Wash. Times hits Clinton on Lincoln Bedroom controversy

February 8, 2008

The far-right Washington Times, one of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s enterprises, has one of those classic hit-jobs today that’s almost impressive in its mendacity.

The target: Hillary Clinton. The headline: “Hillary still in bed with ’96 scandal.”

Nearly one in five “HillRaisers,” the elite big-money fundraisers for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, have ties to the 1990s fundraising scandal that tarnished her husband’s presidency by offering Democratic donors sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom and other perks inside the White House.

Forty-nine of the Clintons’ Lincoln Bedroom guests are among the 250 HillRaisers listed on Mrs. Clinton’s campaign Web page, who have pledged to gather, or “bundle,” at least $100,000 in donations. Some have promised to raise $1 million or more for the 2008 campaign, the most costly in U.S. history. […]

According to a study by the Committee for Responsive Politics (CRP), a bipartisan watchdog group, 15 of the Lincoln Bedroom guests in 1996 who are now HillRaisers also contributed $130,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s 2000 Senate race. Those same high rollers forked over $1.4 million to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and to other Democratic candidates.

This isn’t just some passing news brief for the Washington Times; it’s a 1,700-word front-page expose that goes on and on (and on) about the 1996 controversy and its connection to contributors to HRC’s presidential campaign.

Unfortunately for the Times, there isn’t even a hint of wrongdoing anywhere in the piece.

Greg Sargent explained:

The story never says that this is wrong or that it’s any more noteworthy than any other campaign’s roster of large contributors. Nor is anyone quoted saying this, either. There’s some criticism of the original Lincoln Bedroom affair, which sprays the scent of scandal around a bit. But nobody says Hillary should not take money from these people or is even quoted negatively linking the original story to the present in any way.

Exactly. The Times piece would be bad enough if it were guilt by association (if, say, Clinton received support from nefarious characters), but this is more guilt by meaningless association (Clinton received support from those who also supported her husband).

It’s almost a textbook example of what’s wrong with John Solomon-style journalism. Solomon, of course, wrote stories for the Washington Post that hinted at a possible controversy without actually finding one. A few weeks ago, he took over the Washington Times, where he’s apparently approving articles similar to those he used to write — full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Something to keep in mind when Fox News and other partisan news outlets pick up this Times piece as if it were legitimate.

Heh.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. If she wins the nomination, this kind of bullshit will be in every newspaper, magazine and on every pundit show on cable news.

I hope you’ve all got your helmets on, Hillary fans.

  • John S. said:

    Heh.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. If she wins the nomination, this kind of bullshit will be in every newspape

    Sure. It’ll just be aimed at Obama. That’s what wingnuts do. Fuck’em.

  • I hate this crap. If anything is going to elect Hillary president, it’s pathetic slime like this. All it does it cause Hillary supporters to get defensive and dig in their heels.

    Obama is ahead of McCain in the national polls. He’s had better judgement on the big issues, he’s a better orator, he’s better-liked by independents, he doesn’t have as much baggage, he defends liberalism on its face rather than speaking in vague soundbites. He has detailed plans for every single issue on his website. His policies are practically the same as Hillary’s, except he lead the way on things like Iraq and torture rather than waiting for the polls to swing to the liberal side and THEN support them, as Hillary did.

    From this I can’t help but think there is no rational reason to support Hillary Clinton over Obama. And yet she has huge support, because constant hit jobs from the media make her the “martyr” to rally around.

  • If anything is going to elect Hillary president

    Erm. I meant to say, if anything is going to NOMINATE Hillary. I’d be happy if she were elected president. But there’s a doubtful chance that is going to happen.

  • Maybe we can create a new word ala Colbert’s Truthiness.

    How about “Scandaliness.” Something that sounds scandalous, but isn’t, but hey, if Solomon and his ilk make it SOUND like a scandal that’s good enough for me to get my panties in a bind! Eeeeeevilllll Clinton! Eeeeeeviiiiiillllllllll!!!

  • there is no rational reason to support Hillary Clinton

    I’m sure you meant “other than her better command of policy details, and her better ability to get a quick start at uncovering the BushCo damage, and other than legitimate concerns that Obama’s ‘post-partisanship’ will mean being overly accomodating to Republicans.” but that’s ok, i knew what you meant.

    I assure you these “scandals” will come up with Obama, too (Rezco?), and more will come up with HRC. These are the all but assured result of camapigns now raising and spending over $100 million from all kinds of people the candidates have never met.

