I, for one, will not hand Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination on a silver platter. My top eight reasons why.
Color me a woman overboard from the Hillary Express. A lifelong Democrat, I cannot imagine a worse fate for my political party, or for that matter the United States of America, than bringing this ship to port.…
Article comments
26 - Maggie
Great article, Cheryl Snyder Taragin. Hillary Clinton is a horrible debater cause..guess why?..she has nothing to say. No relevant, consistent position on anything. That's cause, yes, she's a liar. She also voted for the horrendous HR 1955, the Patriot Act, and approved attacking Iraq. Another observation, she has no friends. She has no supporters. It's so blaringly, sickeningly obvious that the global elite want to install her as America's first queen. Queen Hitlery. Uh, barf, wretch, puke..turning green.
27 - Maggie
Great article, Cheryl Snyder Taragin. Hillary Clinton is a horrible debater cause..guess why?..she has nothing to say. No relevant, consistent position on anything. That's cause, yes, she's a liar. She also voted for the horrendous HR 1955, the Patriot Act, and approved attacking Iraq. Another observation, she has no friends. She has no supporters. It's so blaringly, sickeningly obvious that the global elite want to install her as America's first queen. Queen Hitlery. Uh, barf, wretch, puke..turning green.
28 - CherylT
I didn't want to post another comment because I didn't want to turn the comments section of this article into a free for all. I believe I have already said all there is to say. But, in the interest of letting everyone know I am interested in what they have said, here goes.
#16 - All the things you write about are real concerns. I did not include them in the article because these accusations are considered over the top and unprovable. Circumstantial evidence can lead to logical well-reasoned conclusions. But it will never convince the naysayers. As you can see from the comments here, some people cannot be convinced no matter what facts you put before them.
Not one of the Hillary supporters has said anything other than she is the candidate they have chosen. For example:
#3 - she is qualified to be president because she will say or do anything to get elected. I have to believe Matthew is joking.
#4 - Edwards and Obama can't win in the general election, so nominate Hillary if you don't want another Republican president. Sorry, Everton, but this totally discounts the possible electability of Biden, Dodd, Richardson, or Gravel (I know I left out Kucinich, but I think his campaign is a joke and that he is not a credible contender). If what you said in #22 is true, then you are the idiot (sorry - not meaning to get personal - just using your own words) because I am not an Obama plant. He's just as unqualified as Clinton for reasons I won't belabor here...BUT... if he gets the nomination I may vote for him in the general election because I am just as sick of the Republicans as most other Democrats.
When I tell people I think Biden and Dodd are both well qualified for the job and have done well in the debates (with the little face time they've been given), they laugh at me (case in point - #13 and #19). Why aren't they electable? Who says? The money in their campaign coffers? The polls? The national news media? All unreliable indicators before the primaries. I want factual reasons why neither senator is a suitable candidate. "They can't win" and "no charisma" doesn't cut it.
I don't understand what you mean when you say, "Carl Bernstein? C'mon." Bernstein wrote a factual account of Clinton that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. That's all. I never said I didn't like her because she was too ambitious. What I said is one of the reasons I won't vote for her is because I don't respect her. Then I cited facts to explain why. You can disagree, but you still haven't explained why. You need to do that if you want me to understand why - according to you - I am wrong.
#17 - You have real issues you need to deal with before you comment again. Bigoted mudslinging makes you look weak.
As for the negativity directed at Clinton but none of the others...the article is entitled "Must Read for All Hillary Clinton Supporters." If I wanted to try to elect a particular candidate, I could have written a different article. I am tired of hearing Hillary will win the nomination AND the presidency but never hearing good solid reasons why I should vote for her. I have researched her to the hilt. I stand by my statement - as supported factually in reasons #1 to #6 - that she is a pathetic excuse for a candidate and a predictable disaster for America. #7 and #8 are based upon my own emotions and feelings about her, that's true, but cut me some slack. I am only human.
#20 - Clinton will win. End of story. Cheryl has no brains, but I am compassionate and feel for her. Yeesh. Try again. Your comments bring nothing to the table.
#21 - Fire me? From what? Do you know how silly that sounds? If you don't agree, say why. Women love women and that's a fact? That's the reason Hillary will win? Should win?
Lucy, fess up. You have no idea how every woman in this country feels about Hillary. I studied statistics in college. Polls are notoriously unrealiable. You can make them say whatever you want. For instance, stand in a mall in the middle of Hollywood and most Democrats will say they are voting for Clinton or Obama. Was that really random? Do the same poll at a mall in Utah and you'll be lucky to even find a Democrat. Do you know the demographics of these supposedly "random" polls? I didn't think so.
