I've speculated about it before, but this article seals the deal. You really are clinically insane. Is Hillary brainwashing people or what? Did you not notice that SHE wants to continue the War in Iraq too? Did you not notice that she's about the most corrupt plutocrat in our government? Did you not notice that it was her husband making racist attacks on her opponent? She is everything you accuse the Republicans of being which they are not, and yet you support her. Incredible.

They're still Republicans, which means they're from the party that brought us dizzying debt,

Which is lower as a percentage of GDP than the debt left by any previous administration, and comes with the best balance of trade we've had in 30 years, totally erasing the massive imbalance of trade towards China which was engineered by the Clintons who have always been in the pocket of the Chinese who finance their campaigns.

An Inquisition-style torture,

You might want to actually read up on the inquisition before you say stunningly stupid stuff like this.

Burma-like suspension of habeas corpus,

Again, you might want to read up on conditions in Burma before you make yourself look like a complete moron saying things like this.

Gulag-type Gitmo,

Again, read a book about the gulag.

Third World-ways corruption, MBA-crony incompetence, Catholic Church-type boy-fucking,

I assume you're referring to Mark Foley here, which makes you both homophobic and a liar. Foley never had inappropriate relations with anyone who was under age.

and war crimes that in a better world would bring them Nuremburg-style hanging.

Utter bullshit, but that seems to be your only tool.

We are one nation, but within our breasts we harbor the theocrats and the neocons and the plutocrats, who are the soul of the Republican Party.

Actually, the Theocrats and Neocons are all former Democrats and it looks very much like the GOP is set to purge them this year.

These are Americans who call themselves Americans but who will con their lesser brethern into predatory mortgages.

And you know that these mortgage brokers are Republican because???

These are bigots who want black people to be washed away by Hurricane Katrina without doing anything to help them, and who use discriminatory drug laws to lock them up wholesale

Which is why the people of Louisiana just replaced their Democrat administration with a Republican one, right? The GOP is not and has never been the racist party in this country, and that's one reality which you just cannot lie away.

-- and who want to send hardworking Mexicans who do our shitty jobs back to Mexico because they don't like Mexicans either.

Which is why the current GOP president has lead the way on trying to find ways to keep Mexicans in the country legally and the current GOP frontrunner has been one of his main supporters, right?

These are CEO's and Wall Street financiers who have sold us out to China and want to continue doing so.

No, the Clintons sold us out to China. The Republicans bought us back.

But you know, it's nice that you support Hillary. She represents everything you revile AND she's the one candidate who can lose to McCain. Go for it.

Dave

This post has got it so wrong. Obama is the only candidate that can win in the General. Clinton is only pull core democrats and not Independents and Republicans. It's a darn shame that when we have a REAL chance at changing the political landscape and closing the chapters are Bush, Clinton and Washington politics - people who be so naive and narrowly focused on JUST voting for Hillary just because they want a woman in the WH, not matter her politics, devise nature, his uncontrollable Husband (who by the way NEVER won the majority of votes in both of his campaigns). OLDER WOMAN - please don't sell your country down the river with yet another Clinton. Please.

There are moments in time when you see a slow-motion disaster unfolding before you, and you can only yell out and hope those around you notice in time. Now is such a moment for Democrats, and "in time" means before the Super Duper primaries this Tuesday across the nation. Hillary Clinton may be a good U.S. Senator, and has deep symbolic importance as our first viable female presidential candidate, but three factors represent crippling structural flaws for the Democratic ticket this November if she becomes our candidate.

First is the nightmare we saw once before. Ralph Nader has just declared his decision to form an exploratory committee for 2008, and will certainly wage another presidential campaign hammering the Democrats. Under ordinary circumstances, Nader's inevitable next candidacy would be unimportant given his meteoric fall from electoral relevance. Thanks to voter resentment over his impact in 2000, and to efforts including our "Ralph Don't Run" campaign by anti-Bush progressives opposing Nader's candidacy, his vote total fell from an election-tilting 3% in 2000 to 0.38% in 2004. As we said in 2004, Nader's votes always come at the expense of the Democratic candidate. While Nader was not a factor in 2004, Hillary's weakness among progressives -- millions will never forgive her vote authorizing the Iraq war -- means that Nader will crawl back up into the low single-digits. We saw in 2000 the carnage "low single-digits" can cause.

