vietnam diaster broke his back. Bill Clinton, fantastic winning smile, but he had the mean streak needed. He just used Hillary as his enforcer a little too often and she got the reputation for mean. She's struggling with that right now.

You know what does bother me? American soldiers torturing Mr Padilla for years on end. What happened to him and what the next president will do about it, is really important to me. That is something concrete, pretty well documented, and horrifically disgusting. That bothers me a lot more than conjecture about what "BUSH - BUSH - BUSH - CLINTON - CLINTON - BUSH - BUSH - CLINTON?" maybe means or maybe doesn't mean.

[MAGI]

I decided to add this to the more proper thread for easy reference:

Re: "Is Our Electorate Learning?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thelonious = black
Magi =blue



So let's start from a point we agree on: "because I lived "The American dream" and have watched it diminish by the day all these years since."


Yes, You're absolutely right. The American Dream is becoming reality for smaller and smaller numbers of Americans. Something needs to be done about it. In fact something should have been done about it long ago.

for sure!!

One reason for the American Dream reaching fewer people is the Health Care Mess. (You seem to attribute the health care mess to undocumented immigrants. No, I say it is part of the problem. Undocumented immigrants are about 12 (maybe 30 ) million strong. 12 million out of 300 million is 4 (or 8, maybe 10) percent. Do you really believe that 4 percent of the people have caused the enormous price rises we have seen? I don't believe that. ) me neither.


I do believe there are several major flaws in the system. I also believe that the system is and will be very very complex.

I don't believe the system is all that "very complex". We have history that Medicare is the most reasonable and most efficient with paperwork, and care, when the HMOs are kept out of it! YES, there has to be more people handling fraud, to make it better........
and: there is history on other countries' systems, which can be easily considered if we can keep private insurance companies (the foxes) out of The study.........

I understand systems such as in Japan & Germany should be considered. Having just spoken with a person who lived in Ontario, Canada, I have changed my thoughts on going with their system! Thom Hartman touched on the Japan/Germany Healthcare Systems which supplement their plan with Insurance companies and works very well. I think Thom Hartman could direct "The study Group" as well as I dare say, Nader...............

I also know for a fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton tried really hard to make some positive change in this area. Bill and Hillary Clinton worked to improve things. Bill and Hillary Clinton got rejected by voters, Joe Sixpack, and various nitpickers. (as Hillary was getting her proposal ready, I got an email from a friend in Chicago "Well, if they do pass something I think that Pap smears, and bla bla bla screening should be covered" - And I knew at that moment that the proposal was dooomed. People will find fault with anything and a proposal that big won't get passed. Nitpicking.)
Heaven forbid...........Pap Screens covered! How do you feel about eye tests (simple ones which are done in seconds for glacoma) from birth; which could prevent.....blindness? I ask you AGAIN, where has Billary been about this issue since 1994........If you notice, they are very cautious about most things ( ideas on how to go about healthcare in our country for instance, ........she thinks SOMETHING might get put together in 8 years....!

I loved Bill & Hillary, I guess that's why I am so against them now, for the things I naively trusted him about and have gone wrong!

Rupert Mudoch, for instance, having a fund raiser for her...............????
uh, I see Corporate America with which they are involved; not, We The People.

What has Clinton done about correcting what has happened in OUR country since NAFTA, and other Free Trade Agreements.........WHAT is HE or SHE doing about it, NOW?

Sorry, I will NEVER AGAIN TRUST Billary; NEVER!
He's a hero in other countries throughout the world but, it depends who your listening to. I've recently spoken with a person from South Africa who left that country because of so many systematic MURDERS now happening! That person blames a lot of it on Clinton.

You trust the Washington Post & New York Times..............I say, It's necessary to read between the lines.....we can thank them for bush's propaganda, including the War in Iraq, the RUBBER STAMP CONGRESS and the place in time we now find ourselves!

Bill and Hillary Clinton, who you just cannot quit bashing, needed American support in 1994, and they didn't get it. They got my support! Mine too!

If Hillary is the candidate in '08 I will campaign for her.

O.K., Let's hope our democracy doesn't get more broken, so you can express your Right To Vote!


Bill and Hillary Clinton, especially Bill, left a HUGE budget surplus for the next president. Al Gore could have used that money. Al Gore could have taken a chunk of that to help pay for an inevitably expensive run at Health Care Reform. But no, half a million IDEALISTS in Florida had to vote for Nader, added:
I didn't vote for Nader because I feared he would take away the needed votes for a Democratic win, BUT, GORE WON that election in Florida, proved by later recounts, even in spite of the since proven disenfrachised LEGAL VOTERS ............. That's why we need verifiable PAPER BALLOTS! Where is Hillary's "strong" stand on Campaign Finance Reform????
and we get a Texas Oilman who is also a compulsive liar.

For sure!

I am "for restoring The American Dream" and the VERY reason I will NOT vote for Billary!

I can STILL HEAR bill on the ROBO CALLS telling Dems in CT. to vote for Lieberman !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Billary!

:mad:

[Jane of Arc]

You're absolutely right Thelonious.

(1) There's nothing strange about BUSH - CLINTON - BUSH - CLINTON. There's no pattern there. What was I thinking? I can be so silly sometimes.

(2) And you're right there no evidence that 2 national elections were rigged, tampered with and stolen. None. Let's all just vote, because that's what good Democrats and good Republicans do!

(3) And you're right Hillary was just confused when she voted to give Bush his power for the war. Can't blame her if she wasn't like Kucinich or other insightful, honest people in Congress. We want mean. Mean. Vote for war. Hawk. Mean.

(4) And you're right ... because I believe the elections were stolen I should take up bowling or some other hobby. And I should not discuss politics online.


How dare you sir! (or ma'am.) I don't like mean. I don't respect mean. And maybe that's why Hillary doesn't inspire me or millions of others. I prefer people of strength in character, honor, and understanding. I prefer people who do the right thing. I prefer people who challenge the status quo and don't turn a blind eye to corruption. (As in our voting system.) Here's a quote from someone with more courage in his little pinky than Hillary has in her entire body:

"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

[Wafflepudding]

I hate to break it to you Jane, but you're in the minority, not the majority. There's a sense shortage in America. America LOVES mean, that's the reason why people voted for Ronald Reagan, that's the reason why action movies sell like hot dogs, that's the reason that the image of the pop-culture hero is closer to Rambo than it is to... hell I can't even think of a comparison, really.

1.- There are many, many more concrete reasons why we shouldn't vote for Hillary than that.

2.- I think the first one was stolen but the second one wasn't. People do stupid things when they're scared.

3.- He said you have to be mean to get things done in D.C. Considering the intense level of corruption, the vicious smear campaigns, the nepotism, the lobbying by special interest groups and the fact that you renounce your private life, just to name a few, yeah I'd say you have to be tough.

4.- It just seems counterproductive to discuss who to vote for in a country where elections are rigged. If things have deteriorated to the point where elections and lawful conduct are not working, you might as well advocate a second revolution (I think that was the original purpose of the 2nd ammendment).

Hillary-Bashing only increases the chances of an elderly President McCain going for a triple surge in Bagdad.

