...A Loyal Clinton Soldier Turns in His Badge

[babylonsister]

The Monster: A Loyal Clinton Soldier Turns in His Badge
Seth Grahame-Smith

Posted March 9, 2008 | 03:37 PM (EST)


She has no idea.

She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals -- whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" -- who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.

And then she ran for president.

After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let's face it -- Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen -- isn't it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her -- that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America's Billboard chart anymore.

So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative -- personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama's message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we're to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.

She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad -- which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol' Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband's patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.

Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we're at it, where the hell are those tax returns?

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/the-monster-a-loyal-clin_b_90632.html

[amborin]

1. your post spews lies and smears

[babylonsister]

2. I didn't write it, but what lies and smears? We can discuss, or we

can throw barbs without content.

[hueyshort]

18. yawn - can't Obamaites come up with anything else?

this stuff is totally transparent.

[berni_mccoy]

24. No, Because Wild-eyed Clinton Supporters Can't Read or Listen.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

191. Hey, they can read.

they get their meme every morning, bright and early. Now, as for independent analysis of the situation, well . . .

[Danger Mouse]

25. is that the best YOU can come up with?

what a silly question. of course it is.

[Hatalles]

99. These are Clinton supporters who have changed allegiances.

[Ken Burch]

129. This wasn't an Obamite. This was a Clintonite who switched sides.

Do you honestly believe that nobody who backs your candidate could actually decide on their own to stop doing so?

That's just weird.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

136. this is how it happened from the inside

[BearSquirrel2]

154. I kinda thought DU was tearing itself apart ...

I had been thinking that DU was tearing itself apart. Now I'm noticing a trend and that is low post count people mimicking Hillary Clinton talking points using Goebbell "big lie" type tactics.

You are SO on the Clinton payroll.

[UALRBSofL]

109. For the record just the fact this person stated Hillary was the Canadian contact

in itself was a lie. This tells me all I need to know. I have to question this person's credibility. As such, knowing the MSM has already debunked any contact with Hillary and a canadian official tells me this person's OP-ED is all a lie.

[papau]

115. It's odd that normally well informed DUers would post a known lie just to advance Obama

[SunsetDreams]

140. Where did he accuse Hillary herself?

"She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians."

Do you have a link that debunks the story of her campaign contacting them?

[GoldieAZ49]

137. The ad has already been put together

didn't take much

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsYWiywdCA&feature=related

[stillcool]

232. that's a good one!

thanks..

[UALRBSofL]

155. Actually Seth Grahame-Smith

Is the person who wrote the porno book you can purchase on eBay. Speaks volumes to the character of Smith

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

185. How does that speak volumes on the character of Smith?

He's also written a book about horror movies, and a book about Spiderman.

What do those mean?

[ExPatLeftist]

193. Why is it...

...that so many people here resort to the cynical REPUBLICAN political tactic of attempting character assassination as a first resort, rather than discussing the issue at hand?

Truly sad.

[pnwmom]

160. For example, it's a smear to quote the Drudge report

accusing Hillary's campaign of circulating the photos of Obama in tribal dress. Her campaign has denied it strongly, and the ploy has every earmark of a classic Rove strategy -- smear one of the Dem candidates, and get the other Dem candidate accused of the smear.

And we Democrats fall for it every time.

And for another example, it's a smear to say that Hillary or her campaign met with the Canadian government about NAFTA. That report has been thoroughly discredited by the Canadian government. Why repeat that lie here?

Whoever wrote this has an agenda -- and it is to promote Obama. Which is fine, but s/he shouldn't do it with lies and smears.

[Christa]

174. Thank you for posting it

It is precisely how I feel.

Hillary is her own worst enemy.

[DesertFlower]

4. excuse me. babylonsister didn't write the article.

don't shoot the messenger.

[rodeodance]

143. we know--it was by a 'disgruntled past employee" Enough said.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

157. Clinton campaign finance committee member switches to Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4998952#4999080

[otohara]

196. self delete

turns out this guy didn't work for Clinton - just a rabid supporter turned against her due to negative campaigning.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Well, well, well. Is this what Hillary's brownshirts are reduced to?

Attack a poster for posting an article without comment?

When is the Monster going to release all of her tax records going back to 2000?

[Genevieve]

26. That's nothing -

I was accused of:

being a troll
a sockpuppet
arrogant
stupid
also had no right to post because of my low post count
condascending
(and more crap that I can't even remember)
oh, yes and the poster
told me to Kiss her ass.

All by just one poster in just one post , because she didn't like my OP:
I asked if Hillary supporters will vote for Obama
when he becomes the nominee.

[babylonsister]

39. Very important advice here: put whoever that was on 'ignore'.

Problem solved! It really is a godsend, that function.

[Genevieve]

:hug:

[satireV]

210. Actually

It should be you put on ignore because you posted a link to a story you knew contained lies. And your intent was to support the content of the article not to make it an example of how Obama supporters are using right wing tactics and how Obama supporters are falling for them.

I don't care if you have a Brazillian posts either. You are helping the GOP by posting this crap.

So you should be the one on ignore.

[CitizenLeft]

102. absolutely.

"Ignore" is your friend.

[wileedog]

15. Your post does, uh, nothing

[XemaSab]

17. Your "opinions" are stickily lies!

:P

[racaulk]

177. !!!

That's exactly what I thought too when I read that post! :rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

23. Name one.

n/t.

[stop the bleeding]

43. WTF! Clearly having your head so far up HRC's ass has robbed you of Oxygen

thereby destroying essential cells that control common sense.

I say again:wtf:

Please show me some lies in the aticle and do it with links.

[babylonsister]

46. ...

keyboard...wet...:spray:

[OhioChick]

56. .....

:rofl:

[Cha]

66. DUzy of a post, I say ol chap!

Now I know what stops 'em short of the thinking process.

[Tarheel_Dem]

84. LMBAO....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Emit]

bwhahahahah...heh..he

:spray:

[natrat]

95. hillary is a fucking paid off crook....yawn

[CitizenLeft]

104. oh dear

:rofl:

[helderheid]

187. !!!!

:spray: :rofl:

[L0oniX]

201. LMAO

[KAZ]

79. Your candidate "spews lies and smears". Go Cheney yourself.

[AlinPA]

116. babylonsister didn't write the article.

[satireV]

211. By reposting the lies without saying they are example of lies

She implies supporting the content of the post.

Thsu why babylonsister should be put on ignore by all liberals and Democrats.

[Carolina]

122. truth hurts doesn't it

no a word Seth Smith wrote is wrong, false or triangulated!

[Big Blue Marble]

141. You had better read the three long pages

of comments that follow this blog. Very few defend your girl. Most are Democrats who
are done with the Clintons. This should be, of course it won't to all of you who are blind,
but should be a wake up call. Hillary is destroying this party to win.

[Slagathor]

164. I can see the lips move but I can't hear anything

care to actually try to refute anything?

[George II]

181. Name them, please!

[texshelters]

228. Give us some examples please!!

Tex Shelters says he's tired of accusations without examples.

I could write anything I want, like Clinton had an affair with Karl Rove.

Do you believe it? Why? Because there are no facts. Accusations without facts are weak. I expect better from Democrats.

Tex Shelters

[IndianaGreen]

3. K&R

A very sad epiphany!

[Yossariant]

10. Epiphany?! I think you want to edit. It's Obamatoons who have epiphanies.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greguganus]

49. She will never release her tax records since she's not gonna win the nomination...

...and Obama's not gonna fall for her and Bill's "unity" crap.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ekwhite]

61. Quit with the Hitlary thing

It is not something Senator Obama would say.

[emilyg]

73. Sen. Clinton to you.

[Divernan]

89. A pig shall be seen flying through the skies - then shall Hilary reveal her tax records.

[Ichingcarpenter]

106. Hillary can Fly?

Wow, learn something ever day.

[OhioChick]

5. K&R

:kick:

[City Lights]

6. k&r

[DesertFlower]

8. K&R

:kick:

[Genevieve]

9. k and r! /nt

[dorktv]

11. Loyalty indicates someone, you know, being LOYAL.

This is a guy who was loyal until he found something better.

Not a bad thing but why call him a loyal person when he is not?

[babylonsister]

20. Perhaps because he doesn't think his loyalty was reciprocated? nt

[dorktv]

35. Could be...but still, not sure if the term Loyal is a good one to use in the title.

[countmyvote4real]

159. He used to be Loyal to the Clintons.

I suppose he could have added former, but that's already understood by the rest of the headline.