Second, after his victory in Florida and endorsement by Giuliani, John McCain is the presumptive GOP nominee. McCain's greatest appeal will be to independent voters, a large vital block of the electorate that is Hillary's great weakness. Hillary is a highly polarizing candidate, which damages her among independents. As Time magazine's most recent polling indicates, she has the deadly combination of very high negatives (41% unfavorable) plus a deeply fixed voter impression (91% say they know enough about her to form an opinion). The latter figure means those numbers are not going to change substantially, and McCain will almost surely win Independents. This should be a deafening alarm bell for Democrats.

Finally, Hillary has an ironic power shared by no other candidate: from the wreckage of a broken, dysfunctional Republican party with deep rifts among its factions, she would create sudden GOP unity. If Clinton is our candidate, the Republican base will come out in numbers that have nothing to do with John McCain and everything to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton. As GOP pundits are now openly admitting, they want Hillary this November. They fear Obama.

Here, then, is the Clinton disaster scenario. Even in a year when Democrats are in great position to win in November, if Hillary unifies the Republicans, loses independents, and loses the progressive left, her chances of winning the general election are slim indeed.

Let look at the alternative. Barack Obama inspires Americans across the political spectrum, with his greatest strengths supplanting Hillary's greatest weaknesses. He unites independents, the young, minorities, and progressives alike. He will not unify the GOP, and indeed will take Republican votes. That same Time magazine poll shows that among those who have an opinion, he has astounding 70% positives. Yet 51% of voters don't yet know him enough to even have formed an opinion. With his power of ideas and remarkable personal charisma yet to be fully seen, his upside is enormous.

In 2004, we had our regrets about having to fight the often admirable Ralph Nader to most effectively oppose the reelection of George Bush. We beseech Democratic primary voters this Tuesday to make such an effort unnecessary in 2008, as Barack Obama unites progressives, independents and Democrats, and discourages rather than unifies Republicans. If we want to win in November, we must choose the transcendent appeal of Barack Obama, as Americans reject tired partisan divides of the past and join together in a new politics of integrity, hope, and a profound unity for the American people.

As Brenda points out, another thing which gives the lie to what Adam says in the original article, is that so many Republicans are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and even consider voting for him. But they know Hillary and the evil she represents. It's particularly ironic about this article that Adam rants on and on about evil and corruption, yet can't see that it is incarnated in the candidate he endorses.

Dave

The bad news for the former first lady is she is also seen as the candidate most likely to "do anything - including something unethical - to win," and most likely to embarrass the country.

If Hillary wins - HERE WE GO AGAIN (UGH!)

Uranium scandal hits the Clintons

1st February 2008

A Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, was last week exposed by the New York Times (NYT) as having secured a huge chunk of uranium resources in Kazakhstan - the world's third biggest source of the nuclear material.

According to the NYT, Giustra's deal was brokered by ex-president Clinton during a so-called "philanthropic tour" of the Central Asian state in late 2005.

A few months later, Clinton's eponymous charitable foundation received just over US$30 million from Giustra, followed by a whopping US$ 100 million soon afterwards.

Clinton's 2005 trip to Kazakhstan was, at least partly, aimed at boosting a bid by the country's despotic president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, to head the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). This - despite the regime's notoriously bad human rights record and suppression of free speech.

The man who rode to riches on Clinton's coat-tails, Frank Giustra, heads a specialist investment bank, Endeavour Financial, which picks opportunities in the minerals sector. Previously he was president and CEO of Yorkton Securities, one of Canada's leading venture capital firms and also a major investor in mining.[RM]

Adam,

Your "presidential" race (what a joke) is a Kennedy/Lincoln wannabe in blackface competing with the vagina dentata monologues on the other. And the vagina dentata monologues will probably emasculate the Kennedy/LIncoln wannabe.