    What everyone should be railing against is how they are always against the Democrat de jour. Anyone here seriously think John “Silverado S&L” McCain has no donors with the slighest whiff of scandal? Where is the 1700 word expose on that? This issue is nothing more than todays example of IOKIYAR — because its news when a progressive does it, but merely dog bites man for a Republican to be associated with corruption.

  • The issue of character has gone ignored in the primaries. Democrats get offended when their saviors, The Clintons, are attacked on issues that many Americans feel are legitimate.

    However, once we nominate Hillary, it will be open hunting season on the Clintons, so get used to this stuff.

    And I know many of us brush stuff like Vince Foster off as a non-issue, but for every Clinton Apologist there is somebody who believes the allegations.

    Obama has strong character and moral fiber. He is untouchable. Why would people want to nominate a candidate who is a lightning rod of controversy?

  • Zeitgeist, with Hillary it is not just donors of scandal. She is involved in much scandal. Half our country thinks she covered up the murder of Vince Foster to protect her from the whitewater scandal.

    Time to stop making excuses for Hillary and start supporting Obama. He is our best hope in the fall.

  • Sure. It’ll just be aimed at Obama. That’s what wingnuts do.

    Of course.

    They’ll attack Obama for Vince Foster and all the nefarious things he did while residing in the White House for 8 years…

    Oh wait.

    Obviously, the wingnuts will go after Obama – you’d have to be foolish to think otherwise. The difference is that Obama doesn’t hand nearly the amount of live ammuntion to them to use against him. That’s a fact.

  • Hey didn’t HRC say that she’s already taken the best shots the VRWC has to offer and is still standing tall?

    If this is true, she should be able to brush this old news away with a flick of the wrist.

  • It’s one thing to think these kinds of smears are a reason not to support Clinton in the primaries. One might say it’s just a practical recognition of reality. However, it is irrational to hate her because she’s the object of these smears. I’d just encourage folks to note the distinction and keep it in mind as we move forward.

  • What is that deafening clicking sound I hear?

    Could be it’s the many lukewarm Democrats who, hearing of the most recent attack, are going to Hillary’s website to make a contribution?

    As an Obama supporter, I’d suggest we might “draw their fire” toward us for a change, except that we’re already drawing record contributions without it. 🙂

  • John S, how in the world is Vince Foster ammunition unless you believe in totally validating any and every flat-out fabricated lie the right wingnuts spew?

    And speaking of which, Anne C – make up numbers much? Where on earth did you get that “half” figure? The Washington Times? Rush Limbaugh?

    I feel like I’ve stepped into Bizzaro World where objective truth is abolutely meaningless anymore.

    If this is the result of not standing up to the Republican lies at every turn the last thing I’d want is for us to do less of it.

    If we just say McCain was behind the Kennedy assassination enough times, will everyone just believe it and make the election a cakewalk?

  • Obama has strong character and moral fiber. He is untouchable.

    It matters not. He gets the nomination, the NeoCon Slime-a-nator will train its fire on him directly. After all, when have pesky things like facts or truth ever had any effect on the Fascists’ Echo Chamber?

  • Maybe next week they will do an expose on how much money was contributed by recipients of Clinton’s Christmas cards.

    Edo @ 5: “Any word on how many of W’s Pioneers stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom?”

    Here’s a sort list from March 10, 2004(source AP). Remember, though, that people who contribute to Bush expect a little more than a sleepover. It might be better to look at the number of unbid contracts, faith based funding, oil contracts in Iraq, etc.
    ublished on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 by the Associated Press

    “At least nine of Bush’s biggest fund-raisers appear on the latest list of White House overnight guests, covering June 2002 through December 2003, and-or on the Camp David list, which covers last year. They include:

    * Mercer Reynolds, an Ohio financier, former Bush partner in the Texas Rangers baseball team and former ambassador to Switzerland. Reynolds is leading Bush’s campaign fund-raising effort. He was a guest at the White House and the Camp David retreat in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains.

    * Brad Freeman, a venture capitalist who is leading Bush’s California fund-raising effort, has raised at least $200,000 for his re-election campaign and is also a major Republican Party fund-raiser. Freeman stayed at the White House.

    * Roland Betts, who raised at least $100,000 for Bush in 2000, was a Bush fraternity brother at Yale and a Texas Rangers partner. Betts stayed at the White House and Camp David.