What about telephone polls? They're random, right? No, actually. They never tell you who answered the phone and answered the poll. For all the pollster knows, the person answering the phone could have been a registered Independent or even...GASP... a Republican. This even though somebody living in the house is a registered Democrat. So, I put no faith whatsoever in polls. Likewise "news" written by people who are trying so hard to be right. In case you haven't noticed, these articles aren't "news." They are opinions. Just like mine. If these pundits have convinced you, fine. Tell me why.
Look at the primaries like a job interview. Why should the Democrats hire Hillary? Why is she qualified to be president? Give me some facts and I will listen. Your comment is comprised of venom and unsupported conjecture. Honestly, it reminds me of MTV and everything that is wrong with the 21st century election process.
#23 - maybe you were typing so fast, you didn't notice you spelled Hillary's name wrong. But that's okay. According to you, everything I wrote is slander and stupid, essentially mudslinging. I think it is so funny that every time I present Hillary supporters with facts, they counter by trying to insult me. It won't work. If you want to win this debate, you must counter my facts with your own facts, not superlatives. Basically, what you said is that I am wrong because you are voting for her. Sorry, Pearl. I kinda like your enthusiasm, but you won't convince me of anything with comments like that. Also, I'm not jealous. You couldn't pay me enough money to trade places with that woman. I sometimes wonder how she sleeps at night.
To everyone:
I probably will not comment here again, although I will continue to read the comments of everyone who posts. As I said before, I did not write this article to endorse a particular candidate. I only said I would never cast a vote for Hillary and here's why. The logical conclusion from this is that I do support one of the other six Democratic challengers. I never said which one. Why? Because people should make up their own minds based upon their own individual interests and stop letting the media tell them who they should vote for if they want to consider themselves a supporter of "the winner." That's the point of the article. No more. No less.
Americans must take full advantage of the primaries if they want the democratic process to function effectively. This isn't a question of who can beat the Republican because we don't even know who the Republican candidate will be. It isn't a question of who has raised the most money because the money will follow the candidate who wins the primary election. It isn't even a question of who has the best rock star personality because there have been plenty of presidents about as interesting as glue. They still got the job done.
This is about putting the right person in a very powerful office to help keep America a thriving nation for the majority of its citizens. I know that you can't please everyone and that there is fault to find in every candidate. However, if every Democrat casts a vote in the primaries for the candidate they honestly believed would make the best president, that would be a true democracy at work. The majority will ultimately win and we will have a candidate. Once the majority has spoken and the dust clears, then we Democrats can decide if we will be loyal to our nominee, go Republican, or go for a third party in the general election. My informed, factually supported, well researched belief is that most of us will stay loyal to the Democratic candidate for various reasons -- UNLESS -- the nominee is Hillary. If someone believes the same thing about Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd, etc., write your own article. Oh...and don't forget your suit of armor. You're going to need it for the slings and arrows.
29 - handyguy
I actually think Cheryl is some sort of Romneyite double agent or pretender. She uses his rhetoric throughout her piece, and when it's not his dumb assertions she's stealing, it's even worse, loonier stuff:
Like some vast left wing conspiracy, media conglomerates and their minions continue to herald Clinton as the clear Democratic frontrunner.
This kind of conspiracy-mongering overstatement does not enhance the author's credibility. HRC is by most accounts the most conservative of the Democratic candidates. In polls, she has lower support in the left wing of the party than the more moderate wing.
And if this is true:
[I am a] lifelong Democrat
...then I don't believe this is:
[I] pledge my vote in the general election to the Republican " any Republican " if my party nominates this pathetic excuse for a candidate.
But it's the first of the two I doubt. A "lifelong Democrat" doesn't complain in hyperbolic terms about a faceless "media elite" and then talk about voting for Giuliani or Romney - any real Democrat's nightmare. And calling HRC a 'socialist' while praising other candidates like Biden and Dodd who have virtually identical policy papers on economic matters...well, again, Cheryl's credibility suffers.
Besides, the media have been almost gleefully covering the perceived slips and tensions in the Clinton campaign during the last month. Anyone who has been paying attention would see that this is not a coronation via the press. Do you actually read any news, Cheryl?
You can pore over the record of virtually any politician and find items to question. You can, if you choose, blow them up into "ethical lapses" and convince yourself that the person is not qualified to be President.
But HRC has proved herself an able senator, highly regarded by many of her Republican colleagues and reelected by a large margin even in Republican districts in upstate New York. Sure, she's no angel. Neither is anyone else who chooses a career in the rough world of politics.
But does it make sense to complain both that she's intimidating and that she's a 'spineless jellyfish'?
Writing provocative articles is a great idea...if you can write, and if your argument makes sense. But if you just want to stir the pot, you deserve to have your motives questioned. And I don't think anyone who really cares about Democrats winning the White House would have written this article.
So I repeat my charge: Romneyite spy.
30 - CherylT
Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.
Okay, Handy, I'll bite. Here I go responding to #29. I really plan to make this the end.