That's like saying troop bashing only increases the chances of the insurgents winning the war.

[Jane of Arc]

Puddin' ~

:eek: We live in a mean, violent, nasty world!?!@!? Holy smoke! Why didn't somebody tell me sooner??? Damn. Damn. Damn. What am I going to do now???
Look like it's back to the bunker! :eek:

1. - I know I'm in the minority. I'm a friggin' pacifist for crying out loud. I can't hardly swim in my own pool because all I do is save drowning bugs. (It is a form of exercise actually.) Minority? Hell ya'.

2. - The second election was rigged and stolen, as well. If you understand electronic voting in the country (which you will, soon) you'll realize it was. Plus, the way Kerry took one for the team was amazing with 50 million in his pocket to "make sure every vote counted". My ass.

3. - As far as it being counterproductive to discuss the candidates ... I kinda know what you mean. It's frustrating as hell. Nobody wants to acknowledge the obvious. It's like being on the Poseidon passing the drones headed for the bow ... "Hello, hello, you're going the wrong way! We need voting reform NOW. Hello? Get the Democrats in Congress to make election reform the top priority or you're going down! Hello?" (And the Democratic Congress doesn't see it as a priority, somehow. Hmmm. Wonder why?)

4. - I have no problem with being tough. I quoted MLK, Puddin'. That's my kind of tough.

You're growing on me Puddin'. Ya' know why? You seem to always tell the truth (Even though I sometimes don't agree with your version). And you are NOT mean-spirited. You never 'go personal' on people. (Except that one time with poor Newbie.) And maybe you just might turn into one of those idealist too ... you are studying psychology because ... ? :sunny:

[Wafflepudding]

http://junior.apk.net/~qc/mind/sci/certainty.html
http://junior.apk.net/~qc/mind/sci/index.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/#6
http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/JCGD_Volume_7/Intellectual_Integrity.html

"One of the ways in which a lack of integrity makes itself manifest is in the ready acceptance of beliefs which have desirable consequences, but for which there is little objective justification. Belief in reincarnation provides a good example. We all fear the oblivion of death, but if we are to be reincarnated, then death is subverted. Reincarnation eliminates the psychological terrors of death, and this in turn creates a powerful incentive to believe in reincarnation. To believe in reincarnation out of a fear of death belies a failure of intellectual integrity. It is not my place, of course, to judge any other person; I cannot know what animates another person's beliefs, so I will not declare that any belief in reincarnation is necessarily proof of low intellectual integrity. I would not even say that it suggests as much. This is a question each of us must answer privately."

I am of course human and can't always follow these principles, and although V would say my logic is self-serving, I differ. If you noticed I prefer to use "likely" "more probable", "unlikely", "dubious" etc. over "Obviously" "never" "always" and the like. This is, in a way, the reason why I got into psychology: Man's capacity to believe what he wishes to be true rather than what the evidence suggests is likely and possible has always surprised me. Even as a 12 year old, I simply could not understand how many people believed in ghosts, the afterlife, god having a plan that favors them over anyone else, etc.

So basically I'm fascinated by denial, and how although most of the time it is counterproductive, sometimes it is helpful (for instance in the placebo effect). I also spent most of my youth in psychiatric/psychological counseling, and I figured I couldn't do worse than most of the people that treated me. It's intellectually challenging. Anyway, thank you for your kind words, likewise I appreciate you for your noble intentions (although sometimes I think you are mistaken) and your idealism which though I do not share, is admirable nonetheless.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

There is indicative evidence FOR reincarnation. Now, if that is true, then, a REAL scientist would have to have achieved results in support of reincarntion. As Gomer Pile used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise," a real scientist did, in fact, do investigative work that does support reincarnation. Who? Arthur C. Clarke. So, taking the position that there is NO reincarnation unless there is absolute proof of reincarnation in the face of indicative evidence FOR reincarnation leads back to, "So basically I'm fascinated by denial, and how although most of the time it is counterproductive, sometimes it is helpful (for instance in the placebo effect)."

If you are interested in seeing Arthur C. Clarke's investigatory work into reincarnation and his findings, it's available in video, if you can find a copy. I do have a copy myself.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arthur-Clarkes-World-Strange-Powers/dp/B00004CR6B/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_1/202-4850106-0787801

To be absolutely fair, Arthur C. Clarke did say in an interview that the case of reincarnation that was investigated in the Arthur C. Clarke video did not believe in reincarnation because he saw no MECHANISM for it. Then he went on to say, "The unverse is stranger than we know and stranger than we can know" in response to that same question, "Do you believe in reincarnation?"

Not withstanding indicative findings, from a absolute scientific point of view, until souls are seen coming and going and the mechanism for the coming and going of souls is known, and other scientists have successfully repeated soul experiments, reincarnation is not able to be said to exist. That is the materialist view.

My position is that ANY evidence, no matter how minute (in the Arthur C. Clarke video the case for reincarnation is substantial) in support of anything unknown, tips the scales in favor and not against if for no other than, "The multi-verse is stranger than we know and stranger than we can know," a true statement at this time.

[MAGI]

A little off track on this thread guys.............. Can we move the most recent conversations to another room, please............

[Wafflepudding]

Magi: True, where?

Jen: Reincarnation is a spiritual concept, a matter of faith and therefore cannot be proven or disproven through science. You're mixing apples and oranges.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

I know the difference between faith and science. Why not see the video if for nothing else except respect for Arthur C. Clarke? There is a saying about society and science, they make progress one death at a time.

In addition to Arthur C. Clarke's investigative video that is not about Out of Body Experiences (OBEs), or Near Death Experiences (NDE's), but specifically about reincarnation, there are OBEs and NDEs to include in the consideration of the questions, 1) Is there life after death, and 2) Is there reincarnation?

MAJI's right, I will not say any more here on this subject, but had to respond back.

[MAGI]

Magi: True, where?

Jen: Reincarnation is a spiritual concept, a matter of faith and therefore cannot be proven or disproven through science. You're mixing apples and oranges.

How about the Religion room?

It looks like most of us aren't obsessed with God........as most organized Religions are.
I, for one, believe in GOoD; humaneness toward our fellowman................. which unfortunately so MANY Organized Religions do not follow............... which comes across to me more like hate, I'd say.

I'd like to think our departed family and friends are in a peacefull place, but I cannot dwell on it. What will be, will be.

[MAGI]

#1.

1.- There are many, many more concrete reasons why we shouldn't vote for Hillary than that.

2.- I think the first one was stolen but the second one wasn't. People do stupid things when they're scared.


Originally Posted by Thelonious
Hillary-Bashing only increases the chances of an elderly President McCain going for a triple surge in Bagdad.


WP:
That's like saying troop bashing only increases the chances of the insurgents winning the war.


WP,
I believe the 2004 election was ever so much more corrupted than the 2000 election.
I am questioning even, if the Democratic primary election was tampered with..................