He professes to turn in his badge (of loyalty.)

[wileedog]

22. Read the article

He didn't turn TO Obama.

He turned AWAY from Hillary. Because she has done noting to foster loyalty lately.

[dorktv]

32. Depends on the view you have of her. I have not seen her do much

more than act like a politician during a hotly contested race. If that is a reason to drop someone, than why support someone in the first place?

Politicians are a strange breed and they will say pretty much anything to get elected. Which is why I never actually listen to them on the stump but I see what they did before they ran to see how they may be in the future.

[John Q. Citizen]

74. Here, read this for some perspective on the history of Hillary's efforts to pass the

managed competition model of health care. Navarro was a member of of Hillary Clinton Health Care Task Force.

http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro11122007.html

[dorktv]

83. I know about her efforts to get things passed, from what I have heard about her

Senate career has shown she learned from her mistakes.

Not that she has learned that SIMPLE IS BEST for health care.

[RaleighNCDUer]

217. If you read the article, it would be clear to you that she has learned nothing.

Her entire health plan is dependent upon keeping the people who created this mess in the driver's seat.

[cseper]

222. Having just read through his health care proposals on Obama's website,

I was struck by the number of times he said he would "improve efficiency", "reduce waste", etc... he gives some specific policy changes but he also throws in a lot of wishful thinking.

I bet that, I could be a great President if only everything was more efficient and less wasteful and worked better. Achieving those things is the hard part...

[cseper]

224. Having just read through his health care proposals on Obama's website,

I was struck by the number of times he said he would "improve efficiency", "reduce waste", etc... he gives some specific policy changes but he also throws in a lot of wishful thinking.

I bet that, I could be a great President if only everything was more efficient and less wasteful and worked better. Achieving those things is the hard part...

[Cha]

70. hilary betrayed his loyalty

because he was obviously someone who had principles.

And it's kinda surprising that someone in your position can't see that.

[dorktv]

90. I never said it was a bad thing for him to no longer support her.

I just said that using the term "loyal" is a misnomer when he is not really being loyal by leaving.

[Cha]

105. He's being smart and good to himself by leaving..and

"loyalty" at all costs is detrimental to your health.

[dorktv]

114. Well you are entitled to your opinion just as I am on the view that someone

is no longer loyal when they leave the person they were once loyal to.

[Cha]

117. A former Apologist too...that's gotta

feel good.

[dorktv]

130. You hate the senator from New York that much?

I mean I know she is not a perfect person (after all she IS a politician) but the hatred people have for her makes little sense.

[Cha]

139. Please don't offend me with your

red herrings..I know you should know better.

[bvar22]

120. My Loyalty is to values, ideals, and causes....NEVER to a person.

I had high hopes for Hillary when she became the junior Senator from New York. I supported her because I expected her to be a Standard Bearer for The People.

When I saw that her allegiance was to the Corporate World, the Politics of Triangulation, and the amassing of personal power and wealth, it was easy to move from a position of supporting her since my loyalties never changed.
I was disappointed, but my Loyalty to Populist values never wavered.
In fact, it was my Loyalty that made the move imperative.


Pledging loyalty to a person is a set up.
Loyalty to a person can blind someone, and make facing reality very difficult.

[dorktv]

131. I am loyal to my family. As well to my principles and sometimes the

two do cross.

That is what can make life hard. This person may have been loyal to Senator Clinton, but he is no longer loyal to her. So saying "loyal supporter" is wrong. Formerly loyal supporter makes more sense.

[Laurab]

149. Loyalty is usually EARNED and shouldn't be blind.

He was perhaps loyal until he discovered some things he didn't know, some things he didn't like. It doesn't mean he found something "better" necessarily, just that his loyalty was misplaced.

[lligrd]

13. Exactly What So Many Of Us Here Have Been Saying nt

[tokenlib]

14. How many of us Obama supporters were apologists for the Clintons over the years.....

...probably quite a few of us. I remember lots of arguments. This article sounds about right.
Hell, I still have my copy of "Putting People First."

Now I feel like I've learned more than I ever wanted to about what the Clinton's are capable of.

[Diane R]

28. Me.

[OhioBlue]

47. me. n/t

[City Lights]

51. Me.

And as I've said before, I'm done defending them. Never again.

[karynnj]

62. Almost all of us - and I hat my kids reminding me of defending the indefensible

I have a copy of "Putting People First" as well - plus a flier from 1992! I have both their autobiographies, though I admit both were gifts from people who thought I still shared their admiration - I'm not sure they would approve of how I have used them!

[Medusa]

107. Was reorganizing my bookshelves today

and found their autobiographies. I can't even tell you how sad it made me to feel to see what they've turned into after years spent defending them.

[Auntie Bush]

126. Don't count me in that "almost" everyone. I'm a loyal Democratic.

I have always loved both Clintons...no matter what. I was always and still am strong enough to not fall for all the Rovian smear tactics. How the hell many men have lied to their wives about having an affair? A good many! Not saying it's right...I'm saying it's understandable and sometimes forgivable. I always said I'd never forgive my husband but I'm not Hillary...and in her position. Did you ever stop to think she might still love him?...Nooooo. Did you ever stop to think he loves her? Noooooo! Did you ever stop to think they thought it was more important to hold their family together for Chelsey's sake? Nooooooo. Did you ever stop to think maybe they thought they were doing a good job of the economy and were worried about bin Laden...and thought that was more important than lying? Noooooo. He lied to protect himself and from world wide shame, from hurting his wife and daughter, for the sake of the Democratic party and all we stood for...for trying not to hurt Gores chances of winning by exposing his sins to the world and the Republicans like Gingrich. Do you remember him? He lied to protect himself! Who of you could have gotten up in front of the world and admitted your sins? For God sakes...can't you understand his thoughts and reasoning? I can!

But I always thought of myself as an understanding and forgiving person...one who tries to understand both sides. I feel sorry for those who can't. They must have a miserable existence wallowing in hated of all those they can't forgive. Where are all those forgiving Christians? Sometimes I don't think there are any.

[Hutzpa]

153. Surely you can't be serious

you expect us (Democrats) to forgive Hillary for all the attacks she has heaped on the party?
forgive her for supporting John McCain, turn a blind eye to her refusing to give up her tax
returns, all because of Chelsey's sake (your spelling)......I'm confused, perplexed,

I'm thinking you're being sarcastic, or maybe its my poor sense of humor.....:shrug:

Bill cheating on her is their personal business, but that does not warrant any of this
delusional and insane behavior from her, she is making up for what she has lacking.

[earthlover]

168. For Chelsea's sake? Monica was younger than Chelsea. Bill shoulda stayed away...for Chelseas Sake

[Auntie Bush]

206. You're wrong about that. Check the facts before you post!

[karynnj]

192. Almost all of us were apologists - that was what I refered to - YOU still are

Incidentally, I did not mention Monica. But, there what hurt his family was his ACTIONS, not that they were exposed. Monica was not a one unfortunate transgression in an otherwise exemplary life. It bothered me far more than a romantic affair where he found a person he loved mind, body and soul would have - though that could have damaged his marriage more. That he couldn't remember her name made the relationship more tawdry. There are other things I have at least as much problem with - like the problems in the 1996 campaign financing. I have no interest in the Clintons' marriage and neither know or care if they love each other - but the problem is that he lied under oath. Had he just told the truth - there could have been no impeachment.

[stop the bleeding]

65. This would be a good question to put out before GDP

:beer:

[Kurovski]

72. Me.

In print, even.

Oy, gevalt!

[Cha]

75. I went to meet her in 2001,

shook her hand, and took her pic. When she turned her back on us in Oct 2002 I took the pic out of the frame and quit apologizing for the clintons.

[Stephanie]

78. Me! It was impeachment that got me politically active, I was so outraged by it.

I started posting on political boards then (Salon) and I volunteered on Schumer's campaign because I was so furious with D'Amato, I wanted him OUT. I even campaigned for Hillary on the streets of NY in 2000.

I remember writing an email of support to the WH after impeachment. I was totally and completely on their side. Some of my more leftwing friends didn't like Clinton especially after the welfare bill, but I didn't think it was that big a deal then. Now I while I still have a bit of a soft spot for Bill I am disgusted by her dishonesty and self-centeredness. I wouldn't vote for her for city council. I really hope she loses her Senate seat. If someone really impressive stepped forward, someone like say Robert Kennedy Jr., I think she just might lose it.