    * William DeWitt, a Bush partner in the oil business and Texas Rangers who has raised at least $200,000 for Bush’s re-election effort, stayed at the White House.

    * James Francis, who headed the Bush campaign’s 2000 team of $100,000-and-up volunteer fund-raisers and was a Bush appointee in Texas when Bush was governor. Francis was a White House guest.

    * Joseph O’Neill, an oilman and childhood friend who introduced Bush to Laura Bush and raised at least $100,000 for each of Bush’s presidential campaigns, stayed at the White House.

    * Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and New York Gov. George Pataki, who each raised at least $200,000 for Bush’s re-election campaign, were White House guests.

    * James Langdon, who raised at least $100,000 for Bush, is a Washington attorney specializing in international oil and gas transactions. Langdon, whose clients include the Russian oil company Lukoil, is a member of Bush’s foreign intelligence advisory board and served on Bush’s 2000 presidential transition team on energy policy.

  • John S, how in the world is Vince Foster ammunition unless you believe in totally validating any and every flat-out fabricated lie the right wingnuts spew?

    Dude, I don’t think this word ‘validate’ means what you think it means.

    If you think Vince Foster isn’t ammunition simply because you and I don’t validate it, then have I got some land in Montana to sell you. The point isn’t whether we validate the hatchet pieces, the point is that Hillary will have a ridiculous amount of them. It doesn’t matter if they are true or even newsworthy, they will be pumped into the media from every possible angle. Unfortunately, if it’s in the news – it’s news.

    Granted, Obama has his madrassa story and McCain will have his Keating 5, but nobody in this election cycle – and I mean nobody – will have more mud thrown at them than Hillary Clinton will. Invalidating the mud won’t magically wash it away once it has been thrown and sticks to something.

  • “Unfortunately for the Times, there isn’t even a hint of wrongdoing anywhere in the piece.”

    Unfortunately for Clinton, it really doesn’t matter whether there’s any actual wrongdoing – it never has and it never will.

    Nominating Hillary Clinton means one thing: a steady stream of these attacks. But don’t worry, they won’t last too long – just until McCain is elected next November.

    Bloomberg is right: Hillary Clinton could win in November, but only if she’s facing McCain AND a strong third party of independent candidate.

  • But John S, we do validate it when even our side repeats it as a legitimate concern in the campaign.

    The Vince Foster story proves one thing and one thing only: that the Republicans will make up complete and total lies about their opponents.

    If you dont think they will do that to Obama, or somehow think he is immune to it sticking, then you are the naive one.

    Tell me one grain of truth the Foster story is based on? But it stuck anyway. Just like the Swiftboaters dismantled Kerry running against a cokehead who was AWOL from the ANG.

    And why would you ever think this wont or cant happen to Obama? Hillary didn’t do anything to make it happen – unless of course you secretly believe she murdered Foster. That’s it, isn’t it?

    Christ, people have gone fucking nuts. . .

  • I am sure the right wing nuts would go after Obama, but they don’t have years of ammo to throw at him like with the Clintons.

    Hillary has a real suspect past. Us democrats know it is BS and look past it, but we should also keep in mind that this is a huge issue in the general election. Hillary’s moral fiber will be questioned, and it will be questioned hard.

    And while Hillary has said she has taken the worst the right wingers can dish out and stood up to it, we don’t know that to be true. She has not run in a general election. She does well against democrats, because we have common sense. But when you bring the masses into the mix, how do we know she can stand up to it? (And she barely beat Lazio after Gulliani dropped out of the 2000 Senate Race, she might have lost that race, tough to use that as an example of her beating her critics.)

  • On February 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm, ET said:
    Oh God. It feels like the 1990’s again. Sigh.

    Yup.

    Why return to the 90’s? Let’s look ahead. Obama is just as qualified as Hillary, they share policy views. Why would somebody pick Hillary over Obama, unless they just enjoy the Clinton Drama?

  • The Vince Foster story proves one thing and one thing only: that the Republicans will make up complete and total lies about their opponents.

    It proves 2 things:
    1. That Republicans will make up lies, and
    2. That many people will believe their lies

  • Last time I looked, 40% of the country still believes that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, 30% of our fellow citizens still approve of the job that Bush is doing as president. This stuff will have an impact and it will not be quickly debunked by the press – particularly when the press, having single handedly resurrected McCain’s candidacy, has a vested in his further triumphs.