Greg Paslast & Robert F Kennedy:

"RFK: Rove And Rove’s Brain, ‘Should Be In Jail,’ Not In Office
Published May 7th, 2007 in Articles, Interviews & Chats, Podcasts, Audio Reports

http://www.gregpalast.com/rfk-rove-and-roves-brain-should-be-in-jail-not-in-office/#more-1725

Monday, May 7, 2007

NEW YORK — Voting rights attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for prison time for the new US Attorney for Arkansas, Timothy Griffin and investigation of Griffin’s former boss, Karl Rove, chief political advisor to President Bush.

“Timothy Griffin,” said Kennedy,”who is the new US attorney in Arkansas, was actually the mastermind behind the voter fraud efforts by the Bush Administration to disenfranchise over a million voters through ‘caging’ techniques - which are illegal.”

[Hear Kennedy on Griffin, Rove and ‘caging lists’ below or here]

Kennedy based his demand on the revelations by BBC reporter Greg Palast in the new edition of his book, “Armed Madhouse.” On one page of the book, Palast reproduces a copy of a confidential Bush-Cheney campaign email, dated August 26, 2004, in which Griffin directs Republican operatives to use the ‘caging’ lists.

This is one of the emails subpoenaed by Congress but supposedly “lost” by Rove’s office. Palast obtained 500 of these, fifty with ‘caging’ lists attached.

‘Caging’ lists are “absolutely illegal” under the Voting Rights Act, noted Kennedy on his Air America program, Ring of Fire. The 1965 law makes it a felony crime to challenge voters when race is a factor in the targeting. African-American voters comprised the bulk of the 70,000 voters ‘caged’ in a single state, Florida.

Palast wrote in his book, “Here’s how the scheme worked. The Bush campaign mailed out letters,” particularly targeting African-American soldiers sent overseas. When the letters sent to the home addresses of the soldiers came back “undeliverable” because the servicemen were in Baghdad or elsewhere, the Republican Party would, “challenge the voter’s registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballots being counted.”

The Republicans successfully challenged “at least one million” votes of minority voters in the 2004 election.

Kennedy, a voting rights attorney, fumed, “What he [Griffin] did was absolutely illegal and he should be in jail. Instead [Griffin] was rewarded with the US Attorney’s office.”

“They [Griffin, Rove and their confederates at the RNC] knew it was illegal.”

Kennedy has called on the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to expand their investigations of the firing of US Attorneys to include a probe of their replacements, especially Griffin, as well as Rove’s knowledge of the caging operation.

In preparation for just such an investigation, Kyle Sampson, former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, wrote a confidential email, dated December 19, 2006 outlining a strategy to stall Congress’ from questioning the propriety of the Griffin appointment. “We should gum this to death,” wrote Sampson, “Ask the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in ‘good faith,’ of course.”

Sampson has since resigned.

Palast said, “Just as Rove is known as ‘Bush’s brain,’ Griffin is ‘Rove’s Brain.’ I’m flattered by his ‘review.’”

Palast first reported on the caging list operation for BBC Television’s premier current affairs show, Newsnight, in 2004. In a February 7, 2007 email obtained by subpoena from Rove’s office, Griffin boasted that, “No [US] national media picked up” the BBC story. Griffin attached an excerpt of Armed Madhouse.

Griffin sent his remarks to Monica Goodling, Senior Counsel to Attorney General Gonzales, who has since resigned and invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer Congressional questions.

Griffin and Rove refused several requests from Palast and BBC to respond to charges of illegal, racial ‘caging’ of voters. However, a Republican spokeswoman, while admitting the lists could be used to challenge soldiers’ votes, said that was ‘not the purpose’ for gathering the lists.

**********
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans — Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House GONE WILD."
**************************************************

There is much more on the above link, if you're interested.........
which led to #2........:roll eyes:

[MAGI]

#2.

by Greg Palast
Palast is the author of Armed Madhouse, released last week in a new, expanded edition, in paperback - the newest addition to the New York Times list of non-fiction bestsellers.

(This post has been podcasted please look at the bottom of article to download.)

Before his untimely death in a plane crash, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown said, “I’m not Hillary’s mother-f****** tour guide!”

That wasn’t a nice thing for a member of the President’s cabinet to say about the First Lady, now my Senator, Hillary Clinton.

And it’s probably not polite for me to bring it up now. But if I don’t, surely the Karl Rovarians will - if Senator Mrs. Clinton nails the Presidential nomination.

Bill Clinton used to say that, once he became president, he finally earned more money than his wife. That was a carefully crafted bit of modesty to show Bill as an aw-shucks regular guy versus Richie Rich-kid George Bush.

But Bill’s cute remark raised a question in my mind: How did Hillary get that big ol’ salary? And another question arises: how has she stayed out of prison?

The story’s a little complicated, involving a New Orleans power company, Indonesian billionaires, a New York nuclear plant and plain old influence peddling. But if we follow the money, we’ll get the picture. And it ain’t pretty.

But first, let’s stop at Wal-Mart. Read an official biography of the Senator and you’ll find her six-month stint on a child-protection task force. Yet you won’t find her SIX YEARS on the board of directors of Wal-Mart Corporation. She may have earned a Grammy for “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child.” But it takes a Governor’s wife to provide cover for Wal-Mart’s profiteering off systematic wage-enslavement of children in its factories in South America.

Sam Walton called Hillary, “My little lady.” Sam paid her an eyebrow raising sum for a director - equal to 60% of her entire not-insubstantial salary as a lawyer. By contrast, Wendy Diaz (her real name), a 13-year-old in Honduras, was paid 25 cents an hour to make shirts for the “little lady’s” label.

Hillary’s rake-in was made possible by Wal-Mart’s 100% union-free operation and out-sourcing of 100% of its manufacturing, some to prison factories in China. Now, you could say that Hillary couldn’t hear the screams of the kiddies in Kamp Wal-Mart in Honduras. After all, she relied on the intelligence provided her by the President (of Wal-Mart).

Fast forward to 1994 and the Brown ‘mother-f’ing tour guide’ business. According to Nolanda Hill, the Commerce Secretary’s long-time business partner and love interest, Brown, who died in 1996, endorsed a Hillary cash-for-access scheme ($10,000 for coffee with the President, $100,000 for a night in the Lincoln bedroom). However, Brown resented the discount rate the First Lady put on US executives joining Brown’s lucrative trade missions. ‘I’m worth more than $50,000 a pop!’ he said.

One company more than happy to pony up for a cash joy-ride with Brown was Entergy International. This electric company, based in Little Rock, became one of the world’s biggest power system operators on the planet under the Clinton regime. Interestingly, Bill Clinton began his political climb by running for Arkansas Attorney General campaigning on a pledge to fight Entergy’s electric price hikes. His pro-consumer plan was defeated in court by Entergy’s law firm - which included one Hillary Rodham.

There were more favors for Entergy. In 1998, I discovered, while working under cover for the Guardian and Observer, that Tony Blair was personally fixing the system to let Entergy to violate British policy on coal plants. Why? I picked up in my secret recordings of Blair’s cronies that calls to take care of Entergy, rules be damned, had come in from the office of ‘the Flotus’ - the First Lady of the United States.

It gets creepier. In June of 1994, Entergy’s partner in Asia, the Riady family of Indonesia paid recently-resigned Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell a $100,000 consulting fee. Odd that: Hubbell was on his way to prison for the felony crime of inflating his legal bills. Why would Asians pay a lawyer for advice on Asia who was on his way to the pokey?