[Stephanie]

80. I think you should start a new thread with this question.

I think you'd turn up some really interesting stories.

[Tatiana]

97. ***raises hand*** (Didn't speak to my sister for months during impeachment.) n/t

[rucky]

103. Me...and I still may be one

if she wins. ugh.

[CitizenLeft]

108. ME.

Right here on this board right up until 2 weeks ago.

[frog92969]

125. Me

"Bill risked prison time lying to protect Hil's feelings over Monica"

[Zambero]

148. Present

I was back then but find it somewhat difficult to admit now. True colors now coming to light makes a difference.

[misanthrope]

166. I was a long time ago...

...I was disappointed when Clinton won the '92 nomination as I found him a bit too conservative for my tastes. I also realized that a great deal of politicians above a certain level of success are not to be trusted. They struck me as calculating and overly ambitious but still better than George H. W. "What Tienanmen Square?" Bush.

I became defensive of the initial criticism of them from the right, especially in regard to Hillary as I felt she was being pilloried with little reason. It hit a reactionary component in me, but I still reserved my complete faith.

By '96, what little faith in them I had slipped. They seemed to be little more than "typical politicians" and that's no compliment in my book.

I didn't like the Ken Starr crap, nor the impeachment horse and pony show but I was just as mad at Bill for being stupid enough to expose himself like that.

By the time 2000 arrived, it broke my heart none to see their time in the White House closing. I still disliked some of the seemingly reflexive vitriol from the hard right, but they had left a bad taste in my mouth for sure.

As time has passed, every misgiving I had about them has been compounded by their behavior.

[Maineman]

176. Me too.

But their quest for power and what they will do to get back into the White House is really ugly. Repulsive even.

[uponit7771]

182. Me 2 BTW: This question should be a top post poll with comments

[Adelante]

184. I know I was nt

[helderheid]

189. me

[L0oniX]

203. Yes me too

[doublethink]

16. The sooner this primary ends the better for all concerned.

:kick:

[Rageneau]

19. I'd like to see a single example of this "Clinton Soldier" defending her in the past.

I am getting so used to people lying about Hillary that I no longer give her critics the benefit of the doubt -- I ASSUME they're lying, or at the very least, deliberately interpreting ambiguous data in the most anti-Clinton way.

If this guy has been such a Clinton defender, and if he's able to get his writings posted at HuffingtonPost, then there must be ample writings in which he has taken a different side than he's taking now.

But I bet they're arent't any.

[Auntie Bush]

21. What BS...That person is no more a past Hillary supporter than I am

a past bush* supporter. Can't you see the bias? Quit posting crap like this about a fellow Democratic. Go post on FR where it belongs.

[berni_mccoy]

30. Wild-eyed Clinton Supporters Project Clinton's Failures on Anyone Who Doesn't Support Clinton 100%

Sound's like a Rovian play.

[Auntie Bush]

96. Your answer doesn't make sense. Try thinking rather than projecting.

[Carolina]

124. exactly and don't ya just love the screen name too

[satireV]

213. ummmmm

Wild-eyed Obama Supporters Project Obama's Failures on Anyone Who Doesn't Support Obama 100%

I took time out to do this to illustrate an ad hominem attack by an Obama sycophant.

I am sure you will take this as an attack on Obama. But it isn't. It is an attack on the logical fallacies employed by Obama thralls.

[babylonsister]

38. Look at this thread. Are you the only 'normal' person, Auntie Bush?

Are the majority of us freepers, do ya think? You might have some soul-searching to do. You don't have to agree, but are you calling us out?

Edited for "anti"-snark.

[Auntie Bush]

94. I was referring to the PERSON who wrote the letter...not the posters on this thread.

No soul searching for me. It's you that have to see between the lines and recognize their motive and the thruthiness in their writing. Obaqmites need to learn to be more analytical and objective in their thinking. Stop believing everything you read hook line and sinker. I never in my life ran across the crap posted and BELIEVED by Obimites. They follow the leader like mice following the Pied Piper. One says I hate you and the others all chime in I hate you too. Half of them don' even know what they really hate...but someone told them to ...so they do.

Edited to remove some snark and ask...When did you ever not snark?

[babylonsister]

180. People feel betrayed, judging from this thread, and that has nothing

to do with this or any other post. Why you can't see that is beyond me. Again, responses to this thread are new epiphanies by respondents? I don't think so. We've been 'had' in various ways by this couple, and people are sick of it.

And my 'snark' is a defensive reflex which I tried to curb. Consider yourself lucky. :hi:

[Auntie Bush]

205. You're lucky too!

I've been on my good behavior but it's darn hard to control with all the copycat garbage posted here. Have a good day if you can...tough when you're filled with the same garbage as Rethugs. :hi:

[satireV]

214. If it looks like a freeper, smells like a freeper

and talks like a freeper.

It's a freeper.

Occam's Razor.

Freepers are not exclusive to GOPers, conservatives, and fundies.

[Catherina]

57. Keep burying your head. Disgusted supporters are dropping like flies

Not only is he a past supporter but so was Steve Soto who runs the LeftCoaster

Friday :: Mar 7, 2008

Peddle It Somewhere Else Hillary

by Steve Soto

...

Lastly, it's time for me to step out of the sh*tstorm and take a shower to wash off the slime and disappointment. I’ve had enough of the Clinton fluffing of McCain, and I’m done with her. Frankly I’ve looked foolish trying to defend her and her campaign’s burn-the-house-down-to-get-the-nomination strategy, and I’m tired of seeing this message and these tactics. Politics at this level is not softball, but as I have said before, being an arsonist does not recommend one for the party’s nomination.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012095.php

I have a really hard time understanding the disconnect with reality. How do you expect your candidate to win if you enable her like this. With nothing ever being true in Hillaryland and supporters like this, it's no wonder she's losing. Obama couldn't be paying you more to help him win.

[Cha]

81. Thanks, it's really good to know who

are the ones are who supported clintons but really do have a conscience, after all.

[Tarheel_Dem]

88. thanks for posting that Catharina....

a really good read. :hi:

[Catherina]

110. Thanks for reading it

:hi: Tarheel_Dem

[Auntie Bush]

101. Seems to me she's surging as her poll numbers went up in Texas and Ohio

the last several days before the primary. I don't call that dropping like flies. Is that written by Steve...Wow...who's he?

It's time for me to step out of the sh*tstorm and take a shower to wash off the slime and disappointment. I’ve had enough of the Obama worshiping. :puke:

[Catherina]

112. Please adjust your browser so you can read. Dropping like flies! Here's another

Clinton campaign finance committee member switches to Obama

A Tinderbox Waiting to Happen!
by: KathyCallahan
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EDT

...

For I believe the Clinton camp knows deep down (most definitely unconsciously) that Hillary on top is a TINDERBOX waiting to happen and during the entire course of the general election.

Barack Obama is not going to take the Clinton offer to be be Hillary's VP. -This good cop / bad cop baiting is insulting to the intelligence and sensitivities of the electorate and defies credulity.

....

On another note

I voluntarily left the Hillary Finance Committee after I discovered more than $3,000 in unauthorized charges from HRC campaign on my own VISA card! And that set off a wave of overdrafts and $400 in bank charges that I was stuck with. And the compliance officer Allison Wright at Hillary VA headquarters refused to reimburse me for the charges. And the senior finance reps who I notified about more than $3,000 in Unauthorized Visa Charges: never once apologized or empathized with my plight...Much less send me a "sorry for all the trouble" note and a check!

Unbelievably, it took me more than a month of pleading and begging VIA email to get the money back. I was told verbatim:

"Kathy Callahan, you are going to be with us all the way to the White House...So let's leave the money where it is and we'll save time on inevitable future donations and transactions!"

I went into a state of abject shock, disbelief and later anger! Heartbroken. I didn't want to report this entirely correctable problem to anyone outside the Hillary campaign! One long month later, and at the behest of a bank executive who said to me a few days before Christmas Eve,
"You are way way way over the legal donor limit, Kathy! What are they thinking? Are they thinking at all?"
So I followed his direction and filed a police report in Ridgefield. I then notified Allison Wright and cc'ed senior finance reps (who I met many times) via email again -about the police report and said,
"Enough is Enough, already! Christmas is coming!"