  • zeitgeist, there is some substance to the vince theory. not enough for criminal prosecution, but enough coincidences to get a conspiracy theorist fired up.

    why was vince’s office in the white house ransacked on the night of his death?

    do you dispute that his office was ransacked? or do you hold out that there is no correlation to the ransacking of his office and his death?

    I don’t believe that Hillary had Foster killed, but there are enough “wow, really…” types of information that make a nice story for somebody who loves suspense thriller movies.

    It doesn’t matter if the accusations are true or false in this instance. That they exist makes them damaging enough.

    Anyway, I’m tired of defending Clinton scandals when talking politics. Time to move on.

  • If you dont think they will do that to Obama, or somehow think he is immune to it sticking, then you are the naive one.

    They’ll definitely try it with Obama, and he’s not “immune” but he’ll be a heck of a lot more resistant than Hillary is.

    That is because Obama is palpably a decent person. He radiates respectability. Meanwhile Hillary’s personality makes most people WANT to find bad things to think about her, making them more susceptible to lies.

    I’ll say it again: conservative independents love Obama. They can’t stand Hillary. I know this not just from polls but from the conservative independent friends I’ve talked to. Obama would be a vastly more powerful candidate in the general election than Hillary.

    You could put forth the argument that we shouldn’t choose are candidate based on these things, that we should stand up to the lie machine rather than avoid it, but Obama would be doing BOTH. And it’s not a matter of choosing between poor candidate that has good pool numbers and a great candidate that has poor poll numbers.. it’s a matter of choosing between TWO great candidates, one of which also has great prospects to actually beat the Republican, and one who doesn’t.

    To not choose the great candidate that has the better chance is silly.

  • I feel like I’ve stepped into Bizzaro World where objective truth is abolutely meaningless anymore. -Zeitgeist

    Yeah, today has been weird. I think you or Anne or someone mentioned it earlier, but a lot of the Obama ‘support’ today has sounded bizarrely Ron Paulian. The amount of concern trolling that has been going on has made it legitimately hard to, you know, actually be concerned about certain things.

  • But John S, we do validate it when even our side repeats it as a legitimate concern in the campaign.

    You are really reaching to salvage a point.

    The concern isn’t Vince Foster, the concern is the deluge of mud. Even if nobody from our side repeated these lurid tales and we pretended like they don’t even exist, IT WILL NOT STOP THE MUD. Do you understand that? Or maybe you think Kerry not validating the Swift Boat Vets ended up being a brilliant strategy. Because after all, those were a pack of lies – so why bother to address them? But of course, if Hillary gets mired down in addressing the myriad of lies hurled at her, then she will have to acknowledge them by having to respond. It’s a shitty catch-22, I know, but those are the breaks.

    If you dont think they will do that to Obama, or somehow think he is immune to it sticking, then you are the naive one.

    Of course they will TRY, but they really don’t have the same material to work with, now do they? You mentioned Rezco (so did Hillary), but that’s just a drop in the mud bucket when compared to Hillary.

    Tell me one grain of truth the Foster story is based on? But it stuck anyway. Just like the Swiftboaters dismantled Kerry running against a cokehead who was AWOL from the ANG.

    Exactly.

    And why would you ever think this wont or cant happen to Obama? Hillary didn’t do anything to make it happen – unless of course you secretly believe she murdered Foster. That’s it, isn’t it?

    Again, I DO think it will happen to Obama, but he just doesn’t have nearly as much dirt (real or imaginary) for them to make mud out of. And quite frankly, they will have to invent new mud to hurl at Obama, and they only have a few months left to do it in. With Hillary, they can just recycle the mountain of shit they threw at her husband 8 years ago (it seems they already have). I know it sucks, but that’s just how it is.

  • “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” – Burke

    Moving on because those who would endlessly lie to defeat Democrats are tiresome and inconvenient and wear us out from the fight solely encourages them to do it some more, in bigger, bolder ways. Turning to Obama in hopes of outrunning their hatred, so your path is easy and restful is both a sellout and a false hope: emboldended, they will trash liberals and liberalism even worse going forward.

    They understand one thing: force. For liberalism, this is the defining battle. Fight the evils of modern Republicanism or die (like the word ‘liberal’ itself largely has already). There is no playing nice, we cannot unilaterally declare “post-partisanism” while they are still being partisan; that is a happy delusion.

    If electing a Clinton makes their heads explode with rage, hey, thats a fine, fine way for them to go.