But the stink of scandal already surrounds Hillary Clinton, and it stinks like blood. And when folks find out what the Lincolnesque proponent of change does when the spotlight is NOT on him, like in Kenya, they are going to realize that Obama Barack's middle name is indeed Hussein, and that it means more to him than a mere moniker.

On the other, you have three jesuses racing for Calvary and one Barabbas.

Two of the "jesuses" have split a cross between them, one with Mormon stripes, and the other with fundie stripes. And they are both racing to look more "christ-like" than the other. The third jesus, Ron Paul, is gonna get nailed but good. That leaves Barabbas McCain, whom the crowd will cheer for.

And that, Adam, is who you will get - if there are elections....

To the person calling her/himself Sara/Victoria/Jill/Tom/Bill/Victoria/Aaron:

The comments space is for you to post your own thoughts and opinions, not copy-and-paste entire articles from other sources.

Also, please do not use multiple names. It is against site policy. If you persist, I will have to block your IP address.

Assistant Comments Editor

That message seems not to have been received, Dr. D.

And for the record, they are all from the same IP.

Dave

I decided to log on and take a gander because those comments showed all the symptoms of being from the same person, and sure enough... same IP address, as you say.

Those last two were posted as I was typing my warning. There's been nothing since, so I would appear to have been heeded.

Thanks though, Dave.

Quite right, Doc D, well said.

He knows that, Dave, that's why he said "to the person"; try and keep up. I've deleted all the rubbish now anyway, so whoever it was has wasted their time.

I would have left it to you, Chris, only you appeared to be busy locking horns with Dave and Clavos on that other thread!

I have several horns, Doc, which allows for multi-tasking!

The GOP reminds me of a driver that can't read a map to "save their lives."

Ironically,as I'm typing this comment... John McCain is saying on CNN that,"we will not surrender (who's surrendering?... We removed Saddam), we will build our military... I will hunt Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice."

Personally, I'm so tired of hearing this "rah, rah crap" specifically in relation to the conduct on which the Bush Administration has conducted itself and the war. Those within the Bush inner circle has "stuffed their pockets beyond belief" and then invested their "non-taxed" ill-gotten gains in "slave labor" enterprises around the world.

So as a "former member" of the GOP... I Say the Time is NOW... Go Hillary Go!

Lest we forget that King Bush the first was once ambassador to China...

Traditionally, parties have chosen a vice-president to deliver the hard blows to the opposition, so if Hillary is that good it should be an Obama-Clinton ticket for maximum effectiveness.

Everytime Dave calls a nemesis 'clinically insane' he diminishes his credibility. It isn't even good pejorative rhetoric.

Wow, I can think of little that is more unAmerican than people like Brenda fighting against someone excercising his right to run for office. How dare Nader and other third candidates throughout the years being more appealing to a voter.

"As we said in 2004, Nader's votes always come at the expense of the Democratic candidate."

Then you have no idea what you are talking about, Brenda. Look at the state breakdowns. In Alabama, Gore lost by almost 250k votes and Nader only mustered under 19k. Obviously those votes didn't come at the expense of Gore, so your assertion is false.

To claim that Nader was the sole reason Gore lost is politically naive and ignornant of the totality of events. Not every Nader vote would have gone to Gore, so drop the sense of entitlement.

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

but it's all Ralph's fault. It had nothing to do with Gore's campaign.

I don't agree with all that name calling, but Hillary does know more about health care than anyone in the run.

Its too bad Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton's voting records look like they copied off each other. Choosing between them is like comparing a York apple with an Arkansas apple.

"Everytime Dave calls a nemesis 'clinically insane' he diminishes his credibility."

I'm going to have to lean toward defending Dave here. I've seen this before in 2000 and 2004. There was a layer of Democratic supporters each time that put everything into an apocalyptic relief. In 2004 Bush being re-elected would lead to a fascist dictatorship, there would never be another election.

Adam's post here is not exactly a rehash of 2000 and 2004 but there are some things in common. They had/have absolutely no objective basis for believing the Democrats would carry out policies fundamentally different than the ones of Bush would, or did. Or more precisely, follow the trajectory of those policies. After all many of the Bush regime's policies were just a continuation of what had been started in the Clinton White House.