It was then and only then and within a matter of seconds that I got a cell phone call and email from Allison Wright imploring me, "Kathy, please don't do anything, formally! I will send you whatever you want back, immediately!" I told her,
"You can send all of my money back!" Finally, $5,300 large came back to me but not $400 in overdraft charges. And to think that the legal limit during the primary is $2 300 and I had already generously and enthusiastically donated $2,000 to Hillary legitimately!

I had no other choice but to walk away! And I am so glad that I did. Every cloud has a green, gold and silver lining. And in my case it's Barack Obama.

Kathy Callahan's article

You can see the charges here: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/kathy-callahan.asp?cycle=08



Hillary campaign now stealing from campaign aides? :wtf:

Keep burying your head in that sand. All that's gonna do is make it harder when you come up.

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. All I can say is....

:wow:

[Catherina]

128. Clinton and her campaign are digging her grave faster than any enemy could

Before you pick your jaw off the floor watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsYWiywdCA

I don't think the party will tolerate any more of her.

[Tarheel_Dem]

134. That is just disgusting....

I am so over the Clintons.

And I noticed Auntie Bush shut the hell up after your exchange. They can dish it out, but can't take it.

[satireV]

215. You took the nickname of right wing Confederates

No wonder you use their tactics.

[Tarheel_Dem]

216. Piss Off!

[satireV]

223. Yellow dog?

smirk! :)

[Auntie Bush]

138. Pardon me if I don't.

I have better things to do...like getting some shut eye.

[Catherina]

142. It's ok, the message is loud and clear. You don't want to know

so you'll go through these primaries hating and bitter, thinking people were mean to poor victimized Hillary, that men are selfish pigs, that Black people just vote for Blacks, that younger women don't know what's best for them in this deplorably sexist world.

Hillary cried and by golly you're gonna stick by her to the bitter end regardless of how it hurts millions of other people.

This thread will still be up tomorrow. Hopefully you'll have the strength to adjust your browser by then.

[Adelante]

188. OMG

Anybody donating to Clinton better take a look at their credit cards.

[JanusAscending]

127. Yes, she "won" the Texas and Ohio Primaries because,

Rush "Limpballs" told the repukes to vote for her, and many did! See how well she did in a closed caucus in Montana??? Pennsylvania is a closed primary. Talk to us after she loses there. I don't worship Obama, I worship the Lord. But mine eyes hath seen the handwriting on the wall. Why don't you open yours???

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JanusAscending]

147. GEE !!!!

Well if that's what you really believe, I'll switch my support right over to Hillary !!!! (if you'll switch to Obama, mkay?):silly:

[Catherina]

151. Tell your candidate that then

Be careful though. On the same day Billy Boy was pandering to the Rush Limbaugh listeners, Rush was depicting them as two cockroaches.

There are 3 offenses on this page in case you still haven't found time to adjust your browser.

1. Bill Clinton interview and vote pandering. Center top
2. Vote for Hillary. Bright blue, you can't miss it, none of the Republicans did before they voted for her in Texas and coming states
3. "These Clintons are like cockroaches" cartoon

Mature thinking supporters my ass. It's more like BLIND cultist supporters

[tishaLA]

156. honest.ly, auntie bush...

the contempt you show for Obama supporters is unnecessary. I remember when we fought together in 04 for Clark and I always considered you to be honorable in your defense of Clark. I think your smearing of us who support Sen Obama--many of whom used to support Gen Clark--is just unconscionable. We are not teeny boppers and we are very active in the campaign to get someone we admire elected. Can't you just respect that and understand that we have a difference of opinion?

[GoneOffShore]

178. And so does Obama.

I've been a Democrat since 1966 - When I became eligible to vote.

I watched the Clintons with horror almost from the moment they were in the White House: the failed health plan, Whitewater, triangulation, DLC, NAFTA, DMCA, the pardons. I'm appalled at Hilary, her campaign and Bill. They are dissembling, egregious in their behaviour and power hungry.

[Adelante]

190. I am 60 years old, mature, thinking, and experienced

Stop the juvenile name-calling.

[Diane R]

27. Wow. Read the comments under that blog. Devastating to the Clintons. (And, exactly how I feel).

[OhioChick]

33. Quite Damning to Say the Least. n/t

[anamandujano]

36. Wow, I've been wondering where the DU Obamatrons have been.

[stop the bleeding]

76. Wow I guess we'll have to add Huffington post to the list of

of those who shall not cross HRC, cause I mean nobody but Obamatrons read it right?:shrug:

Dean
KO
Bradley
Randi Rhodes
Huff post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4992359&mesg_id=4992359">Buzzflash
Stephanie Miller

[Genevieve]

45. It appears by all the comments that she wouldn't even get

re-elected for her Senate seat.
I think she's going to self-destruct.

[Cha]

82. I haven't but I

will, thanks.

Edit~ This one covers a lot!

Exactly how I feel too! I am a lone democrat in a family FULL of republicans. I defended the Clinton's to the point that half of my relatives stopped speaking to me. When Hillary entered this race, I was thrilled. As a woman, I was proud. In the past 4-5 months she has managed to squander every positive thought I ever had, embarrass me as a woman and left me to hear about a thousand "I told you so's" from various family members. Now, if she ends up with this nomination, I will for the first time in my adult life, not vote for a presidential candidate. I would rather leave it BLANK than cast my vote for her. Will not happen. I'm incredibly angry at what her campaign has lowered itself to and I'm so sad that it effects a party that I love with all of my soul."

[City Lights]

85. Read through some, this one is worth sharing:

What Clinton Supporters have to recognize is that even if she wins the Presidency there is no way she gets anything done ... absolutely no way. The Republican Minority (if it remains the Minority in the Senate at least after a November campaign with Clinton as the Dem Candidate) has already demonstrated its ability to nonplus the Democratic Majority successfully ... with Hillary as President, the Republicans will be cheered every time they successfully obstruct the President ...

Nothing will get done ... complete Gridlock for four years that will make 2012 a huge opportunity for the Republicans ... HUGE.

[Mother Of Four]

29. Thank you for posting this...

It's difficult to post something without comment on it, I appreciate your decorum.

This part wrenched me ...

(Snip)

"On Friday, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton "a monster" during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me -- who've watched Hillary's descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along."

(End Snip)

K and R

[NoBushSpokenHere]

31. I could have

written this paragraph myself:

"She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals -- whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" -- who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits."


I was 100% in her camp until the 2004 "selection" I defended her to the ninth degree. No more, no more, not ever again.

[RBInMaine]

34. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, have always liked the Clintons in

general, but now feel exactly the same way. They look like power-hungry
say-anything, do-anything-to-win, nastiness-mongers. Her so dissing the "red" caucus states and smaller states as well as embracing McCain's "experience" to tear down another Dem is what has broken the camel's back for me. DISGUSTING !! LINES CROSSED BIGTIME !

[VolcanoJen]

53. No! You are not allowed to change your mind on the Clintons!

I agree with you completely. It's actually rational to loathe the campaign Hillary Clinton is running, while still remembering the Bill Clinton presidency fondly.

I don't understand HillaryLand, I really don't.

[Maineman]

175. I agree.

Her willingness to employ devious misrepresentation is something that I find particularly offensive. I am so tired of liars in and around the White House. This voter is going to try to raise the level of integrity in the White House. That disqualifies the Clintons.

[BumRushDaShow]

37. K&R

:kick:

[quantass]

40. kick

[AZBlue]

41. K&R

[quiet.american]

42. I feel pretty much the same way as Grahame-Smith. nt

[Scurrilous]

44. K & R

:thumbsup:

[K Gardner]

48. K&R

[LisaL]

Oooh.

And you can buy his book too.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Big-Book-of-Porn/Seth-Grahame-Smith/e/9781594740404/?itm=2

[NYCGirl]

93. Saw that, it looks wonderful. I'm going to get a copy. NT

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

52. Sorry for being so simple. Peace and love, hope and change !

Yeah go ahead and mock it. Such moral high ground, probably would make fun of M L K to if he were living.. Peace be with us all.

[Unbowed]

54. Thank you for posting. Excellent commentary by Seth Grahme Smith.

She is not going to be the nominee. The sooner she realizes that is over with the better because if Clinton keeps this up, she won't just lose a nomination, she'll be drummed out of the democratic party.