Maybe it had to do with his partner in crime. I’ve conducted investigations of lawyer over-billing. It is nearly impossible for a senior lawyer to pad billing records unless the junior partner also fraudulently monkeys with time logs to make sure the records don’t give away the game. Who was Hubbell’s “little lady” junior partner? Today we call her Madame Senator.

Hillary’s logs were worth close inspection by authorities, no? But the funny thing about Hillary’s billing records: when requested for disclosure in another suit, they disappeared. First, her law firm’s computers went ka-blooey. Then the paper printouts vanished, but not before, during the 1992 Presidential campaign, they were secretly combed over, line by line, by … Web Hubbell.

Hubbell knew his own logs were phonied, and he understood the consequences of exposure. Ultimately, bloated hours on those records caused him to lose his law license, his Associate Attorney General post and his freedom. He got 21 months in the slammer.

[MAGI]

#3.

What did Hubbell see and know about Hillary’s logs? Hubbell won’t say, except for a cryptic remark, after seeing her bills, that ‘every lawyer’ fabricates records. Hubbell pleaded guilty, but refused to answer investigators’ questions, a requirement in any plea bargain - so the judge had to sentence him to prison.

Why would Hubbell choose to do time on the chain gang over testifying about the First Lady? His prosecutors did not know at the time of the $100,000 Riady payment, the first of over half a million dollars Hubbell would receive from Clinton friends in the weeks up to his entering jail.

And those Hillary billing records? Hubbell lost them - how convenient. Then they reappeared two years later, just outside Hillary’s office, right after Hubbell announced he would refuse to testify against her.

Maybe the Clintons knew nothing about the big money flowing to prison-bound Hubbell. Knowledge of the payments would suggest they were buying Hubbell’s silence. In 1996, when the LA Times uncovered the payments, Mrs. Clinton’s First Man Bill stone-cold denied he knew anything about it.

Then, in 2000, in a deposition by the Justice Department, the President changed his tune. Investigators confronted the President with this: on June 20, 1994, Hubbell met with Hillary. Two days later, James Riady, the Asian billionaire Entergy partner, met with Hubbell for breakfast. Just a few hours later, Riady returned to the White House, then met again with Hubbell, then made two more treks to the White House. Two days later, a videotape shows the beginning of another meeting in the Oval Office between Clinton and Riady — but oddly, before they talk, the tape goes blank. Two days after that, Hubbell gets his $100,000 through a Riady bank.

Lying to journalists is a venal sin, but lying to the Feds is perjury. In his deposition, the President’s denial transformed into amnesia. He couldn’t remember if Riady mentioned the payment. Then, the President slyly opened the door to the truth. “I wouldn’t be surprised if James told me,” Clinton said. Neither would I.

What did Riady get? The Flotus herself, says Nolanda Hill, forced Brown to accept the appointment of Riady’s bag man, John Huang, as a Commerce Department deputy. According to records of calls the Guardian obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, Huang’s first order of business was to wheedle his way into confidential CIA briefings on Indonesia and China, then call Riady and his Entergy partners.

The same day Riady met the President, documents show he called on a Clinton crony at the top of the department’s Export-Import Bank. “We just came over from the Oval Office,” is a nice way to provide assurance of the ‘political connection’ required for help. These and other Riady team meetings at Commerce are marked ’social’. Yet, shortly thereafter, the department agreed to promote and fund the Riady-Entergy China venture.

Influence is not a victimless crime. Riady and his minions’ visits to the White House (94 times!) included successful requests for the President to meet Indonesian dictator Suharto and to kill negative reports on East Timor and working conditions in Indonesia. Timorese and Indonesians paid for these policy flips with blood.

Has Entergy’s investment in Hillary’s jail-bird partner continued to pay dividends?

Code Pink and New York environmentalists have been pulling out their hair over Senator Clinton’s backing of the operation of the creaky old Indian Point nuclear plant just above - and within irradiating distance of - New York City. The owner of the Indian Point nuke? Hillary’s old buck buddies, Entergy.

Am I saying Hillary would arrange for a payoff to keep witnesses silent, to poison US foreign policy for the profit of corporate cronies, to vote in Washington loaded down with conflicts of interest? I would never say so. Even if the evidence will.

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans — Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. “A masterpiece” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.). “America’s top investigative reporter and the funniest” (Randi Rhodes). “Palast’s stories bite - so relevant they threaten to alter history” (Chicago Tribune). “Palast … is twisted and maniacal” (Katherine Harris). www.GregPalast.com"

************************************************** *********************

Does Corporate America love Billary?

[Thelonious]

In response to a question from a different thread....

Magi,
What Bill and Hillary have been doing for the last 20 years or more is a matter of public record and you know that record as well as I do. If you don't you can use google (www.google.com) to find out what you want to know.

I believe however, that what you really want to ask is something completely different. I think that this is what one calls a "loaded question"
Behind this question is the assumption that the American worker is suffering horribly and that one Trade Agreement with Mexico is the main cause, and that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for that (somehow the senate that ratified it gets forgotten) and therefore MUST FIX IT NOW.

That's a lot of material for one question (which I would really like to answer with, Bill is hanging around in Harlem, occasionally talks about Tsunami relief, but generrally makes speeches to pay his enormous legal bills, and Hillary is serving the People of New York State by representing them in the senate, but I won't answer that way)

The American Middle class is getting squeezed for a lot of reasons. Dubya's tax cuts to the rich and subsequent budget cuts hit the middle class hard, along with oil price rises, and overall trends in the global economy. There is no conclusive evidence that NAFTA has caused large scale unemployment in the US. In fact unemployment in the US is LOW. So in general I'm not convinced that there is any NAFTA mess for Bill and Hillary to fix. (The US economy and the Budget were in Great shape when Bill left office)

One former president and one senator of 6 years, hmmmmmm. What are Bush Senior and Senator Coleman doing to fix the NAFTA mess?!?!?! It is the same question and it is nonsense too. Carter is not responsible for the faults of the Reagan years, nor is Clinton responsible for the faults of the Dubya years.
You, however, dear Magi, are the victim of the Right-Wing Noise machine, which has convinced you that the Clintons are the root of all evil.

[Jane of Arc]

Thelonius,

Yeah, that's it. We've all been victimized by the right-wing Noise Machine into believing the Clintons are evil. NOT!


We don't like Hillary for lots of reasons. Let's just start with a biggie. She voted to give Bush the authority to GO INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR! Progressives KNEW it was wrong. We KNEW you couldn't trust Bush with that power. That's why people like Kucinich and others DIDN'T vote to give Bush the power.

She claims if she had it to do all over again, she wouldn't. HOGWASH. She's busy appeasing corporations that do NOT have America or the American people's best interest in mind, but rather their financial bottom line.

Why do you think Rupert Murdoch loves Hillary so much? He throws her parties!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml)


Bush - Clinton - Clinton - Bush - Bush - Clinton

Nothing wrong with that picture. Not when you live in a monachy.