Go look up Maryland voting records. I've always been registered as a Democrat. You will never prove otherwise. I challenge you and anyone else who reads this to do so. Nah nah nah nah boo boo.
There. I've stooped to your level.
I love how you think I'm a Romneyite spy. Only a couple of weeks ago in Vegas I was discussing the election with my Republican acquaintances. I queried whether Romney was electable because he is a Mormon. They called me a bigot. Me? A bigot. Puh-leeze. But that's the word on the street and I wanted to know what they thought about it. Apparently, this is not an obstacle for many Republicans. This is something Democrats need to know.
I'm stealing Romney's rhetoric? Link to it. I want to see it in print. The "vast left wing conspiracy" is a play on Hillary's words. If you want to know who media conglomerates support, it's easy enough to find out. Do you deny that they support Hillary? Prove it. Also, I can't help it if other people like to use my words such as "media conglomerates and their minions." Check out the dates of the articles. Send links. We'll see who wrote it first.
Romney and Guiliani are any real Democrats nightmare? Why? Where are your facts? Is it their support for the war? If you must know, I believe we must complete what we started. Islamic radicals believe it is their mission in life to wage this war and they will fight us no matter what. They say so all the time on Al Jezeera TV, or however you spell that crazy station. You aren't going to stop Islamic terrorism if you end the war without a clear cut victory. So, you can fight them here, like what happened on 9/11, or you can fight them there, like we are doing now. Personally, I prefer to fight them there. Thank goodness for the brave men and women of our military who fight this battle for people like me -- and you, Handy -- every day. They are true heroes and defenders of freedom. Freedom isn't free. Sometimes war is the price we Americans pay for freedom.
You don't believe a Democrat would ever cast a vote for a Republican in a general election? You have a lot more living to do. In 2002, Maryland elected Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., the Republican candidate, as Governor. Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 3 to 1 here, yet, they chose Governor Ehrlich over Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (yes, Bobby Kennedy's daughter) because they thought Ehrlich was more qualified. I was one of them.
Ehrlich did a great job with this state and should have won again. The problem with Bob Ehrlich was that he was too honest with people about what he thought he could accomplish in his second term. I don't have to tell you how much people despise current Governor Martin O'Malley. O'Malley lied to get elected just like Hillary is doing now. People fell for it. Marylanders are now suffering with the biggest tax hike in the history of Maryland - possibly in the entire history of the United States -- after O'Malley used a special session to twist arms and fund an outrageously oversized budget. Ehrlich left the State with a budget surplus. O'Malley took that surplus and turned it into huge deficit. Why? Because he intends to turn Maryland into a socialist republic, a haven for illegal immigrants and whoever else wants to live off the state coffers. It's the model for Hillary's United States. Marylanders are steaming.
By the way, he promised a reduction in energy costs, it isn't happening. He promised tax cuts for homeowners. That isn't happening either. Want more of the same? Elect Hillary. But I caution you to take a good hard look at Maryland first. Read the blogs. Read The Examiner. Read the Washington Post. Over four years, Hillary's going to twist arms, intimidate, marginalize, etc. to do the same thing to you. Then let's see how much you love HRC.
I read plenty of news, Handy. It's encouraging to see a smidgen of journalists with enough guts to report possible detours on the road to HRC's coronation. But it's not enough. I want perky Katie and Baba Wawa to do more investigative reporting about the matter regarding Peter F. Paul. Raise the issue on their shows. They won't. Why? Coronation. 'Nuff said.
These allegations of campaign fundraising violations are scandalous. David F. Rosen got off because the prosecution couldn't portray him as anything more than a misguided fundraiser. But Hillary knew exactly what was going on. In the tape recorded conversation, she said Kelly - who at the time oversaw Hillary's entire campaign - had apprised her of everything. Republicans are going to pulverize Hillary with these allegations in the general election... and more. It's Dems like you who refuse to face these issues - and more - head on before the general election. You people need to do more homework.
Biden and Dodd have virtually identical policy papers on economic matters? You cite nothing to support that statement. Links? Facts? Where are they, Handy?
At least Dodd has been the chairman of the Senate Banking Financing Committee for a number of years. I think he has a much clearer picture of our economy than the annoited one. And he sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, so he has a better grasp of foreign policy too. I'm not saying I'm a big supporter of Dodd's educational platform, but Americans seem to be getting dumber, so maybe we should throw more federal dollars into our public schools. At least that's not the same as socialized medicine or Hillary's energy hyperbole.
Don't think I can write? That's your opinion. I beg to differ. Actually, no one here has criticized my writing, so I take that as a sign that I can, in fact, write. That you don't like what I have to say is a different matter.
My arguments don't make sense. Why? I want reasons. Point me to some facts. You never say why, Handy. That's a very dislikable quality.