As the election became closer, these Democrats became shriller. I was once called a fascist for criticizing Kerry. I concluded that this layer was seriously hysterical, a mental disorder. It doesn't necessarily end after the election either. There are still those that BELIEVE Gore won in 2000.

Adam's post is certainly shrill. And it does smack of desperation. Based on everything I've seen from Adam before I'd expect him to support Obama wholeheartedly, but here he is endorsing the Democrats chief warmonger. It just seems bizarre and certainly verging on the insane.

Dave

Is it me, or does it seem like, on these threads at least, those of us who call ourselves libertarian and/or moderate-conservative in some way seem to be more impressed with Obama than those who call themselves liberal?

Just askin'...

Clavos,

I think it's more widespread. And I don't think it's an ideological thing either, except for some Clinton supporters.

Obama would be the most electable candidate for the Democratic Party. He is a fresh face and it doesn't seem to matter that it's black. His appeal crosses party lines.

Unless the Democratic Party, and the ruling class itself, decide to make a turn to the left, like in Roosevelt type programs, then he will be a liability at the top of the ticket. It's not really a question of electability it's his election would generate expectations that couldn't be fulfilled.

As number two man on the ticket, he'd make that ticket quite electable and with Clinton at its head would not create any expectations.

Les

Clav, what you and Dave need to understand is that Democrats are spoiled here.

My wife and I have just had a huge headache trying to decide who she should vote for in the California Democratic primary. One the one hand you have a woman who is far and away the candidate with the most experience and qualifications, in either party, to park her bum in the Oval Office; on the other, a charismatic newcomer with fresh ideas and cross-party appeal.

It's a terrific but almost impossible choice.

Dave: get real. Adam is not insane - just impressed.

#21 Clavos

Barack was here in Boise this morning and hit a home run. Idaho is one of the Redest of the Red States and yet the turnout for Obama was overwhelming. The rally was held in an event center that holds 13 thousand people. My son and I arrived at 7:00am and got in at 8:30am. Many people were still outside when Barack spoke at 9:00am. He apologized to those waiting outside even though they had monitors so they could hear the speech. I would consider myself a libertarian/conservative and yet am drawn to Obama. He is an articulate black man (like myself) and has the "Audacity to Hope".

Hillary's got nothing on this man.

Call me crazy guys, but I just heard that "La Opinión", published in Los Angeles, but read nationwide by Latinos, particularly Mexicans, has just endorsed Obama. "La Opinión" is the NYT of the US Latino culture.

You Anglos bear with me here. This is a BIG endorsement for the man from Illinois; one of Hillary's strongholds is the Latino vote (except for the South Florida Cubans, and she even has some of them), if she loses a significant number of them to Obama, he could kick her ass in November , what with the Independents, the cross overs, etc.

That endorsement is about as big a one as the Latino sub culture has to offer; it's (IMO) bigger than Villaraigosa's and Cisneros's endorsements of Clinton.

Methinks it's gonna be a hell of a horse race...

As number two man on the ticket, he'd make that ticket quite electable and with Clinton at its head would not create any expectations.

I can't speak for anyone else, but while I would consider crossing over and voting for Obama I'm not so enamored with him that putting him in a meaningless spot like VP would be enough to make Hillary Clinton an acceptable candidate.

As for DD's assertion that Hillary hs the 'most experience', I have to disagree. She has a bit more than ONE term in elective office, total. That's all of her political experience. Before that she hadn't practiced law in years. Even Obama has more experience. He's got the same time in the Senate, plus 8 more years in the Illinois State legislature. Then there's McCain, who had a full career in the navy, with both combat experience and political experience working as naval liaison on capitol hill, followed by a few years in business, then 3 terms in the house and 3 terms in the Senate. With all that, all the other remaining candidates added together don't have as much experience. We're talking close to 50 years in public service.

Dave

#26 Nalle

You are killing me with this McCain crap!

McCain has been in Washington too long and is as guilty of malapropisms as Norm Crosby.

In 2003, McCain told The Tucson Citizen that "amnesty has to be an important part" of any immigration reform. He also rolled out the old chestnut about America's need for illegals, who do "jobs that American workers simply won't do."