[Wafflepudding]

Hillary is a whore, the political kind, that will swing to whatever tune they're playing in order to stay in office. I don't trust her one bit. That for me is reason enough not to vote for her.

[MAGI]

Thelonious,
I think there is no-one that the right-wingers would like better than having Hillary win the Democratic nomination.

If, by some miracle she does get the nomination, I believe a good proportion of Republicans will vote for her for president in hopes of continuing the Corporate controlled government we presently have.

It makes me sick to see Rupert Murdoch giving her fund raising parties, Matthews,
Russet and so many other fakers, salivating over pushing her to the forefront all these years. They would like it just fine if they could talk foolish people into nominating Hillary because it would be a win/win situation for them and the whores of K street.

.................................................. .................................................. .....................
Jane of Arc:

Re: 2008: Hillary Clinton



Thelonius,

Yeah, that's it. We've all been victimized by the right-wing Noise Machine into believing the Clintons are evil. NOT!


We don't like Hillary for lots of reasons. Let's just start with a biggie. She voted to give Bush the authority to GO INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR! Progressives KNEW it was wrong. We KNEW you couldn't trust Bush with that power. That's why people like Kucinich and others DIDN'T vote to give Bush the power.

She claims if she had it to do all over again, she wouldn't. HOGWASH. She's busy appeasing corporations that do NOT have America or the American people's best interest in mind, but rather their financial bottom line.

Why do you think Rupert Murdoch loves Hillary so much? He throws her parties!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml


Bush - Clinton - Clinton - Bush - Bush - Clinton

Nothing wrong with that picture. Not when you live in a monachy.
************************************************** ***********
Re: 2008: Hillary Clinton

Wafflepudding:

Hillary is a whore, the political kind, that will swing to whatever tune they're playing in order to stay in office. I don't trust her one bit. That for me is reason enough not to vote for her.
_______________________
The founding fathers loved gene splicing, why else would they state the right to bear arms!?

I believe they have it right.

Kindly look at the articles I present. If they are not truth, show me.

Bill and Hillary:, Billary, as Centrists, are as red a purple as there is. Right along with their good friend, Senator Joe Lie berman!

[Thelonious]

Well Good Luck to Y'all.
If by some miracle of massive political reorientation in the heartland, Reagan Democrats start to love Kucinich, I will pray daily that he can govern effectively.

I remember the Dukakis campaign. I remember what happened to it. (It got crushed in the third Republican landslide in a row. Not just election fraud in Florida, crushed across the board) I remember the principles, the idealism, it's all great, but historically it doesn't get you into the White House. And unless you get into the White House your influence is pretty petty. So if Hillary gets the nomination I will support her. Nobody knows what's in her head. Nobody knows what she'll really do once she's elected. When history becomes your judge, some people rise to the occasion....

[Jane of Arc]

Listen, Thelonious, you really don't get where we're coming from. Since the Reagan years, we don't see good things happening to America. We see the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. The gap between rich and poor has reverted to the Gilded Era of Robber Barons. We see the backs of unions broken. We see trade deals that don't benefit the American worker. We see quality jobs going overseas. We see a country without universal healthcare. We see America's military, being financed by our hard work and tax dollars, policing the world for the security of the industrial/ military complex. We've seen our telecommunications monopolized. We've seen our news and media deregulated and monopolized. We've seen our freedoms slowly stripped away. Our electoral process controlled. Habeas corpus removed. And our Constitution rendered nearly useless.

This pragmatic, savvy, worldly approach you talk about to counter the Republicans is pretty much the same as the Republicans. I completely agree with MAGI, Republicans love Hillary. Doesn't it bother you that Rupert Murdoch loves Hillary and backs her to the teeth? And if it doesn't bother you, why the hell not?

[MAGI]

Clinton Falls to Third Place in Iowa Sun May 20, 12:22 PM ET



The Nation -- Hillary Clinton's campaign is running into trouble -- potentially very serious trouble -- in Iowa.

The latest and best poll of likely Democratic caucus goers in the first state that will weigh in on the 2008 nomination race has Clinton falling to third place. And that's not the worst of it. As Clinton stumbles, a new contender with potential to eat into her base it rising rapidly.

The Des Moines Register survey has former North Carolina Senator John Edwards solidly in first. Edwards, who ran second in the 2004 Iowa caucuses and has worked hard to maintain his organization in the state, is at 29 percent. That's about where he has been for some time in Iowa, where caucus goers will do much to define the direction of the 2008 race as it hist full speed next January.

In second place is Illinois Senator Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) with 23 percent.

Clinton musters a mere 21 percent -- down significantly from her position in several previous polls -- to secure the No. 3 position.

But Clinton, the presumed frontrunner nationally, does not just have to worry about who is ahead of her in the first-caucus state. She's also got to watch who is coming from behind.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the former congressman, cabinet secretary and UN ambassador who only formally announced last week, is gaining 10 percent support among likely caucus goers. As in New Hampshire, where a new poll has Richardson breaking from a pack of weaker contenders to enter the second tier in the crowded 2008 contest, the governor is moving up rapidly in Iowa.

The next strongest candidate, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, was at 3 percent.

Richardson, who is campaigning in Iowa small towns this weekend, was making the most of his improving position.

"We have a lot of good candidates running for president," he told friendly crowds. "A lot of them could be in the White House - as my vice president."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

[MAGI]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400474.html?nav=rss_politics

Clintons Dissolve Blind Financial Trust
Millions in Stock Converted to Cash to Avoid Campaign Conflicts

By John Solomon

6/15/07

Bill and Hillary Clinton have dissolved the blind trust that has managed their investments since they entered the White House in 1993, converting all stocks to cash to avoid financial conflicts as she runs for president, according to documents to be filed today with federal ethics officials.

The documents reviewed by The Washington Post provide the most complete accounting of how the Clintons accrued the $5 million to $25 million in the trust -- nearly all since leaving the White House -- through investments in foreign companies, oil giants and drugmakers without their input or knowledge and without public disclosure.

The former president has also derived substantial income from speeches to companies and interest groups as his wife runs for the White House, earning nearly $6 million in the first five months of this year on top of the $40 million he earned over the previous five years, the documents show.

skip

The former president is also working on another book and last year formed a limited-liability corporation to manage his share of an investment partnership run by longtime friend and California supermarket magnate Ronald Burkle, the Office of Government Ethics filing shows.

The Clintons were told earlier this year by federal ethics officials that they would need to reorganize their blind trust to comply with laws for presidential candidates, which differ from those for senators.

The couple chose instead to dissolve the trust on April 27 and to convert all their stocks to cash to avoid any questions about possible conflicts of interests, the Clintons' legal and financial advisers said. Their portfolio will be limited to cash accounts and U.S. Treasury notes, the advisers said.

In doing so, the Clintons will incur a large capital gains tax bill for 2007 and will reduce their ability to earn new money because savings accounts and certificates of deposit traditionally offer lower rates of return than Wall Street, the advisers said. In all, the Clintons have total assets of $10 million to $50 million with no substantial debts.

"Senator Clinton and the president chose to go above and beyond to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interest. They recognize that this choice comes at a personal expense, both in terms of taxes and lower investment returns," said Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the senator's presidential campaign.