According to you, it makes no sense to complain that she's a spineless jellyfish, or intimidating, or for that matter, that she destroys the lives of people who oppose her. This is complaining? I like to think of it as calling a spade a spade. If this is who you want as your president, I'd like to take you back to 1972. Better yet, rent the movie, "John Lennon v. The United States of America." Then maybe you'll understand just how badly an American president can destroy the lives of ordinary people for no reason other than they rub them the wrong way.
Yeah, I'm stirring up the pot. Someone needs to. People like you -- you all band together and pat yourselves on the back and like to think you're so smart. If you're so smart, then prove it. You haven't. I'm still waiting.
I am not the enemy. I am only the messenger. Deal with it or reap the consequences of your own ignorance.
31 - Vote for Hillary
7 words: Hillary is our only hope for America.
You can count on it.
32 - Mia T
Why would any woman, any feminist, any person of intelligence and compassion, vote for hillary clinton?
by Mia T, 11.24.07
It is a mystery to me why any woman, any feminist, any person of intelligence and compassion, would vote for hillary clinton. She is not simply married to an abuser of women. She is an abuser of women in her own right.
Carl Bernstein warns us, "There's not a sex act mentioned in [my] book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women."
You can hear him issue this warning in the YouTube video: FROM CARL BERNSTEIN TO THE BROADDRICK RAPE: Connecting the Dots.
You can see the two Broaddrick interviews, the Dateline NBC clinton rape interview by Lisa Myers and the interview in which Broaddrick details the threat by hillary clinton two weeks after the rape, at deletehillary.com/rape.
hillary clinton is also an abuser of power.
Goto deletehillary.com/the_barrett_report for Jan. 31, 2007 exposé by Mark Goodman, a registered Democrat and avowed liberal. Note, especially, Goodman's warning in the final paragraph:
"Now that the senator from New York has announced 'I'm in to win,' voters should demand that their representatives release the mystery pages so that they may examine Mrs. Clinton red in tooth. Otherwise, Americans run the risk of going to the polls in 2008 seeking the rebirth of a nation only to discover that they have merely traded the devil for a witch."
The Barrett report documents the clintons' massive abuse of power, which includes the routine siccing of the IRS--Soviet-style--on all clinton critics. And do not miss the irony here: the evidence documenting this massive clinton abuse of power was redacted by more massive clinton abuse of power.
Also read Democrat Jerry Zeifman, who was hillary rodham's boss during the Nixon impeachment proceedings..... He alerts us to her fundamental lack of ethics, why he could never recommend her for 'any position of public or private trust.'
And hillary clinton is inept.
clinton administration veteran and Berkeley economist Bradford Delong warns:
"My two cents' worth and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994 is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life.
Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do and she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly. There is no reason to think she would be anything but an abysmal president"
Also note that this self-described brilliant woman flunked the DC Bar exam, which had a 67% pass rate. (See the Bernstein book on this. Indeed, see her own turgid tome. Not the audio version, however. Perhaps the clinton-machine thinking is that literacy and gullibility are inversely related.) She did, however, pass the Arkansas Bar exam, (80-90% pass rate) and the rest is history, albeit revisionist.
If 9-11 taught us anything, it is that presidential character and moral authority count, and count most.
bill clinton, who, for self-serving reasons ignored terrorism for his entire tenure, (see 'Virtual Kill'-YouTube, see deletehillary.com/terrorism), was rated by 90 historians and presidential scholars in the C-SPAN poll of presidents dead last in moral authority--lower than Nixon.
If the variables are properly weighted, bill clinton will always come out dead last. That is, unless Americans are dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin).
VOTE SMART: a warning to all women about hillary clinton (356,051 views, YouTube)
33 - Mia T
NEW ZOGBY POLL CONFIRMS: 3-CARD MONTE AT VEGAS DEBATE WON'T STOP HILLARY'S FREE FALL
by Mia T, 11.28.07
"Zogby Poll: Obama, Edwards Strong but Clinton Slips Against GOPers
General election match-ups show the New York Senator would lose against every top Republican - Released: November 26, 2007
UTICA, New York - A new Zogby Interactive survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would lose to every one of the top five Republican presidential contenders, representing a reversal of fortune for the national Democratic front-runner who had led against all prospective GOP opponents earlier this year.
Meanwhile, fellow Democrats Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards of North Carolina would defeat or tie every one of the Republicans, this latest survey shows."
VIDEO
--------
The CNN post-Vegas-debate analysis was as simplistic and insulting as was the underlying clinton-machine scheme.
Missus clinton was exposed as unprincipled and dumb in the previous debate in Philadelphia. Scripted answers, a stacked audience, setup questions, clinton shills posing as pundits, Spitzer muzzled, and an empty "no" cannot put "unprincipled" and "dumb" back in the box.
Just as she flunked the DC Bar exam, flunked the only managerial job she ever had (heading health care reform), missus clinton flunked her only real vetting in the campaign to date: the last debate. An empty pantsuit but for the arrogance and hate.