McCain's amnesty bill would have immediately granted millions of newly legalized immigrants Social Security benefits. He even supported allowing work performed as an illegal to count toward Social Security benefits as recently as a vote in 2006

I will never forgive McCain for being beholden to Charles Keating (Keating 5).

Dave,

"I can't speak for anyone else, but while I would consider crossing over and voting for Obama I'm not so enamored with him that putting him in a meaningless spot like VP would be enough to make Hillary Clinton an acceptable candidate."

I would have to agree and of course a significant numbers of others would have the same response. All I am talking about is what I think the Democratic Party's problem with Obama is. For the reasons you state above, like considering to cross party lines, is what the Democratic Party fears.

They don't fear being elected but if there is a groundswell to put not only a new face in office, but to think he's going to magically change foreign and/or domestic policy, a great many will be in for a very rude disappointment. It will look as if they'd just been hoodwinked into supporting yet another sham. This will further discredit the electoral process and the two-party system.

The Clinton-Obama ticket can be sold. It will still be a chance to put a woman AND a Black man into the highest realms of power. This will be broadly attractive.

As I said earlier, the only reason for the ruling class to want an Obama-Clinton ticket is if they need to make a left turn.

Les

Les, I don't think that what Obama does matters as much as how he does it. He can follow relatively moderate, reasonable policies and do it in an inclusive and articulate way and people will love him for it. Appoint popular non-political advisers and throw in a couple of new ideas that aren't controversial and everyone will agree on - like a big alternative fuel initiaitive - and you've basically got the JFK formula. Hard to go wrong.

You don't have to actually do much of anything to be remembered as a great president. You just need to not fuck up and have a couple of impressive ideas.

But I agree on why the Democratic party fears Obama. He's not really one of them and if he draws a lot of independent and republican votes he won't feel particularly beholden to them. Then maybe they can join back up with the religious right and start a new party. I think the name "Know Nothing" is still available.

Dave

Wow, thanks for the stimulating insight:

"Besides, her health plan is better than his"

Look at the mess health insurance "mandate" programs are creating in Massachusetts & gosh, seems like a Repug created that ... Hillary gets more repug by the year.

People - please think and don't just suck up the platitudes these campaigns give you.

sign me, sick of lying & insincere politicians (e.g. most repugs and the Clintons)

OBAMA 2008!!!!!!

This must be one of the most creative headlines ever for a story on BC, and doubtless it's bringing in the callers.

Nice one Adam. I'm still worried about the picture, however.

Scary.

Dave:
Your #29 comment is spot-on.
About a big alternative energy initiative: if Obama starts a "let's land on the moon" JFK appeal about alternative energy, with tax breaks galore to those businesses -- maybe a complete tax holiday for 10 years -- he might be remembered as a great President, up there with Lincoln and Roosevelt. Alternative energy is, as Gore says, the big moral challenge of our time as well as a practical neccesity.

BTW, I am more of an Obama freak than a Hillary fanatic, but since I believe the country needs a 16-year progressive agenda to undo 8 years of neocon-theocrat-plutocracy, I favor a Clinton-Obama ticket followed by an Obama-Edwards ticket followed by an Edwards-Bloomberg ticket.

Adam Ash

Maurice #24:

Sorry for the delayed response, I missed your comment until now.

I'm glad to hear that Obama did well in Boise. As you say, the reddest of the red, and still he pulls them in.

For my money:

The guy is obviously very smart,

He doesn't have a lot of baggage,

His speeches show that he's got a really fresh viewpoint,

Yes, he's more left than I personally would like on some issues, BUT (and it's a big but):

He also emphasizes the (to me) major point that one of his highest priorities is to get US talking and working together again - that's huge (and critical) to me.

You said it:

"Hillary's got nothing on this man."

Quoted for Truth.

BTW, I am more of an Obama freak than a Hillary fanatic, but since I believe the country needs a 16-year progressive agenda to undo 8 years of neocon-theocrat-plutocracy, I favor a Clinton-Obama ticket followed by an Obama-Edwards ticket followed by an Edwards-Bloomberg ticket.