[me b zola]

55. k&r

[tammywammy]

58. recommended

:)

[AtomicKitten]

59. I think this is a precursor of the migration of those who have had enough of the Clintons.

K&R :)

[Cha]

63. The truth about hilary from a Former

Apologist..An apologist no more.

"On Friday, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton "a monster" during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me -- who've watched Hillary's descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along.

Are the conservatives right about the Clintons? Will they do and say anything to get elected?

I don't know.

All I know is...I'm through apologizing."

No worries, hilary has a bunch of little apologists right here on DU..

[damndude]

118. i first voted in 1996.........

when the republican ran dole against clinton. i had grown up in the 80's not knowing anything about the political process and how a president and the candidates came to be selected. i even thought reagan was cool when i was in grade school. for me 1992 was all about age v. youth, the funding of the national endowment for the arts and thing that affected my small narrow view of my life. i did not know the fundamental differences between republicans and democrats. in my house it came down to two things, one's for the rich and one's for the poor.
bill clinton was my introduction to politics. the trashing of hillary at the time was the petty attempts at sidelining a strong, intelligent woman with views that she wanted heard.
everything was an organized attack to throw off progress and preserve the arts and women's reproductive rights and end the oppression of gays.
then monica and the impeachment and the lies and the betrayals to his own staff and circle of confidants.
even then, i considered it a private matter that was used for political gain.
i thought a great president had been brought down by the 'vast right wing conspiracy'.
2000 rolled around and gore got shafted, neither of them stood up for him and challenged the bush script. she got her senate seat and i thought that would be a nice end to the story.
in 2004 i volunteered for the first time with democratic party here in my town. it was exciting to think i would be part of the change that would happen when bush was booted from affiance. WRONG!
even to the point she announced her running for president i thought noooooooooooooo.
this cycle of bush-clinton-bush-clinton is a looser for democrats. i thought everyone would feel that way. then ob ama comes along and when have you ever seen a serious, viable black candidate? i never thought he would make it this far, that it might be a vanity run. and this is being typed by a black man, mind you.
even i saw his speeches on tv and watched him the debates i thought he was a nice enough politician but where was the substance as she liked to say. i had already begun to pay more attention to him when he seemed determined to be taken seriously and the i saw him speak in dallas ant reunion arena after waiting in line for like 4 hour and i had never been part of anything like that or seen people who felt bruised and tired by the bitterness in the political process that affects our lives but they were all there optimistic like i was. it felt good.
the Clinton's do not make me feel that way. they don't give me hope or make me believe in them. what they have shown me is their talent for scandal, double talk, or make me think that though they may not share the exact same beliefs as i do it is their intention to govern a nation of people not a nation of factions and demographics.
they have become victims of their machinery as displayed by her inability to care more about the future of our country that her own ambitions this passed week.
that's why i am now for ob ama. they may argue that his story is too fresh and too new or his story could be the one that lifts our country out of the all the much and filth that the bush's and Clinton's have had us in for the passed 20 years. my entire cognitive life has been spent with either of the two families in the white house.
i think its time this american family went shopping for a new car without so much mileage and trips to the body shop.
i did not intend to type this long. my apologies, but i type the way i speak and in confirmed to long winded and i i am passionate about the change in this country that needs to happen and the venom between the two support groups is not going to move us forward.

[Leopolds Ghost]

200. Thanks for speaking out, dude.

[BearSquirrel2]

158. In the end I think this might be a good thing ...

I get the idea that the "monster" thing is going to reverberate.

[Raine]

64. Exactly how I feel

two thumbs up ... :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[grantcart]

67. its a toss up which is sadder the disappointment of the OP or

the vacuousness of those still apologizing

[Zachstar]

68. She seems to be losing support FAST..

I have seen multiple Clinton supporters go Obama in the last few days. Perhaps this is a good sign that the Clinton Campaign is collapsing..

The faster that happens and she Exits the faster we can recover from the damage the Clinton's have caused Obama in the GE and we can move on.

Oh in case anyone is going to fire back with the "let the people vote!" stuff. Clinton exiting does not mean the vote ends. It simply means we can FINALLY get on with the GE where the republicans are DESPERATE to win and the road has many twists.

Obama is going to need every day he can get now to defeat the Republicans. Let us not try to hide the fact that they are well prepared to steal elections and swiftboat a candidate.

[natrat]

183. yea but the crooks want her in so it may not matter

[Cogito ergo doleo]

69. K&R

[BeyondGeography]

71. Kicking so that the Clintons will finally move the fuck on one day

[Ichingcarpenter]

77. Kick nominated fence sitters and Hillary apologist take notice n/t

[DemGa]

86. Beyond stupid: A "penchant for scandals"?

This complete nonsense? Vince Foster? Is the writer serious? Do you people really recommend this rubbish? Oh my.

What utter drivel.

[stop the bleeding]

87. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

:beer:

[dkf]

152. Me too! I think I've tried to rec like 3 times already.

[Divernan]

91. I think Washington and the state capitols are full of Dems who are still

afraid of the WRATH OF HILLARY, and will breathe a huge sigh of relief when she is forced out of the race. And of course many of these are superdelegates.

[1776Forever]

92. You know it is going to be a sorry day when the HRC supporters get the reality check ,,,,

They can spew all the venom they want but they are not going to stop the truth from coming out one day. I am not gloating over that because I know it will be a bad day for the Party when it does happen.

The trial that is coming up in Oct. '08 will be a big hurdle for the Clinton's to overcome. The Video is on YouTube and no one can deny it is going to happen. I am not saying their guilty but it will be a big trial with huge publicity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=rela...

Make sure you watch both 1 & 2. It is hard to believe that the Clinton's would think they could get away with this if it is true. We will have to let it play itself out like the Rezko trial, but it sure is something that make Rezko look small in comparison!

And then there was this DU post that is a must read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4985715&mesg_id=4985715

And this article that goes along with it in the Wall St Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120364037189484545.html...

His and Her Finances
February 22, 2008; Page A14

(snip)

Is America a great country or what? Only seven years ago the Clintons were swimming in legal bills. They've since cashed in on their celebrity to pay off a $2 million mortgage on their Washington D.C. home, and are now able to lend $5 million to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. The Senator has had her own success, earning more than $5 million for her "Living History" memoir. But the real income source has been the former President, who has been giving $450,000 speeches, and in general parlaying his political fame into personal riches.

Mr. Clinton is now trying to unwind a business relationship with billionaire pal Ron Burkle. This deal made him a partner -- along with the ruler of Dubai -- in the Yucaipa Global Fund. How much did Mr. Clinton earn from a partnership with men whose business interests might be affected by the policy actions of a President Hillary Clinton? The Clintons and their accountant know, but the public doesn't.


Mr. Clinton has also been raising cash for the Clinton Foundation, which funds his charitable activities and Presidential library. The foundation has raised more than $500 million, but Mr. Clinton has refused to release a donor list.

(snip)

We've seen this nondisclosure before. During the 1992 campaign, the Clintons claimed to be coming clean by releasing their tax returns from 1980 forward. But they steadfastly refused to release their returns for prior years, and only later did we learn that 1978 and 1979 were the tax years when Mrs. Clinton reported her 10,000% cattle-futures trading profit. Remember Red Bone and Jim Blair, and how she claimed she had made the investment on her own after reading the Wall Street Journal? For that matter, remember the other characters who provided cash for the Clintons in return for nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, among other things?

Senator Clinton has said she'll make her tax returns public only if she wins the Democratic nomination. Mr. Clinton has said he'll disclose his future donors only if she is President. Once again they're trying to block disclosure until it's too late to inform the judgment of voters.

Mr. Obama has released his tax returns and has suggested Mrs. Clinton do the same because "the American people deserve to know where you get your income from." If the Clintons continue to keep his and her finances under wraps, the public would be wise, given their history, to assume they have something to hide.

...........

And yet she is the one that places herself above Obama and talks about Rezko. There is so much on the Clinton's that cannot be dismissed. I cannot believe the blindness of her supporters not to believe in the huge amount of information available with a simple Google search!

:nopity:

[TwilightGardener]

98. I guess I'm alone in never really being a big fan of either Clinton--

I liked Bill, to an extent, but I thought he really disgraced himself in office. That didn't negate the good things he did, but prevented me from seeing anything other than a deeply flawed character when I looked at him. Hillary I just never warmed to at all, although I used to respect her more, before Iowa. I just saw her as a cravenly ambitious political animal who polls to see where she should go on vacation, and doesn't have a set of guiding principles, nor a sense of shame. So I went from "meh" to outright disgust in record time.