The clintons will try to quash the Tim Russerts (and they probably will), but no matter. The clinton jackboot is irrelevant here. Her opponents and the new media AND THE PEOPLE will ask her the hard questions. Russert opened the floodgates.
It's already starting.
No doubt pressured by the clintons, old media are trying to reverse the momentum, trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. (CNN's original headline "CLINTON'S POLL SUPPORT SLIPS AFTER WEEK OF ATTACKS" quickly became: "A YEAR FROM ELECTION DAY, CLINTON REMAINS PERSON TO BEAT")
What old media are missing is that the last debate was no aberration.
Missus clinton is not capable of straight answers. It's not simply that she's 'a congenital liar,' to quote Bill Safire. It's that the truth will bury her.
Moreover, she is not capable of thinking off-script, on her feet, out-of-the-box.
Carl Bernstein said the other day, "I think if there is a watershed moment... in the campaign that has interrupted this notion of inevitibility, that debate was probably it.... Hillary Rodham Clinton has had a difficult relationship to the truth."
He argues that her campaign has been designed to partly to help her avoid such questions, "and now they will have been unsuccessful at avoiding it. And that's what the campaign represents -- a failure to keep that question from coming front and center."
He is right.
I have argued elsewhere that the only way missus clinton can win elections is to run virtually unopposed, and then only if she remains immobile, hidden, mute, a prisoner of her own ineptitude, repulsiveness and criminality.
But of the three, it is missus clinton's repulsiveness--her ugliness--that will do her in.
The voters routinely ignore ineptitude, forgive criminality, but they never abide ugliness. Never.
LOOK FOR HILLARY CLINTON'S FASCISTIC MOVES TO INTENSIFY.
34 - Mia T
STALINIST RISING? HILLARY CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER (WHERE IS THE UNREDACTED BARRETT REPORT ANYWAY?) by Mia T, 2.07.07
"Peggy Noonan's excellent piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal is really the story of the death of democracy. At its core it is the description of the human double helix gone terribly awry, of a denatured protein grotesquely twisted, of two mutant, tangled strands of DNA, the basest imaginable of base pairs linked permanently, as firmly as guanine to cytosine, bill inexorably to hillary and conversely, doing what they do best, and doing it relentlessly.
Killing. Killing insidiously. Killing as they pose and pander and feel our pain.
My only complaint is with Peggy Noonan's title. 'The Mad Boomer' doesn't begin to capture candidate clinton considered separately or even taken as the self-anointed "twofer," permanently conjoined at that cavity conspicuously empty except for ego, that place where brain and soul and guts and heart normally reside.
This is not to say that she -- that they -- are not both quite mad and of that self-indulgent, arrogantly, ignorantly solipsistic age sandwiched flatly between yesterday's innocence and tomorrow's insouciance. Rather, it is that their madness and their boomerism don't even begin to explain their noxious influence: The cloying, internally inconsistent clinton calculus. The unspoken clinton threats. They permeate the atmosphere like a coiling miasma, choking off all freedom.
Even in New York. Especially in New York. When she wrote "The New Colossus," Emma Lazarus hardly had in mind this pair of mutant, deadly, twisted aliens.
Mia T, June 9, 1999
Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000"
----------
Our great national unease is not the result of any 'immoral' war but rather the moral shock of a nascent police state. The greater threat to America is not Osama bin Laden. It is the enemy in our midst.
VIRTUAL KILL
The point of political assassination--literal or simply functional--transcends the particular. The apparent target is not an end but a beginning, an example, a warning. Political assassination is really not about the death. It is about the application of the jackboot on the living.
TRACER
Of course, for political assassination to work, it has to be clear--preferably only to the true target(s)--who ordered the hit.
Take, for example, the offing of former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko last December from radioactive Polonium-210 poisoning. Like the assassination of Leon Trotsky more than 60 years earlier, the death is uniquely traceable to the Kremlin, and, but for standard-issue cutouts, to its head. The assassination of Litvinenko is the latest in a series of attacks on the outspoken critics of Putin that converge uniformly and precisely on Putin.
"There are a lot of ways to make a man's death look like an accident, suicide or a street crime. That wasn't the intent of whoever murdered former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in London. By using such an exotic murder weapon--a radioactive isotope known as polonium-210--his killers sent a message: Don't mess with the powers that be in Russia.
The identity of his murderers is likely to remain unknown, but in all probability Litvinenko was poisoned because of his campaign against Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and the KGB's successor, the FSB. He is only the latest to pay with his life for offending Russia's ruling clique. The list of prominent people murdered in the last few years includes crusading journalists such as Anna Politkovskaya (whose death Litvinenko was investigating), politicians, executives and government officials. Others, such as Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, have narrowly survived assassination attempts or have been exiled or silenced with threats of violence or legal charges.