  • Zeitgeist,

    It seems like you almost prefer Hillary over Obama because you want to fight about this stuff all over again.

    Do you enjoy spending most of your political discussion time defending the perception of corruption? Or do you want a president that unites all of America (as opposed to has half of the nation hating her, and the other half defending her)?

    Obama has an ability to unite our nation in a way that no Clinton could ever do. Do you disagree with that statement? (and no, not whether it is fair or not, just whether it is true or not)

  • Anne C. said:

    I am sure the right wing nuts would go after Obama, but they don’t have years of ammo to throw at him like with the Clintons.

    But their ammo is all blanks.

    If one votes against Clinton because of fear of what smears the Republican will attack them with then one is ignoring some important ideas of fairness, courage, and truth. Then the wingnut terrorists have won.

  • I would be kind of curious to know whether this post is really meant to be a criticism of media outlets like the Washington Times, or just another way to get the Hillary-haters all fired up and stretch the limits of those with more rational thinking skills.

    It used to be that we were pretty united in our anger and disappointment at the media for its one-sided treatment and criticism of Democrats and liberals, but for some reason, there are a lot of left-leaning blogs which seem to have taken the position that there is actually value in that kind of treatment when it’s directed at the Democratic candidate they do not want to get the nomination.

    I hope you all realize that the conversation is no longer about which Democrat has the best plan for health care, or which one has the best foreign policy plans, or tax policy, and instead is on ancient history, debunked rumors, scandals that were never scandals, about tear-filled eyes and charisma and oratory. Would you choose a surgeon because of his bedside manner or his surgical skills? Would you choose him based on the details of his personal life, or how well his patients do? If you went to someone in the medical community for advice about which surgeon you should choose, how would you feel if, every time you asked about the surgeon’s training and experience and where he or she had practiced or how current he or she is on the latest techniques, the conversation was shifted to the rumors about the surgeon’s marriage, or his kid being in rehab, or his laugh or the color of his eyes?

    That”s what we are allowing to happen – we are allowing the media to dictate the conversation. And people are allowing themselves to be swayed by it, to be sucked into ignoring what really matters. The nominee we end up with will be the result of votes cast on the basis of things that have nothing to do with governing and leading, that have nothing to do with where this country is and where it needs to go, with whether we get what it is we really need to set things right, or whether we end up with something else.

    The Washington Times is a right-wing rag – and it would be a rag for publishing nothing-there stories about Obama, too, so please don’t give me the double-standard line – when these attacks come, be aware that they do not just harm the person they are aimed at, but the larger target of the party itself.

    The lefty blogs – I can’t even read Markos anymore – risk becoming all the things they hated about the right-wing, for the short-term goal of boosting the Democratic candidate they prefer, losing sight of the long-term goal of getting a Democrat elected.

    We are supposed to be better than they are, and it pains me when we start acting like them. Our fight should not be with each other, but with those who want 4 more years of this nightmare we have been living for the last 8. Yes, we want the best candidate to put up against the execrable offering of the GOP, but it isn’t just about beating them – because I really don’t think it’s going to be that hard – it’s about the person who brings the most to the table, grounded in the reality of what lies ahead.

    Thanks for letting me vent; I needed that.

  • Wait …wait…I’ve got a better cvandidate. He’s excellent at public speaking and he’s good looking too and he stands on the issues pretty much like Obama and Clinton but…but…wait for it…No one has ever heard of him! So the republicans have nothing to attack him with. That means he will win the presidency because he’s attack proof. And we all know that’s how we nominate our candidates…by which ones are attack proof. After all we all know that we, the voting public…will believe anything that is associated with a scandal. The last elections of divide, lie and smear have taught us nothing. We didn’t look back in hindsight at the lies and smears and tell ourselves I won’t be so quick to believe any of those lies and smear campaigns again now that I see them and their instigators for what they truly are. The only candidate we can get elected is one the republicans cannot lie and smear because we are too stupid not to believe them. Let’s all vote for Joe Botts(not even a real name…so good luck on smearing this guy). Thanks Anne C. for making us see the light.

  • Turning to Obama in hopes of outrunning their hatred, so your path is easy and restful is both a sellout and a false hope: emboldended, they will trash liberals and liberalism even worse going forward.

    You got me pegged all wrong.

    I turn to Obama because I believe in this:

    democracy

    Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

    I turn from Hillary because I don’t believe in this:

    oligarchy

    A form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

    Clearly, you favor the latter over the former. I don’t.