Presidential candidates frequently must answer questions about their investments -- especially those involving companies whose records might conflict with the candidates' positions or policies. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), for instance, promptly divested stocks this spring in companies that do business in the Darfur region of Sudan after those stocks attracted attention.

Likewise, former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) has fielded questions about his consulting work and $1 million-plus stake in a hedge fund whose overseas tax breaks and investments in subprime lenders raised questions of conflicts with Edwards's positions on those issues.

The Clintons' wealth is relatively new. They came from Arkansas to the White House in 1993 with modest means and left deeply in debt, with legal bills from various political scandals totaling more than $10 million. But they quickly erased the debt and amassed wealth through best-selling books about their lives and Bill Clinton's global speechmaking, which commands as much as $350,000 per appearance.

The listing of stocks that had been in the Clintons' blind trust provides a glimpse of the type of questions the former first couple might have faced if they decided to remain invested in the stock market -- even with a blind-trust adviser making investment choices without their knowledge or input.

For instance, the blind trust managed by Citigroup was heavily invested in overseas companies, including $30,000 to $100,000 in two Asian companies -- Hong Kong and China Gas, and Hutchison Whampoa. The latter was involved in a controversy last year because of it received a U.S. contract to scan some U.S.-bound ships for nuclear material. Some lawmakers worried that the work could allow China to gain access to sensitive U.S. technologies because Hutchison Whampoa executives have business connections to the Chinese government.

The Clintons' broad investment portfolio also included a stake of at least $1.6 million in blue-chip U.S. drugmakers such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories and Eli Lilly. Sen. Clinton has long been a proponent of overhauling health care and making drugs less expensive. The couple also had significant investments in large oil companies such as Anadarko Petroleum, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil and chemical makers Dow Chemical and DuPont at a time when questions at Democratic debates focused on gasoline prices, global warming and pollution.

While the assets of the blind trust are gone, Bill Clinton's stake in the Yucaipa Global Holdings fund run by Burkle is just beginning. "President Clinton anticipates continuing his business activities as long as they permit him to devote most of his time to his highest priorities -- the work of his foundation around the world and supporting his wife's candidacy," spokesman Jay Carson said.

The fund, which has paid the former president as an adviser, spent its first years attracting capital and then in 2006 made its first three investments -- all in overseas companies. The documents show that Bill Clinton holds a stake valued at $200,000 to $450,000 in the fund, which has invested in Garrard Worldwide Holdings, a famous British diamond company; Easy Bill Limited, an Indian data-processing company; and Brazilian Renewable Energy Co., an ethanol maker.

[MAGI]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10015

July 9th, 2007 3:53 pm
Sicko: Michael Moore and Freedom from Fear and Want
By Ron Briley / History News Network

It is this crisis which Michael Moore addresses in his most recent documentary, Sicko. In this film focusing upon the American health care system, Moore comes across as less partisan than in Fahrenheit 9/11. In embracing equal health care opportunities for all Americans the controversial filmmaker is championing a concept favored by most Americans and well within Franklin Roosevelt’s expanding vision of freedom. The basic right to adequate health care for all should be a less divisive issue than gun control or criticizing President Bush for his response to 9/11. If this is true then why does the United States not have some form of universal health care? While Moore casts aspersions upon Cold War anticommunism and the American Medical Association, he places most of the blame for the problems of the American health care system upon the health insurance industry’s drive to maximize profits.

After the Second World War, American European allies such as Great Britain introduced national health care programs, and President Harry Truman attempted to incorporate this idea into his Fair Deal. But cries of socialized medicine within the historical and cultural context of the emerging Cold War led Truman to back off his commitment to reform and assume the mantle of a Cold Warrior. Indeed, accusations of communism limited post war reform efforts for labor, women, and civil rights. Moore reminds us of Ronald Reagan’s role as a spokesman for corporate America in the early 1960s, warning suburbanites that expanding government economic programs, such as health care, were paving the way for socialism in America. Such concerns limited Lyndon Johnson’s efforts to expand government health care with Medicare and Medicaid, as well as encouraging Johnson to prove his anticommunism in the jungles of Vietnam.

With the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union, we are at last free from the bogeyman of communism; however, we still have no system of national health care. The chief culprit this time appears to be the health insurance industry and their system of managed care. The insurance companies were instrumental in discrediting First Lady Hillary Clinton’s plan with their infamous “Harry and Louise” ads. As a Senator and Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, however, receives generous contributions from the insurance companies and advocates complex health reform plans which would retain an important role for the insurance corporations. The other leading Democratic candidates offer similar solutions as many Americans now hold stock in these insurers who seek to maximize dividends for shareholders. Thus, some Americans benefit at the expense of others.

This is not the type of world envisioned by Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms.” Moore explores health care in Canada, Britain, France, and Cuba to demonstrate that a system of national health care is possible and even desirous. Although Moore is sometimes a little over the top in his praise for these systems, he uses humorous interviews to refute accusations of long lines and poor service with national health care. He converses with an affluent French couple and a British doctor to disprove the idea that national health care costs too much and does not adequately compensate physicians. Moore, however, does tend to avoid more detailed discussion of taxes and the cost of national health care. His idea of taking Americans denied adequate health care to Guantanamo because the military has made such a strong case for how well the detainees are treated is an amusing inversion of Bush administration rhetoric. However, the contentment with the political system in Cuba is a bit too much like the Socialist realism of which Moore pokes fun earlier in his film. Nevertheless, one does not have to endorse the monopoly of Fidel Castro on political power to acknowledge that the Cuban Revolution introduced benefits in education and medical care.

In the final analysis, Moore makes his case for national health care based upon the rhetoric employed by Franklin Roosevelt with his “Four Freedoms.” Equal access to health care is a basic human right and denial of this fundamental freedom creates the fear that some of Moore’s case studies in Sicko well document. Moore argues we accept that the government should provide police and fire protection and public education funded through taxation. Of course, it was not easy for Horace Mann to convince those who had no children in the schools that all would benefit from a more educated citizenry. A similar case may be made for how a healthier population will positively impact the overall economic picture. It is an investment in the future which might allow us to finally lay claim to the vision articulated by Franklin Roosevelt in 1941.

Mr. Briley is Assistant Headmaster, Sandia Preparatory School.

[MAGI]

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/03/nice-timing-hillary/#comments

Friday, August 3rd, 2007 at 5:15 am
Howard Dean: Tough Act to Follow
By: Scarecrow
The opening night speeches at Yearly Kos had just concluded. We’d heard a fine speech recorded earlier by Senator Durbin, welcoming us to Chicago and praising the work proressive bloggers have been doing to turn this country around. Then Howard Dean gave the keynote speech and brought the house down.

Dean let us know that he gets it, that he understands how important this amazing community is and how much it’s changing the way democracy functions in America. He knows how this movement is transforming the Democratic Party and bringing America back from the abyss Bush created and towards which he is still driving us. Dean won the crowd early on, and as they listened many had tears in their eyes, lamenting again what the media did to a man who so clearly saw in 2003-04 where the country was going and tried to warn us. But he was not one of the beltway’s privileged and they got him. But the man was not done.