[babylonsister]

133. Alone? Not judging from this thread.

I also defended Bill until I realized he could be part of the reason impeachment hasn't been attempted. It was so ugly with the big dawg that it's nuts to consider it now?
That's ludicrous and might just be an excuse, but still...

And I have never trusted Hillary, perhaps because of history. She's never 'touched' me as a woman or a politician.

[southern_belle]

100. k & r

[BlueJac]

111. Fuck Hillary......

which is something Bill quit doing years ago. She now blows Mc Cain, just to get the nomination. WTF? The Clintonestas are just political whores, with power on their mind. When Bill wasn't getting blow jobs he was fucking this country over.............Does NAFTA ring a bell? Or are you idiots wanting more of the past? The time has come to move forward you dinosaurs!

[frog92969]

113. Nice

to see more and more people paying attention.
Personally I'm sick of having a criminal run the country.

[OwnedByFerrets]

121. K & R

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. Oh God More Of This Crap? Is This All Some Of You Got Now? It's Ridiculous.

I mean seriously, is anyone going to give a rats ass what this dude has to say, especially since his perception is obviously warped and twisted? Is this the best evidence for smearing Hillary you all have left? How friggin sad.

You used to be better than this type of tripe babylonsister, and I'm hoping this trend is only a product of your getting too deeply tied to the primaries, and it's clouding your judgment as to what is and isn't relevant to post. Cause this article is just really quite silly and not a very strong argument for the Obama camp whatsoever. In fact, it's quite weak.

[joeprogressive]

135. I totally empathize with this article.

I have defended HRC for 16 F***** years and now I feel totally betrayed. The thing I defended the most was when people called her bitch. Now I can see that side of her. The woman is a monster and her lust for power has made her do bad things. I will support her in the GE but I thank God it won't come down to that.

Everything she does now just hurts our chances to win back the whitehouse and retain majorities in congress.

[rodeodance]

144. Samatha Powers had the decency to apologize for that name calling. I hope you do also.

The woman is a monster and

[Straight Shooter]

145. It's another episode of "Prima Donna Melodrama for Obama." n/t

[DURHAM D]

146. Seth - What a flaming little shit head. eom

[nsd]

150. K & R.

[Fridays Child]

161. k/r...

...as if this thread really needs another kick. ;)

[oasis]

162. "loyal"? 'nuff said. (eom)

[happygoluckytoyou]

163. GOP GO HOME... dont you have your own blogs

I like Hillary, think she would be a reasonable president

I support Barack, think he would be a great president

I dislike GOP moles, think they are on all the blogspots trying to create a rift in the Democrat party before 2008... where the ONLY truth the GOP will see in November is the destruction of their party...

DEMOCRATS UNITE...WIN THE ELECTION...DIVIDE THE SPOILS AFTERWARD.... there is enought for ALL planks within the party to benefit so long as we repel the GOP mouthpieces trying to split our party

[intaglio]

165. There is a difference between loyalty and idolatry

Seth Grahame-Smith was loyal but betrayed once too often. The Clintons lost that loyalty.

The Clinton partisans here show idolatry; there is no criticism in their candidate that they cannot rationalise as being either hatred or stupidity or lies or transference or some combination of these excuses. Their immediate response to this post will be to accuse me of transference, of being an Obamite and a "cult" member. Yet I see that Obama has flaws.

Indeed most Obama supporters here admit to his flaws and know that he remains a politician for all his stirring words, despite this they remain willing to support him. The Clinton supporters see this as weakness, foolishness, hatred and "cult-like" behavior because the Obama supporter will not instantly switch to support of their idol; they do not see that Hillary remains less able to command support because her faults are greater.

[October]

172. Name them.

Please.

I'd like to see you list Obama's flaws.

[intaglio]

209. Why should I emulate Hillary

and give ammunition to the enemy?

Check through a few posts, do some work for yourself, show some in-it-iative.

But you won't, damn it, so here are 2

1) His voice can be too preachy, it is better now, but it does sound bad in some circumstances

2) Personally I don't think his healthcare plans go far enough, The US needs true single payer healthcare.

[BringBigDogBack]

167. kicked.

[indimuse]

169. more bs from bho's fans

snore..

[Apollo11]

171. indimuse - I already told you

it's spelled "people"! B-)

[Apollo11]

170. Obviously written by someone who has been never supported Hillary's candidacy.

Accusing Hillary Clinton of playing "the Muslim card" and of being personally responsible for bringing to the media's attention a photo of Obama in Africa that had already been published in The National Examiner. This is the kind of bullshit accusation that one can read here on DU:P every single day.

As for Rush Limbaugh's stream of nonsense commentary on the race for the Democratic nomination, I think that all of us should ignore it as much as possible. The idea that Hillary should be somehow taking time-out from her campaign to formulate some kind of response to Limbaugh's idea of on-air humor is ridiculous.

[AlertLurker]

173. Boo-hoo.

:puke:

[GoneOffShore]

179. K&R

Thanks for the posting.

Maybe, just maybe, it will open some eyes around here.

[helderheid]

186. rec 130

[bleedinglib]

194. Remember Rodney King ??

"Can't we all git along here"?
The Repubican Swift boaters are preparing to tear our nominee to shreds and yu'al are bickering over some grade school crap that the msm keeps alive that surely weakens our chances to win this Nov.
If there is anyone posting here who won't vote dem. this fall?? Simply because some political hack started a rumor about
your candidate??
This is the best chance we'll ever have to get out country straightened out. No matter wheather it's Obama our Clinton.
LETS ALL GET ALONG HERE, PLEASE.
Blib

[RoadRage]

195. K&R 137

[kenfrequed]

197. Well now

You can certainly tell the Obama v. Hilary threads by how short and emotional the threads are.

Really a pity.

Still I do have to state that while Clinton was in office I spent a lot of time defending her from stupid conservative attacks. Friends, family, people I worked with, and random assorted sorts all attacked her for the usual conservative drek and I stood up for hera nd her husband.

I parted ways on NAFTA and welfare reform; you know, actual substantive issues. But I still defended them (though I supported more liberal candidates more fervently).

This cycle I had Kucinich as my first choice and Edwards as my second. I didn't have a third as I felt that Obama and Hilary are too conservative, both having the damned DLC stamp of approval.

Now, though I had completely disinvested myself from the presidency, opting instead to focus on senate race in Minnesota, and now I am finding myself backed unwillingly into Obama's camp by the threat of Hilary losing to McCain and by the tenor and tone of her campaign.

[babylonsister]

198. He may have the DLC stamp of approval, but he surely hasn't

asked for it despite what people like From would like to believe. I do wonder where the idea comes from. Is the DLC promoting it?

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

[kenfrequed]

207. Uhm

The DLC basically stated (while Edwards was still in the race) that they approved of the top two candidates running. I will try to find a source...

Well the best I could find at a moments notice was this thing citing mr From:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=65&contentid=254588


However the DLC does have a tendency to declare itself the victor no matter who wins. So perhaps their 'claiming Obama' might be spin but I would point out that he is considerably more conservative than the candidates I preferred.

There can, of course, be no doubt that Hilary is DLC through and through, they properly advertise her as one of their leaders. Of course it is possible that the dual support was arranged strategically to marginalize Edwards still further in the eyes of the mainstream media and deprive Obama of a useful weapon in primary/caucus fights: the strue charge that Hilary really is a 'DLC Democrat.'

[catgirl]

199. This is the second switch to Obama I've read today

A finance adviser switched when she discovered the HRC campaign
charged $3000 to her credit card without authorization, then they
wouldn't reimburse her until she filed a police report.

[Botany]

202. The Clinton Campaign has been nothing but shameful in this election.

Hillary and her supporters actions paint a picture of why she must
have no part of being on the ticket in 2008. One story getting little
press has been brought out by DUer Wolverine DG. In Texas a Clinton
surrogate wrote that Obama was Islamic in a Spanish language paper.

And that is just one of many many "dirt ball tactics" that team Clinton
has engaged in against Sen. Obama. Just as hideous is Clinton's
supporters saying, "Well the republicans will be just as bad in the general
election." As if that mitigates their out right lies and makes them any
less odious.