Alleged tax evasion has been a favorite tool of intimidation. Wielding such dubious accusations, the Kremlin was able to consign Russia's richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, to a Siberian prison camp and to expropriate his giant oil company, Yukos. Whatever the state of his taxes, Khodorkovsky's real sin was to bankroll opposition to Putin."
Max Boot Stop Petting Putin Dec. 9, 2006 New York Post
NEO-STALINIST
hillary clinton is our Putin.
To get a glimpse of her Stalinist proclivities, one need only go back to 2 July 2006. As the country prepared to celebrate its independence, missus clinton was applying the jackboot. Stealthily, almost subliminally.
It was clinton's response (by proxy (how else?)) to what was plainly in the field... and what was doubtless in her internal polls: Big problems ahead for the quondam shoo-in. The 'dump hillary' movement within the Democratic Party was getting traction.
Panicked, the soon-to-be dumpee dispatched longtime clinton fixers, James Carville and Mark J. Penn, to the Washington Post to prop her up yet one more time. The Post Carville-Penn apologia was full of the usual clinton poses, poll-tested phrases and prevarication, but that was not the real story. The real story was the headline: 'The Power of Hillary.'
'The Power of Hillary' had the whiff of raw FBI files and IRS audits. It had the stink of the clinton jackboot.
The message was clear: Be advised! Try to dump hillary and hillary will, quite simply, crush you.
As with Putin and other Stalinists, missus clinton's functional assassination weapons of choice are drummed up charges of tax evasion and character assassination, not necessarily in that order.
The Barrett Report, paid for by The People and redacted by the DC mutual protection racket writ large--which is also, we note (and will remember), paid for by The People--documents the clintons' abuse of the IRS and other clinton abuses of power that were--and still are--routinely used to silence clinton critics.
FAKE OUT
If functional assassination is a clinton sucker punch, the reputation for assassination-in-fact is the clinton coup de grâce.
To make sure their repulation always precedes them, the clintons never miss an opportunity to spread the rumors around themselves. By repeating every allegation of clinton murder and mayhem--while affecting an incredulous air, of course--the clintons intimidate and silence their critics even as they marginalize the enemy.
The outrageousness of the clintons' crimes, actual and apparent, will always work to the clintons' advantage, making the disabling of these flagrant psychopaths all the more challenging.
But disable them we must.
For the children.
CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER: DOCUMENTATION
35 - handyguy
Cheryl, your unpleasant barrage of over-writing boils down to this:
You can call yourself a Democrat all day long, but you are actually a conservative, and you'd be happier as a Republican. So change parties, if you haven't already, and leave the rest of us alone.
John Edwards [whom I'm supporting] and Barack Obama are both slightly to the left of HRC on most issues. Do you have similar problems with them? You'd vote for them [similar health care proposals, similar tax philosophies, and somewhat more dovish on Iraq] but not for HRC? You think Giuliani vs Obama, or Romney vs Edwards, would not be very stark choices in political opposites? Yet HRC is the only Dem you choose to attack, and the only one you say would drive you to vote GOP.
My half-joking 'Romneyite' tag simply means I think you're already a conservative Republican, so stop pretending otherwise - and stop writing misleading articles as if you are representative of any actual Democrats.
36 - handyguy
And also, Cheryl, thanks so much for giving loony birds like Mia T [is she related to you?] and Robert Morrow and Maggie a place to roost. Do you think their lovely, well crafted pieces of insanity add substance to this discussion? You can thank yourself.
37 - Chuck
To find out how the strike helps Hillary when she deserves none of it, check out this new hit piece on Hillary
38 - Mia T
handyguy-
Ad hominem seems to be your only game--tacit admission that you are unable to refute the facts.
Did you check out the Barrett Report?
Do you disbelieve the warnings of liberals and Democrats like Bernstein, Zeifman, Goodman and DeLong, who have first-hand knowledge of clinton corruption, dysfunction and ineptitude?
And what about all the bill and hillary clinton rapes and predations? Are all the leftist elite women who believe Juanita ('Mothers Who Think,' Salon.com) also 'insane'?? You really ought to listen to Rep. Chris Shays--the NYT calls Shays a voice of moderation--who saw all the 'Ford Building' rape evidence documenting the Broaddrick rape and other clinton abuse of women. A link to his comments is at deletehillary.com/rape.
ASIDE: You are aware, are you not, that neither clinton has ever denied doing the rapes and predations. If you were falsely accused of rape, wouldn't you deny it and deny it vigorously? The clintons haven't done so because the charges are true and to deny them would de facto vitiate the statute of limitations.
Missus clinton was confronted by Katherine Prudhomme in NH recently and, incredibly, denied knowing who Juanita Broaddrick was! To believe the clintons are innocent of the rapes and predations would require one to believe this denial, which is absurd on its face.
Finally, did you listen to Michael Scheuer, CIA bin Laden division chief under clinton? (VIRTUAL KILL-YouTube)
Scheuer: 'Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line.'