Dean pulled it all together — the trampling of the Constitution, the disgracing of the Justice Department, the neglect of government’s legitimate and necessary functions, the need for checks and balances, the need to restore our civil liberties and to stop commuting the sentences of people who lie and obtruct justice and betray patriots, the need to end the occupation of Iraq — yes, it was all there in the same terms we use to describe what we see and how we feel about what has happened to our country. But then he let us know, as few other politicians can, that he undertands what we, the blogging community, are about.

He told us about a new DNC project to help local officials defend everyone’s right to vote and how all the voting trends of young people are trending our way and how important it was to reach out to America’s youth, because the political choices they make now can last a lifetime, and they are choosing Democrats and accepting the just vision of American that we worked for 30 and 40 years ago. But he was not just asking for our help or our money, but instead acknowledging that democracy in American is now a two way conversation. Not just politicians speaking to voters and asking for their votes, but citizens using the internet to talk to politicians, directly, personally, with an immediacy and impact that is changing the whole democratic process. We are citizens talking to their officials and candidates and expecting them to engage us in that conversation, and not just at election time, but every day in a continuing dialogue that is breathing new life and new ideas and new energy into our battered republic. Yeah, the man gets it.

And after he’d finished, and brought the house down, and many were thinking “what if . . . ” there were a few announcements, read by a YKos volunteer just before we left.

Announcement: Senator Clinton announced that she will speak to you at the candidates’ forum on Saturday but will not stay for the one-on-one interchange with attendees in the breakout sessions that follow; however, she will send one of her media aides to answer questions.

An immediate chorus of boos greeted the announcement, and as the message sunk in, you could feel the room shift, and it wasn’t towards the woman who wants to be our President.

Yesterday, Chris Dodd went on Bill O’Reilly’s show to face him down, to expose his lies and demagoguery and to send a message to the 1500 people gathered here that he knows how important the progressive blogosphere is. Whether she meant to or not, Hillary Clinton also sent a message that she doesn’t know who we are, what we’re about or what we might mean to the next administration. Dean gets it, Chris Dodd gets it. Does Hillary? You have to wonder.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
hit the url above for comments on this article...............

a link from one of the comments:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/richard-holbrooke-a-hillary-clinton-democrat/

Not news to me, but, :eek: , anyway..............

[JamesP]

Listen, Thelonious, you really don't get where we're coming from. Since the Reagan years, we don't see good things happening to America. We see the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. The gap between rich and poor has reverted to the Gilded Era of Robber Barons. We see the backs of unions broken. We see trade deals that don't benefit the American worker. We see quality jobs going overseas. We see a country without universal healthcare. We see America's military, being financed by our hard work and tax dollars, policing the world for the security of the industrial/ military complex. We've seen our telecommunications monopolized. We've seen our news and media deregulated and monopolized. We've seen our freedoms slowly stripped away. Our electoral process controlled. Habeas corpus removed. And our Constitution rendered nearly useless.

This pragmatic, savvy, worldly approach you talk about to counter the Republicans is pretty much the same as the Republicans. I completely agree with MAGI, Republicans love Hillary. Doesn't it bother you that Rupert Murdoch loves Hillary and backs her to the teeth? And if it doesn't bother you, why the hell not?

Jane: As usual, just about everything you've written here is "dead-on". You're amazing.

But.... it's also true that Bush came close enough to steal the 1st election only because he mis-represented about who he was... presenting himself as somewhat centrist (a uniter, not a divider... someone who would not impose American ways on other nations, etc, etc).

Americans are largely unsophisticated, greedy, scared and un-informed. Dems will have to play to the "senseless center" to win. While I shudder at the thought of Hillary, I see some validity in the position of Thelonius.

[MAGI]

Corporate America and the GOP Media love Hillary as do Rove and the rest of the GOPs:

"Karl Rove Is Right By Anthony Wade (1 comments) I know enough to pay attention when Karl Rove is manuevering. His attacks on Hillary are designed to help her,because he knows she is unelectable."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__070820_karl_rove_is_right.htm
************************************************** ****************************

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=40563

August 20, 2007 Permalink

Clinton may be a target of Rove's reverse psychology Submitted by Rob Kall


"Could Rove be attacking Hillary to get her MORE support, because she's the one the Republicans really want to run against? Maybe Rove thinks by attacking Hillary, it will get dems to flock to her defense, costing stronger candidates, with lower negatives, like Obama and Edwards. "

************************************************** *****************************

"Republicans' Preferred Opponent? Could Be Clinton "Day after day last week, outgoing White House political strategist Karl Rove delivered slashing attacks on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton," writes Peter Wallsten in The Los Angeles Times. Why? He may be "trying to stampede Democrats into nominating her, having concluded that Obama, Edwards or someone else would pose a stiffer challenge to the Republican nominee."

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=40548
************************************************** ***********************
Hillary:
The GOPs candidate. If she wins the primary, the GOPs win, either way.........................


:eek:

[RayMartell]

Everybody knows Republicans can't do standup.

[CHUQ]

This is a blog entry on the "experience" tag that Clinton is using.


Hillary Clinton has made the campaign’s focal point as her “experience.”

But she doesn’t seem to see facts as important.

Yesterday I noted Mike Huckabee’s excuse for not being aware of the Iran NIE report.

Hillary Clinton is under the impression that President Musharraf is running unopposed for reelection in Pakistan. In fact, Musharraf was reelected on October 6. The upcoming elections are for parliamentary seats.

“If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow,” she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (.pdf) Dec. 28. Two days later, she told ABC’s George Stephanopolous “[Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don’t think that’s a real election.”


LINK (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/01/02/hillary-experienced-not-even-informed/)

[Magi2]

Arianna Huffington
John McCain Should Go on Vacation, Hillary Clinton is Doing His Job for Him
Posted April 14, 2008 | 01:41 PM (EST)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Clinton supporters say the darndest things.

Here's Sen. Evan Bayh, commenting on the political firestorm surrounding Barack Obama's remarks -- broken here on HuffPost's OffTheBus -- about economically-depressed small town voters: "The far right wing has a very good track record of using things like this relentlessly against our candidates, whether it's Al Gore or John Kerry. I'm afraid this is the kind of fodder they might use to harm him."

They? They? It's not the far right wing relentlessly using these comments for political gain, Senator. It's your candidate, Hillary Clinton, adopting the frames, lies, stereotypes and destructive clichés long embraced by the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. She has clearly decided that the road to victory runs through scorched earth.

The question is, if she succeeds, what kind of Party will she be left to lead? She's burning down the village to save it -- or to prove that she would make the best fire chief. But the village won't be saved; only one house will be left standing. A house with room for just two occupants. Hill and Bill.

Clinton's cynical distortion of Obama's remarks is in keeping with her campaign's modus operandi. On the foreign policy front, we've been fed a steady diet of her RNC-patented attacks: No Democrat can be trusted with national security -- except her. Obama hasn't crossed the threshold to be commander-in-chief. Etc.

Now she's turned to the domestic policy section of the RNC playbook, twisting Obama's words in a way that confirms every right-wing demagogic caricature of her own Party.