  • But their ammo is all blanks

    Blanks make a loud noise and scare the shit out of people the same as live rounds.

  • bjobotts,

    is this candidate you name a former editor of harvard law review with 12 years of major government experience? have hundreds of credible democratic party members endorsed this guy as qualified and capable of holding the office of presidency?

    if so, maybe he would be a good choice.

    time for the clinton empire to end. let’s put pride back in the white house.

  • You guys are acting like Obama is not qualified, and people only want him because they hate hillary.

    If Hillary were not running, I would still want Obama. I think he’s great.

    Now what I don’t understand is how anybody could want Hillary over Obama. Hillary is a scandal ridden politician who has shown time and time again that the American people cannot trust her. While I do like her, that is the perception she receives.

    Why do you want a president that half of the country thinks is a criminal instead of another equally qualified candidate in Obama? Doesn’t make sense (unless you simply enjoy the drama of fighting with people on internet message boards about how pardon selling is legitimate).

  • But their ammo is all blanks. — Dale

    If that were true, hatred of the Clintons would be far less of an issue. It should be obvious by now that the charge matters more than the truth, and those who are forced to defend against false charges are, well, on the the defensive. Realizing this, Republicans have mastered the art of the dictating the game.

    If one votes against Clinton because of fear of what smears the Republican will attack them with then one is ignoring some important ideas of fairness, courage, and truth. Then the wingnut terrorists have won.

    Absolutely. But if, in order to win the moral game, we lose the electoral game and their candidate takes the oath, well, as you say, “Then the wingnut terrorists have won.” I believe the only way to win both moral and electoral victories is to dictate the terms of a new game.

  • Obama has strong character and moral fiber. He is untouchable. Why would people want to nominate a candidate who is a lightning rod of controversy?

    As for Obama being “untouchable”: Other than the fact that he’s owned body and soul by big coal, ADM and Con Agra, Monsanto, etc, you mean?
    Other than his economic advisors are closer to Friedman than to Keynes?

    I have a big problem with the whole Dim approach this year. With a chance to both recapture the White House and install a decent majority in Congress, the Party instead opts for a circus act, nominating one of two people in public life most likely to polarize the party, and then to lose to an otherwise mortally wounded GOP…There is a serious amount of acrimony informing the opinions of partisans for both candidates, and gratifying one’s constituency is almost gay-ron-fuukin-TEED to piss off the partisans of the other. (For that reason alone, I do not see how either one cannot invite the other to join the ticket, which would at least promote Party unity, if nothing else.)

    Fuuukin brilliant…McStain’s the most dangerous possible nominee, because he, of all of them, will pull from the pool of Raygun Dems who might have returned to the fold, not embracing the Dims, necessarily, but rejecting the failed GOP. McStain is enough the author of the Bushevik foreign policy that we can be assured that his prediction of “more wars” will see fruition. It may be that the discurssive practices of imperialism are so far entrenched in the policies and practies of the Country as a whole that is is no longer possible to pull back from them.

    Even if either HRC or BHO gets into the WhiteHouse, the Mierdas-touched wreckage in every aspect of the government left behind by the Bushevik cabal will defeat even the most concerted efforts to rectify. The list is too long to even begin here, but the damage is damn near fatal, the country is in cardiac arrest, and there WON’T be a ‘friendly’ Congress, because the Pukes who do remain will be as poisonous as rattlers in early spring, and less inclined to help the country it that should redound to the benefit of the Dims in any way.

    So here’s the summary after the next next 4 years, no matter who occupies the WhiteHouse: The Iraq clusterfuck won’t have ended, I guarantee. Probably, the economy will have crashed, and there likely will have already occurred a devastating world-wide recession, pauperizing the US middle class, and sending thousands upon thousands toward the US in search of jobs. The Chinese may have called in some of their notes. The Russians, the Chinese, and the Indians will be established in the trans-Caspian, and Israel will still be oppressing the Palestinians (especially if Netanyahu replaces Olmert).

    In other words, very little will have changed. Only, if Dems have occupied the Presidency, it will be their fault whereas, if it has been McStain, then nobody will have ever possibly have predicted…..

  • As for Obama being “untouchable”: Other than the fact that he’s owned body and soul by big coal, ADM and Con Agra, Monsanto, etc, you mean?

    Links please.

  • There are a number of us on this forum who do not support Senator Clinton for the nomination because of her voting record or for her husband’s record in office, or both. Senator Clinton made her husband’s record in office fair game by touting her eight years of White House experience.