[Myrina]

204. Absolutely spot on, K&R!

:applause:

[mckara]

208. Stick a Fork in Hillary--She's Done!!!!!!

The rats are jumping a sinking ship!

[Why Syzygy]

212. She's become a political suicide-bomber . from the article . nuf said

[Chovexani]

218. "If we're to believe Matt Drudge"

His first mistake.

[liberalcommontater]

219. Win in November

Having supported Bill since 92 and Hillary today, I am amazed that so many buy into the false Clinton fatigue fanned by the Right. I was fatigued after several independent counsel investigations too, but these were Republican ploys to besiege Bill and blunt any momentum he might get. Now Obama and Clinton are fighting it out. I support Hillary 100% for the reason many dislike her, she can give as good as she gets, hopefully better. I want someone who it ready on day one to put the Republicans in their place and keep them there for eight years.

The point is not purity, but priorities and victory. Clinton and Obama are close enough on the issues that I can easily support either one.

Come November, should Obama be the nominee, I will galdly vote for him and will support him 100% for the next eight years, until the next Democrat is able to run.

Winning in November trumps all for me.

What say you?

[McCamy Taylor]

220. I cite this as one of the worst examples of Left Wing anti Clinton Bias in "The Press v. Hillary"

It took me all of about two minutes to dissect and debunk this steaming pile of horse manure. Here are the charges:

From my journal "The Press v. Hillary Part 4 Friendly Fire" http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/160

Where do I start? By the time this was printed, we all had known for over a day that Hillary had no contact with Canada, and that only Obama’s advisers had met with the Canadians and then failed to disclose it to their candidate, causing him to lose face before the American press. When the Republicans were telling Republican voters to vote for Obama, Obama welcomed their support, so why should Hillary be any different? Despite all the Whitewater investigations, no wrongdoing was ever proved, making Hillary the most vetted woman in the US. The 3 am ad is only infamous in the minds of the opposition, because it is effective. How do we know the call isn’t about a Hurricane? No one in their right mind would believe Drudge. Obama is the master of playing the victim and the race card was played by his camp—after Tweety and the guys and gals in the MSM got the ball rolling. Pat Buchanan, architect of the Southern Strategy helped a lot.

And since this whole thread is dedicated to the proposition that this article is a masterpiece, I will do a thorough reading of it. Yes, it is a masterpiece... of hackneyed left wing anti-Hillary propaganda. Now that the "Brokered Democratic Convention" strategy of Karl Rove has moved into phase two, Obama is getting MSM scrutiny and Hillary is getting slightly less damning MSM coverage than she has gotten for the past twelve months. Obama supporters will recall that when they were celebrating their man's glowing press coverage and Hillary's all negative all the time coverage, I warned them that as soon as Obama's delegate count surpassed Hillary, the MSM could change their tune. They scoff. They should have listened to me. I am almost always right about these things.

Anyway, the writers in the left wing journals, like the Huffington Post and Buzzflash are trying their best to make up the slack. Unfortunately for them, they are at a loss when it comes to the production of propaganda, something that requires a master's touch and a scalpel. The writers at Huffington Post tend to use a sledgehammer instead. The result is something like what you see in this thread header---an article almost laughably biased.

Rule one of propaganda. Since some people only read the title and first and last paragraphs, put the dirt there. OK, he calls Hillary a Monster, since lefties can not use the word Bitch, the right wing word of choice. He also describes her supporters as "soldiers" meaning that she is the general or "hawk". In the first paragraph he mentions all the Clinton scandals that the MSM and the right wing conspiracy created for no particular reason except that they make convenient mud to toss. We are so proud of you, Mr Graheme-Smith, that you defended her against all those unfounded attacks. What do you want? A medal?

As for voters coalescing around Obama, I have some bitter news for you. Here are the latest polls from Rasmussen:

Clinton is viewed favorably by 75% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. However, that figure includes just 56% of Obama voters. Obama is viewed favorably by 68% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, a figure that includes 41% of Clinton supporters.

Finally, the lowest blow of all "Are the conservatives right about the Clintons?"

Here is what the right wing says about Hillary:
my journal "The PRESS v. Hillary Clinton Part 3 Leaping Lesbians" http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/159

Is he talking about the lesbian part, the witch part, the supernatural powers part, the Muslim traitor part? Or maybe he wants us to believe that the whole right wing spiel is true, and that every time Drudge said "Some Hillary lesbian held a gun to my head and told me to write 'Obama is a Muslim'" Drudge was telling the truth.

There is a Part I and Part II, as well.

Hillary is not a Bitch and Obama is not the Messiah. But a whole lot of people need to sit down and get their heads straight, because they are not thinking rationally. They are thinking the way that the corporate media and John McCain (and his backer Karl Rove) want them to. It is all part of Rove's plan to recreate 1972. If you do not know about the election, get off the board and go read Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 .

[mojowork_n]

234. OMG, here it is, the circular firing squad. (Friendly fire, but no agreement.)

For openers, the article that you're trashing isn't a "steaming pile" and I don't believe you said much to either "dissect" or "debunk" it.

Before making a rebuttal on the article, though, I'll try to cut to the chase on what appears to be the fundamental cause for disagreement:

• I agree with you, completely, that it *is* the goal of the party in power, and their nefarious web of satellites, minions, and agencies, to keep up the attack on whoever is the leading Democrat.
  
  
• We disagree, though, on how this is being done. I would respectfully suggest that -- contrary to your "everybody's ganging up on poor Hillary" theme -- the dark powers and principalities have kept her campaign afloat.
  
  
• Without that help, without the suggestion that primary victories in small states "don't count", that primary victories in red states also "don't count", that overwhelming landslide victories in purple states "don't count", because (as in Wisconsin) the state governor's 'machine' lent an unfair assist, or it was 'too cold' that day for her elderly, female supporters to maneuver their walkers across the ice, or that somehow, all his delegates "don't count", because he's soooo "inexperienced." (Too inexperienced to be President, but capable of catching up to speed after the convention, in time to be her running mate.)
  

I know that might seem like a fundamental disconnect from reality --

as in, "Whaa-a-a-a-t, it's not all about Hillary? --

but (leaving aside the disinformation supplied individually, by Pat Buchanon, or Tweety) here's why I disagree, for the most part, about who's been trashed worse:

1. Without the media boost that Hillary's been given, Obama would have already been declared the Democratic Party's candidate, a few weeks ago.
   
   
2. When it became completely obvious Hillary's never going to win the nomination by taking primaries, or actually getting more votes.
   
   
3. Of course, the Bad Guys want to own the election, as usual, and they'd like to "feel comfortable" with both of the candidates, from each of the major parties. Or at minimum they'd like to have a Democratic nominee they can "work with."
   
   
4. They don't much care for the Clinton's, or most Democrats, but on the whole the Republicans remember how fat and happy they got during the Clinton administration. Aside from the White House, during those eight years, it was one giveaway after another. (Short list: Welfare 'reform', Telecommunications media consolidation, NAFTA, continued Iraqi sanctions, outsourcing of jobs and off-shoring of assets.)
   
   
5. Obama's too much of a wild card, without enough dirt or a long enough record of accommodation in his past, to be counted on.
   
   
6. So for the time being, Hillary's the club the GOP is bashing Obama with. If she actually prevails and gets the nomination, it's a two-fer, win-win.
   

The reality right now is that a lot of the Bad Guys are worried about staying out of jail. They'd like to be able to retire with the safety, security and piece of mind you'd think their off-shore accounts should guarantee them. (Douglas Feith just came out today, saying Bush declared the Iraq war to be "inevitable" -- in December of 2002. Just in case Daddy loses, http://wonkette.com/politics/george-w.-bush/we-hate-to-bring-up-the-nazis-but-they-fled-to-south-america-too-208549.php|Jenna went to Paraguay to buy the family a home in exile.> At 98,940 acres, it's bigger than the islands of Elba and St. Helena, put together. (154.6 sq. miles vs. 86 + 47 = 133)

If hindsight really were 20-20, and if all we had to think about were the democratic catastrophes of 1968, or 1972 -- then:

• The strategists who built the Maginot Line would be heroes, today.
  
  
• The diplomatic visionaries who managed to get signatures from all the world's major powers, for mutual disarmament -- to reduce the number and size of battleships in all the world's navies (it was called the Kellogg-Briand Pact, signed in 1932) might have thought to penalize aircraft carriers, equally. Instead of encouraging their construction.
  