Yes, as Obama himself admits, he certainly could have chosen his words more artfully. Perhaps he should have borrowed Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign riff about "economically insecure white people who are scared to death." Maybe "scared to death" is less "elitist" than "bitter." But telling the truth, however inartfully, makes you "out of touch"? Give. Me. A. Break.

It has been an article of faith in the Democratic Party over the last twenty years that when small town, working class whites vote for Republicans they're voting against their economic self-interest. And why do they do that? Because every four years the Republican Party comes into those small towns and, to distract folks from the worsening economic situation, trots out a bunch of divisive, hot button social issues: "Let's not talk about why you don't have a job, can't afford health care, or can't send your kids to college; let's talk about gay marriage, school prayer, illegal immigration, and flag burning amendments." And Hillary is following the blueprint.

John McCain may as well take the next six months off, raise some money, maybe take a vacation -- because Hillary Clinton is out there doing his work for him.

This weekend she tried to paint herself as a good old boy, the kind of gal you'd want to have a beer with -- not like that "elitist" Barack Obama: "You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught be how to shoot when I was a little girl." After she said this, she took a shot of whiskey. What's next, ads of Obama windsurfing? At 3 a.m.

But before Hillary Oakley runs out and bags her a few more ducks, Andrew Sullivan points out that of the top ten gun-owning states in the country, Obama has won six -- Hillary has won one. Cling to that.

But, of course, this isn't about guns or religion or fear of foreigners. It's about, as David Axelrod says, the (pardon the expression) bitterness and mistrust that stem from voters being "tired of politicians who come around at election time and express their solicitude as part of a tactic and don't follow through on it."

Jumping on the GOP talking points bandwagon, Clinton's new Mark Penn, Geoff Garin said: "These are the kinds of attitudes that have created a gulf between Democrats and lots of small-town and heartland voters that we've been working very, very hard to bridge." Karl Rove, who has devoted his life to making people believe that such a gulf exists, couldn't have scripted it better himself.

If Clinton's Rovian stoop-to-anything tactics succeed -- not at beating Obama but at making him an easier target for McCain -- the price will be paid by the very small-town Americans she is now pandering to. Americans already banished to economic oblivion by the same cynical tactics she's employing will be rewarded with four more years of downward economic mobility."

[Magi2]

Hillary would like "We The People" (who are working from the ground up to restore our government to "We The People" rather than the Corporate control we now have), to stay the hell home!

Methinks the working man has had his fill of OUR corporate controlled government and will take back OUR country.
The majority IS US!

http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/18/hillary-clinton-attacks-moveon/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html

"At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post."

Unlike earlier statements:

"Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates, who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.


The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.

"You've been asking the tough questions," Clinton said in April of last year at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event. "You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power.""

Skip

"Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio, and elaborated on Clinton's charge that these same party activists were engaged in acts of intimidation against her supporters: "There have been well documented instances of intimidation in the Nevada and the Texas caucuses, and it is a fact that while we have won 4 of the 5 largest primaries, where participation is greatest, Senator Obama has done better in caucuses than we have." About Clinton's remarks suggesting dismay over high Democratic activist turnout, Wolfson said, "I'll let my statement
stand as is."

In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place.

The disclosure of Clinton's statement disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies."

This story was developed in cooperation with OffTheBus to which reporter Celeste Fremon is a regular contributor.

Long live the saying:
God helps him who helps himself
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22God+helps+him+who+helps+himself%22&btnG=Google+Search

[-V-]

this is just too much...

The Hillary ad on the eve of the primary attacking Obama for taking 200 g's from oil execs, while she has taken 300 g's from the same, is way over the top. If she ran that ad on a republican I'd still despise her for it.

No wonder the newspaper mogul who spent millions to investigate the Clintons for murder, among other things, announced his endorsement of her after she sucked up to him. Why wouldn't he play along -- she's a sure loser.

Message to Hillary: BACK OFF and STEP OFF (fill in here)!

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Billery and O'bama recently visited the Bilderburg group at an official Bilderberg meeting held in the US state of Virginia.

Vote Green Party

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2560

Hillary & Obama In Secret Bilderberg Rendezvous

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 6, 2008

According to news reports, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went out of their way to hold their long-awaited private meeting in a very specific location - not at Hillary’s mansion in Washington - but in Northern Virginia, which also just happens to be the scene of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting.




Both Hillary and Obama have deep rooted connections to the Bilderberg elitists.

Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs told the media that Obama and Clinton held a private meeting last night but he refused to disclose where it taken place, except that it was not at Clinton’s home in Washington, as had been widely reported. Hillary campaign managers also refused to disclose the location of the rendezvous.

"Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane," reports the Associated Press.

Dulles just happens to be walking distance from the Westfields Marriott hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and the rest of the Bilderberg globalists are convening.

"Asked at the time about the Illinois senator’s whereabouts, Gibbs smiled and declined to comment," the reports adds.

What is the only political "event" taking place in Northern Virginia at the moment? The Bilderberg Group meeting of course. Rather than taking the easier option of meeting at Clinton’s Washington mansion, Obama and Hillary went out of their way to grace the Bilderberg elitists with their presence.

The neo-liberal website Wonkette, which had previously ridiculed "conspiracy theorists" for ascribing power to Bilderberg, seemed to take a somewhat different tone when it made the connection between Obama and Hillary’s meeting and the Bilderberg Group.

"Guess who had a very private talky-talk in (maybe) romantic Northern Virginia tonight, probably at the Bilderberg Group meeting in Chantilly? Your Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton!," states the blog. "They really met and talked, in private, Thursday night. And really, it sounds like they did this at that creepy Bilderberg Group meeting, which is happening now, and which is so secret that nobody will admit they’re going, even though everybody who is anybody goes to Bilderberg."

To have the potential future President and Vice-President of America attend a conference that debunkers have dismissed as a mere talking shop for old white men once again underscores the real influence that Bilderberg enjoys.




Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has made the connection between the location of the Bilderberg Group conference this year and Obama and Hillary’s decision to venture out to Chantilly for their confidential "tet a tet".

Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has yet uttered one word about 125 of the world’s most influential power brokers meeting behind closed doors to discuss the future of the planet on U.S. soil - while being met by the probable future President of the United States.

Both Hillary and Obama have deep rooted connections to the Bilderberg elitists.

Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before becoming President and he attended again in 1999 when the conference was held in Sintra, Portugal (despite Clinton’s lie that he had not attended in 15 years).

Hillary herself was rumored to have attended the 2006 meeting in Ottawa, Canada.

As we reported last month, Bilderberg luminary and top corporate elitist James A. Johnson will select Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America’s future President.

Johnson also selected John Kerry’s running mate John Edwards in 2004 after Edwards had impressed Bilderberg elitists Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller with a speech he gave at the globalist confab in Italy that year.

Johnson, who attended last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Turkey, is a representative for Friends of Bilderberg, an offshoot group that organizes Bilderberg’s annual meeting.

Hillary and Obama’s attendance of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting, and the complete failure of the mainstream media to report on the fact, once again betrays the super-secretive nature and influential reputation that the 54-year-old organization still maintains.