    To deprecate the questions that liberal Democrats have about Senator Clinton as “Hillary hatred,” or to dismiss President Clinton’s failures and transgressions in office as “ancient history” is to leave yourself open to being body-slammed in the General Election. If some of us have misgivings then the far less informed body politic, inflamed by the McCain-loving media and the most effective attack machine in political history, will return the Senator to her seat in the Senate.

    It doesn’t matter that it’s wrong. It’s how it is. That same media and that same attack machine will of course be trained at any Democrat. But, in this instance, I’d prefer one with whom they’ve had less practice.

  • Some of you need to get off Hillary’s tits and open your eyes.

    She is not a good person. She is a bad person.

    Stop making excuses for Hillary and start supporting Obama now before it is too late!!

  • Forward…to the past!

    The fact of the matter is that if you make it to this level of politics, you’ve got some sleaze buried somewhere. Politics is, by nature, a Faustian bargain…at least when you need to find millions of dollars that someone doesn’t really need or want that much.

    But Lord have mercy, i do not want to relive the 90’s. I mean, i had some good times and all, but politically speaking, that decade was infuriating. The only thing most people under 30 remember about the 90’s were the scandals; in many cases, they have only a hazy memory…i.e. that there were scandals. So this stuff might be tedious, old news to “us”, but its pretty much fresh meat for the mythical youth vote.

    Maybe if we hadn’t “reformed” the communication sector so that there were only five major companies controlling 90+% of the news, this crap could be beaten.

  • I think it’s pretty obvious that some of us are supporting Hillary and some of us are supporting Barrack and we are all – except maybe the reincarnated Ron Paulbots – aiming for the same goal: ending the Republican regime. Maybe we should take the advice routinely given to the Democratic candidates: focus on McCain, not tearing down each other.

    I can understand the rationale for voting for Barrack and I am still supporting Hillary. They are both good candidates. Either of them will be a zillion times better than Bush. And with our help – and encouragement – can be better and more effective.

  • You Hillary Haters are absolutely insane. You honestly think that just because Obama doesn’t have the “baggage” Clinton does that he’d do better in the general election? You seriously believe that he’ll come through the republican smear machine better than Clinton could? You are completely hopeless if you honestly think that.

    I’m an Obama supporter because I like his politics. But for electability, it doesn’t matter which of them we have. If you think otherwise, you are an idiot. It **DOESN’T MATTER**. Either would be viciously attacked and smeared, and Obama is not made of teflon. It *would* stick to him. The secret is how it is addressed, not who is doing the addressing.

    Now, I have confidence in Obama’s ability to address this, because he certainly did a good job of it with that whole “radical medrassa” smear. He knows how to get his message out and how to squelch the likes of Faux “News” until Bill “O’Really” has to assault one of his people to get a word with him. So this doesn’t worry me over much.

    But it *will* be an issue regardless of which of them gets the nomination, and Obama won’t be exempt from it. He is *not* stronger than Clinton in this area. You Hillary Haters among the Obama ranks need to start facing reality rather than blindly swallowing talking points from the GOP and Faux “News”. Because if you don’t, then it won’t matter if Obama sweeps the rest of the primary; he’ll lose the general election because you had your head wedged where the sun don’t shine.

  • Bottom Line:

    Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! “Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care” free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

    “HR 676:
    For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
    Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.”

    But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress four times.

    But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

    We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

    I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven’t forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it’s her.

    Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

    The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

    As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

    My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Young, and old. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all… You are doing great!

  • I’m with those who say the path to victory is to stand up to bullying, not to run away from it.

    The fact they’ve smeared Hillary is not a reason to run away from her to the next target, who is currently clean. He won’t be clean for long as long as we have demonstrated that we run away from smear instead of standing up to it.

  • “I believe the only way to win both moral and electoral victories is to dictate the terms of a new game.”

    Couple things about that. One is that liberals have NO infrastructure to dictate anything. NONE. Stewart (who will suckle on McCain’s titties on q) and Olberman are not an infrastructure. Besides, right wingers never hear a word they say for they have been conditioned not to listen to or negate anything critical of their cult even if they do watch.

    Depending on Matthews to occasionally report something of value is not an infrastructure.

    Robert Parry has been trying to get the left to realize this for years. They haven’t and that’s why we are now in this amazing place where the republicans are corrupt and overtly treasonous yet liberals are still scratching to win elections. This is reflective of something quite serious.