  
• The total geniuses who thought a second invasion of Iraq would "...pay for itself, with all that oil revenue", would all have solid gold statues erected to them.
  

Honestly, I think you're making the same mistake the Bad Guys did, originally. Last summer and fall, and for most of this winter, the Bad Guys did have Obama's back. Getting him the nomination was probably their fondest hope. ("The country's not ready for a black president," they assumed -- and I'm guessing you, yourself, agree.)

What kind of Rovian nastiness, media manipulation and shameless deceit will we be faced with, come the General Election?

"....Ooooooh, they're going to play rough, and appeal to prejudice, fear and ignorance. They'll do it in the smoothest, most shameless, least transparent way possible, so -- better give the job to the White candidate."

That's it. That's the only reason that I can see for anyone's favoring Hillary over Barack.

I'm aware that there are risks, but this doesn't have to be France in the 1930's, the diplomatic initiative to "end war" in 1932, or Washington D.C., circa February/March 2003.

I'm posting this reply here, instead of directly posting to one of your recent journal entries. You probably won't even see it, so my saying, "You can quit reading right now, because the rest of this is just going to be point-by-point rebuttal of the "horse manure" HuffPo piece" is probably superfluous.

1. Goolsbee-gate: You write, "Hillary had no contact with Canada" and leave it at that. More troubling, to some of us, was the fact that the Canadian opposition party (NDP) threw a fit, and accused the Tories of meddling in U.S. politics. The Tories were the ones who initiated the Goolsbee meeting and then accidentally "leaked" the memo, following it up with the "denial" intended to make Obama's adviser look disingenuous.

This is from a Canadian blogger, on TPM:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/goolsbeegate_becomes_an_intern

Anyone who says the media is biased against Clinton need look no further than this story for proof that they treat Obama the same way. This is a complete non-story that is being pushed over & over and will likely hurt Obama in Ohio. I think the reason people feel that Clinton gets a harder time is because she has a longer history of issues to explain and she has run a much more mistake-prone campaign.

Cheers from Canada!

So, bottom line:

Who benefited? The Clinton campaign.

When did they do so? At the precise moment Obama's ads on NAFTA were helping to cut in on Hillary's vulnerability on the issue, in Ohio.

(Remember Bill's trip to Kazakhstan, and the whole "Borat-gate" uranium deal? It was a Canadian mining mogul who benefited from the deal. When I wrote "dark powers and principalities" in my opening paragraphs, I didn't mean to slam our neighbors to the north, but I was thinking of their Tory government.)

2. Saying that Obama "welcomed Republican support" (so "why shouldn't Hillary?") is simply a false comparison. As if Hillary is equally as likely to draw as many independents, "Reagan Democrats", libertarians or paleo-conservatives, as Obama. Pretending that an all-out call from Rush Limbaugh for Republicans to cross over in primary elections to vote against him, is anything like the smirking, "inclusive" sort of welcoming noises that were coming from the same sources, a few months ago.

3. You said, "Despite all the Whitewater investigations, no wrongdoing was ever proved, making Hillary the most vetted woman in the US."

Au contraire, her time at the Rose Law firm has been the gift that has kept on giving, for the Republicans.

In fact, if you can temporarily block two things out of your mind -- the stain on the blue dress, and Bill's own follow-up, that he "never had..." -- it's arguable that Hillary was Bill's worst enemy during his time in the White House.

In no particular order, there was:

The health care fiasco.

The barely legal travel agency payback -- fly now, pay us later.

The missing billing records from Rose Law firm, which disappeared for two years, then suddenly were discovered inside the personal residence area of the White House -- to Hillary's complete amazement and surprise.

Hillary's $44,000 profit on a $2,000 investment.

Her $1,000 windfall foray into cattle futures.

Web Hubbel, who was *her* mentor at Rose Law, really did get convicted...

In each and every case, whether by design or accident, Hillary was the Clinton who acted as the "designated" loose cannon. One wonders how many times the words, "Hillary, you got some 's-plainin' to do" were actually uttered.

With a spouse like that, Bill would have been better off as the White House' first bachelor occupant since Grover Cleveland. (He got married in office, James Buchanon was the only never-married commander in chief.)

The Clinton presidency was able to survive those misadventures partly because *she* was the one consistently getting into trouble. I don't have any reason to pre-suppose they'll be as lucky a second time.

Instead of considering her to be the "most vetted woman in America", I'd say she's "got paper", or is "already in the system."

4. You wrote, "The 3 am ad is only infamous in the minds of the opposition, because it is effective." It's also a naked appeal to fear, a wedge-marketing 'triumph' because it managed to intimidate a small sliver of the undecided/independent electorate, in focus group "keep your hand on the dial while you're watching" trials.

For those voters with half a brain, the parody on "Saturday Night Live" this weekend pretty much said it all.

"How do we know it's not about a hurricane?" For the same reason that we know that it's not really about that asteroid on a collision course with the planet, or the alien spacecraft NASA spotted ducking behind the far side of the moon?

5. The polling blip you cite from Rasmussen (a phone poll, with
limited sampling numbers?) restricted itself to "likely democratic primary voters."

When it's time for the general election, there's still no candidate more likely to rally Republican voters to McCain (a candidate many of them don't like) than Hillary.

Forget about 1968, or 1972.

In fact, let's forget about 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

It's time to break the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton stranglehold on the American imagination.

This country's too messed up to keep re-fighting the same old, tired wars, over and over and over, again. We don't have the luxury, anymore, of allowing ourselves to be so distracted, and divided.

______________________________________________________________________
For the record, here's my quickly-Googled reference to Hillary scandals:

http://prorev.com/hillary.htm

Just to make sure I wasn't citing some snaggle-toothed, grizzled escapee from a "Dukes of Hazzard" fan club, blogging from the pole shed behind his outhouse, I did find these reviews, on another page:

"Smith offers community based, participatory politics that's neither left nor right wing but the whole bird. . . . His work is not different from what quality journalism ought to be: truth-seeking, independent, fair-minded and debunking." -- Colman McCarthy, Washington Post

"So acute an observer of Clinton is Smith that I had to be forcibly restrained from quoting several yards of his book." -- Edith Efron, Reason Magazine

"If you want an understanding of how all ideas in Washington DC are eventually trivialized and mulched by the chipper-shredder of media politics, it is Smith's book rather than Woodward's that provides the insight. . . As freely as sources spoke, The Agenda is, oddly enough, not filled with memorable quotes. Fortunately, Shadows has an abundance of them. " -- James J. McCusker, Everett, Washington, Herald

In the style and tradition of I. F. Stone -- Eugene McCarthy

Lively, astute and powerful critique of the Clinton approach to our national crises. It raises profound questions about our two-party system as a corruption of the democratic ideal -- Historian and author Howard Zinn

...He still might be a backwoods recluse, and I'm not sure I'd want to click on any one of the links there (just scroll down slowly and read the summary):

http://prorev.com/hillary.htm

but it *would* be reassuring to know that the Clinton campaign has made a detailed, thorough response to everything that's there. (Thereby thoroughly "vetting" themselves.)

[cseper]

221. If you want Obama to be president... fine ...

, but do not trash Hillary and use Karl Rove tactics doing it. I never heard of you before and your column will not dissuade me from supporting Hillary!

[Politicalboi]

225. From the Daily KO's

Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono is a Beatle.

[Kurovski]

226. Kick. (nt)

[Arugula Latte]

227. K&R

Tellin' it like it is. :kick:

[calicat]

229. Who the hell is Seth Grahame-Smith? n/t

[Bette Noir]

230. Bottom line...

If this is the way Democrats discuss things, we're in for eight years of John McCain.

[GoneOffShore]

231. Another late night kick

And thanks again.

You've helped expand my ignore list immensely. It's amazing what crawls out when St. Hilsnbill is criticised(sic).

[FedoraLV]

233. Why

are so many pro-Clinton posts belittling or dismissing the article's author ... rather than talking about why their very electable candidate is an upstanding and superb choice who will benefit all the states of the union and the ongoing fortunes of the Democratic party?

Would you rather burn bridges with disillusioned supporters or bring them back on board?

-FedoraLV

[mod mom]

235. i don't get the devotion to someone who has fought for the powerful over the people w her DLC

stances. Why would they rather allow the party to be destroyed rather thaan face who they are really supporting?