If you want your eternal reich, Adam, you're making a mistake to start out with Hillary, because even 4 years of her in office will so motivate conservatives and independents that you'll see a resurgence of the right which will make more than 8 years of Democrat leadership impossible.

Dave

Adam, as a left-of-center Democrat, you've got it exactly backwards. I think Andrew Sullivan puts it best:

"[Hillary] galvanises the conservative movement in ways no other Democrat can. Against McCain, she and she alone enables the Republicans to forget their deep internal divisions and unite.

Nothing - nothing - unites them as she does.

The money she will raise for the Republicans is close to the amount they can raise for themselves.

If you're a hard-nosed Democrat, especially in a state that leans Republican or that voted for Bush, she is potentially toxic to your chances. No Democrat in Nebraska wants to counter an advertisement morphing his face with Hillary's."

#36 MJW

Great points. Hillary's negative factor is very high. Certainly many conservatives might vote for McCain just to vote against Hillary. I don't believe the same is true with Obama. Just as there were Reagan democrats there might well be Obama republicans.

One last thing about the Obama rally here in Boise - the news is reporting that in addition to the 13 thousand people inside there were 5000 people outside enduring the cold listening to the speech.

Hillary = Hubert Humphrey
Obama = Eugene McCarthy
McCain = Richard Nixon

It''s 1968 folks.

Dave

Of course, there are some people who would like to run the 1968 campaigns over again.

It seems that the final will be between Obama and McCain, both outsiders in their parties, so maybe this is the beginning of the end for trad dems and reps.

You guys are making me rethink my think. Apparently Obama is catching up with Hillary nationally in the polls, too.

However, as united as the Republicans may get, by now they're a distinct minority -- self-described Republicans being in the 30s compared to self-described Democrats in the 50s and 60s of the population.

OK, say Obama is a surer thing than Hillary, though I still think she's a lock -- especially when all her high-school educated women come out to vote en masse.

But say he's more electable -- now I'm worried about a new thing: won't Obama wimp out on a progressive agenda once he's president? For example, his healthcare plan panders more to the right and Hillary's doesn't.

She'll fight tooth and nail for her ideas -- he'll reach out for consensus and the special interests could force him towards the center-right.

That would be my worry about Obama as president. I want a progressive agenda enacted in the next eight years, like a kind of new New Deal. The country needs it real bad. We'll get poorer and poorer, and our poor will get bigger and bigger, if we don't get some serious infrastructure investment, alternative energy investment, education investment, and some protection for our domestic manufacturers real soon. This stuff is not going to happen if a Democratic administration bends over for special interests, who are quite happy with our rich getting richer, while our middleclass and our country gets pounded.

Adam Ash

Dave,

I think you're on to something with the parallel to the 1968 election you drew in #37.

Tonight, on separate programs, I saw both Dick Morris and Antonio Villaraigosa (Mayor of Los Angeles and Clinton backer) both invoke the memory of the 1968 race, with Morris drawing the exact same parallels between candidates then and now as you did.

Dave and Clavos,

Any comparison between 1968 and 2008 and the equating of then and now candidates is extremely superficial.

Les

Independents for Obama?

I question Obama's argument that he can get votes that Hillary cannot. Take a look at the exit polls (CNN.com/politics) and you will find that the independent voters are mostly white males. Will these same white males vote for Obama in the general election? Think about it for a moment. If one demographic group cannot bring themselves to vote for Hillary, you have to ask is it because she is in fact a "woman?" If this same demographic of voters are indeed sexist, they just may be racist also. I strongly believe that the vast number of independent voters who are voting for Obama will be voting Republican in the general election. Also, how many BLUE states has Obama won other than his home state of Illinois?
Hillary can win the general election but I strongly believe that Obama cannot. Obama's biggest support is comprised of 80% African American and 50% Democratic White vote. He cannot overcome the remaining Democratic White vote, Republican votes, Latino votes or the Asian votes. I don't believe he will win in states south of the Mason/Dixon line nor will he take the midwest and western states. I think he would only win the major Democratic states...which we all know will not lead him to the White House. If Hillary could take 60% of the women vote and continues to take the Latino vote at 66% along with the Asian vote of 75%, she wins the White House.