Your abject, willful ignorance and rigidity empower defectives like the clintons and imperil us all. Thanks a lot.
39 - Mia T
"Your abject, willful ignorance and rigidity empower defectives like the clintons and imperil us all. Thanks a lot.--me"
"God save us from people who do the morally right thing. It's always the rest of us who get broken in half." (Paddy Chayefsky)
And God save us from the morally unencumbered clintons, who get us broken in half nonetheless.
40 - handyguy
All contemporary American politicians are, by definition, compromised - both ethically and in terms of policy positions. The enormous financial requirements of campaigns help ensure that this continues - and the near-mandatory partisan rhetoric during presidential primaries makes it worse.
Pretending that HRC and her husband are special cases of extreme corruption and evil is sheer blind foolishness and overeager paranoia. The Clintons have always drawn this sort of over-the-top fire-breathing hatred. It is almost entirely irrational.
For more, see ex-Clinton critic [and HRC biographer] David Brock's excellent books, Blinded by the Right and The Republican Noise Machine, or the web site he co-founded, Media Matters. [Brock's break with the right began when his biography, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, turned out to be fair and balanced, rather than the hatchet job his conservative allies expected.]
41 - Franco
Chávez's 'Socialist City - Caribia
Chávez's 'Socialist City' Rises
Chávez's Vision in the Hills
42 - Mia T
handyguy-
As I said above, the outrageousness of the clintons' crimes, actual and apparent, will always work to the clintons' advantage, making the disabling of these flagrant psychopaths all the more challenging.
You are willfully ignorant. The clintons are different both in kind and in degree. I take it you haven't researched Barrett, etc.
The clintons ARE 'special cases,' or is it your contention that all presidents and their wives abuse women--rape and revictimize them--that all presidents and their wives sic the IRS and DOJ on their critics and victims, that all presidents and their wives put their own security above national security? (Not even Nixon did that last one. He was tested twice. He didn't dispute the election results in 1960 and he resigned in 1974. No wonder those 90 historians and presidential scholars (C-SPAN Poll of Presidents) rated clinton lowest--lower than Nixon--in moral authority.)
This is what they do in Stalinist regimes. Is that what you want for this country?
Wake up. Grow up.
P.S.
Systems don't corrupt people. People corrupt systems.
The professional pol is a self-selected subgroup of Homo sapiens that is power-hungry, mediocre, self-serving, and corrupt or corruptible by definition.
The solution is to purge DC of the professional pol and replace him/her with the citizen-politician, an exceptional person of accomplishment and character who will serve for a term or two and then return to his day job.
Until we can effect that end, and especially now, in these perilous times, ideology must take a backseat to keeping the reins of power OUT OF THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
hillary clinton was identified EARLY (by Zeifman / Nixon impeachment) as someone who must never hold any "position of public or private trust."
So was the husband.
And this was confirmed by their tenure in the White House, proof certain of their deeply flawed character. It was a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.
Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.
According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.
Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.
If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
43 - Mia T
"The issue with Hillary Clinton is ... whether she has -- how do we say this? -- the character to be president."
Richard Cohen, September 18, 2007; Washington Post, Page A19
44 - Baritone
Given all of the dastardly things that the Clintons have supposedly been party to, shouldn't they both just be taken out and shot? It's obvious that these are the worst two people in the world - worse even than bin Laden or Saddam or Rob Schneider.
What pisses her detracters off more than anything else is that she may well be our next president. You Clinton bashers just can't stand it. Perhaps now you know how many people have felt during the past seven years being forced to suffer through two (count em - TWO!) GW Bush administrations. There are still those who believe that little Georgie is the "light and the life." Bush is an asshole, plain and simple. He is an illiterate, inarticulate, artless dolt, a puppet, a national embarrassment. His administration has been a train wreck as now witness his steller performance ratings and the hopeless quagmire of Iraq.
I'm not a Clinton lover by any means, she's one cold bitch. But I'll take her over any of the pretenders running for the GOP ticket.
You site all these various atrocities supposedly perpetrated by either or both of the Clintons. Some of it may be true, most probably not. All kinds of crap gets put out into the ether aimed at anyone who gains a little notoriety, often by people who have their own agendas, their own aspirations to fame and fortune. Much of it is baseless crap, worthy of nothing better than the grocery check out tabloids or the veritable bowels of the incontinent internet. If all the charges that are leveled against politicians were true, virtually everyone who holds or aspires to public office should be in jail or worse. Much of this here is tantamount to an inquisition - insanity in the guise of political discourse.
I know that a great number of people hate Hillary. I mean really hate her. It's sad. Bill and Hillary made their own bed, of course, but they are not the pinnacle of evil that many of you paint them to be. This is simply an example of how low and desparate people get when getting caught up in hate mongering coupled with the irrational madness of conspiracy theories. Most of it is bullshit worthy of little, if any, consideration.