    Talk about how the right can feed its cult lies and they eat them?

    The right has cult like control over its followers. There, I said it. That is what many of you are saying but don’t use the terms. The right has been conditioned with deception after deception so they will believe any dog turd tossed at them – ANY dog turd tossed at them.

    We should be screaming about the fact that half the country is under control and believes these things. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

    This is a huge national security problem yet liberals still look at it as if it is just politics as it is played today. It wasn’t played this way until the right realized it had to deceive the nation, control the minds of millions, to win. Reality be damned. I mean, what do really think this “reality based community” stuff was all about? For all the talk about it on the left no one seems to be blunt about or want to tackle the real problem – the fact that this is national security problem. It is not normal.

    Through the demonization of any media source not approved by the cult of conservatism they have effective information control over their followers and I do mean followers. Newt’s GOPAC memo was about language control – manipulating minds. This set the nation off on this battle for control of the mind – not the convincing of people about your ideas, it is about control. They have effectively deployed the mind control technique of language control.

    Watch the short video clip at the top of this page. At the end of the clip the top operative of the man who has outspent anyone to bring about this right wing horror, he will tell you what the “third world war is all about.”

    Now for the other main issue. Once again we skirt around the issue as we point to the media outlet which is deceiving the nation. The Washington Times.

    I have a question. Does anyone think that by pointing out that Moon owns the paper does you any good? WHY not?

    It is because it is so rare that any liberal blogs or otherwise get into the details of Moon’s propaganda paper. It’s purpose, its billions in losses. When people note Moon’s ownership how often do they mention Moon BRAGS about using the paper and his “other activities” to “influence” our nation? How often do they mention that Moon said this about his supposedly “independent” paper:

    So please take spiritual dominion in your states. You can proclaim spiritually to the government leaders, “I am the elder brother, you are the younger brother.” Teach them what you have learned. I invited many congressmen and senators to come to conferences to be educated. Though they may not proclaim openly, many of them support me. Through the Washington Times, Insight magazine, and the world and I, I have been preparing the foundation for you to influence America.
    [Leaders’ Conference – November 23, 1989 – Sun Myung Moon
    November 23, 1989]

    Moon was quoted in US News and World Report on March 29, 1989 as saying his goal was “the natural subjugation of the American government and population.” That is what he is and HAS done but you do not see.

    Moon wants a right wing, homophobic, authoritarian US government which takes its q from those who claim to be religious, an Americanized theocracy. He spends BILLIONS in overseas cash doing exactly that. Sure, this information is “out there” but you rarely see any blogs dig into it. None of them really do other Gorenfeld’s which is dormant while he prepares for his book release, and now Scoobie Davis is trying to make a dent.

    But my point is that liberals do just squabble on q about some lie or deception the right has embedded in the minds of their cult following. Media Matters does outstanding work but if you read them it is all about the showing some falsehood, like by exposing it does anything but keep the informed up to date and hopping over the latest rage.

    Until liberals go after media outlets that promote these lies, until they show people who is behind the WT and that it is Moon’s tool to subvert our nation we’re wasting our damn time. Its like this, even Rush Limbaugh should be embarrassed to quote the WT. He isn’t. Why?

    It’s because the left has let Moon, his operatives and the soul selling Republicans get away with the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on our nation. That is that the WT is “independent” of Moon and his desire to subjugate our nation into this rightwing horror. Liberals are afraid to admit Moon has been behind this and knows exactly what he is doing. Liberals are afraid to speak out that Moon IS achieving his goal. Why? Because they think they will be called conspiracy theorists or some such nonsense given that all I am saying is well documented if you look and report it.

    Calling the WT the “Moonie Times” is not how you expose this beast.

    Buzzflash has got the right idea. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/honors/007
    Read the comment – Moon is the conservative’s “true” savior.

    Learn here

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/9/13513/46197/94/234851
    Where a lot of the money came from to subvert our nation.

    Then write about it. Bitching and moaning about the WT deceiving the nation one more GD time does nothing to stop it, nothing. You have to tell them why the WT does this, why the right has been Moon’s political army of chumps to drive our nation to hell. Tell them who has molded and been the number one funder of right wing thought in America.

  • For a hilarious and harrowing look at how one of the most notorious cult leaders of the 1970s became the force behind the GOP’s Washington Times, come to my Web site and look for my book Bad Moon Rising, out next month.

    • Comments are closed.