B-tone
45 - Mia T
Baritone asks: 'Given all of the dastardly things that the Clintons have supposedly been party to, shouldn't they both just be taken out and shot?'
MY ANSWER: Is that a rhetorical question, Baritone, or a suggestion? (I ask this in earnest as many have been dispensed with thusly for far less.)
You seem conflicted about the clintons. And it doesn't help matters that you premise your argument on... ADMITTED ignorance. To wit:
'You [Cheryl, I assume] site [sic] all these various atrocities supposedly perpetrated by either or both of the Clintons. Some of it may be true, most probably not... Much of it is baseless crap....'
Have you researched any of the allegations? Try googling 'Barrett report,' for starters. Try some of the other sources I cite, above.
Go to original sources--people and documents-- whenever possible. I have, e.g., I communicated directly with Juanita Broaddrick.
Times are too perilous for your cavalier attitude and throwaway metaphors. This is a critically important election. Leftists--Democrats and liberals--who KNOW hillary clinton well--warn us that she is profoundly UNFIT public office. (Again, see my posts, above.)
If anything, your view of Bush should give you great pause about putting this defective in power.
"Now that the senator from New York has announced 'I'm in to win,' voters should demand that their representatives release the mystery pages so that they may examine Mrs. Clinton red in tooth. Otherwise, Americans run the risk of going to the polls In 2008 seeklng the rebirth of a nation only to discover that they have merely traded the devil for a witch." Mark Goodman, liberal, Democrat (The Barrett Report)
Why do you think your vague suppositions about hillary clinton's fitness are more accurate than the evaluations of people who have experienced her abuses, corruption, dysfunction, ineptitude and failures firsthand?
Baritone argues: 'If all the charges that are leveled against politicians were true, virtually everyone who holds or aspires to public office should be in jail or worse.'
MY ANSWER: True, but irrelevant. Failure to convict, and more so, failure to indict, is not equivalent to innocence.
This is especially true for a couple of miscreants who have maintained a tight grip on the IRS and the DOJ. (You really must check out the Barrett report. Pay special attention to the 120 pages that document massive clinton abuse of power that was redacted by more massive clinton abuse of power.)
46 - Baritone
Gosh, you seem to know SO much, and I so little. Could you provide a list of "the innocent" so I will know what to do? I'm now lost and bereft of hope since all I had was my irrevelvance, cavalier attitude and throwaway metaphors.
Again, why hasn't all this brought her down? Is she made of steel? Is she bionic? Is she the devil incarnate? Who's behind the great conspiracy to Hillarize the WH and cluster fuck the country? Is the country on its way to hell in a handbasket? Are we all going to die? Gosh, help us all.
I have sat here and read and watched much of what you refer to as your "proof" regarding Hillary and Bill's dastardy. There is nothing of substance in any of it. Goodman's article ultimately says nothing beyond - boy wouldn't it be great to get our hands on those 120 pages. Maybe, if we could get a hold of those pages, a bunch of us blogsters could have a sleep over, you know, order some pizza, ice down some beers and sit around the living room and take turns reading them out loud.
I also read some items regarding Juanita Broaddrick. My sense of it is that the poor woman should probably just be left alone. Was she raped by Willy? Perhaps. But unless he admits to it, or charges are filed and a trial ensues, we will likely never know. But the last time I looked, we still work within a system having a presumption of innocence.
I'm not conflicted about the Clintons. I know they both have a lot of baggage. Who, especially at that level of political life, doesn't? Look at the Bush family's partnership with Saudi oil interests. Look at Cheney's -- well just look at Cheney.
I also checked out a number of UTube clips of Hillary. What a bunch of hack jobs. They are all crap.
You attack me for my "throw away metaphors." Much of the stuff I read is no more than unsubstantiated suppostions couched in purple prose.
In the end, you've got nothing beyond irrational screaming meemies.
B-tone
47 - Baritone
irrelevance dammit!
48 - SamI Am
Wow!
Recycle old attacks, add as few foil-hat attack lines, throw in a bunch of the bizarre old "Arkansas Project" fantasies and you have yourself some reasoning?
Every candidate has ambition. It's not a bad thing. Every candidate has research and communications people in their campaigns. Every candidate stumbles. The measure is how they recover.
I will not insult the author unless she thinks it's a personal attack to say her writing is simply shallow and dependent on items and issues long since dealt with and dismissed as products produced by political enemies.
Turn the same scrutiny and more importantly, the same shallow angry rhetoric, labelling-without-substantiation and name-calling at any candidiate - Republican or Democrat - and you can pretty much write the same thing.
It boils down to making it stick and the writer didn't meet that threshold. It's a re-hash. It's unoriginal. It's sexist. It's easily dismissable except by those who already think and hate, in much the same way.
Try again. Do it better.