Hillary Clinton: The New Nixon?

Keep it real.
"his eyes bulge out of his fat, blood-flushed head; his neck spills out of his too-tight shirt collar; and he generally looks like Jabba the Hutt, his suit bursting at the seams, with only the bowl of snackable live toads suspended at arm's length missing from the picture."
Priceless

Maybe Obama fever and Hillaryitis will run their course and we can actually choose a real progressive this time. A brokered convention would be a great gift to our country. I could vote for Edwards even though he's not my first choice. I'm actually hoping/praying for none of the above to get a first ballot nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton represents a travesty of an added 4 to 8 years of the same world hegemony as Bush Jr. Let us not forget her perfect Bush agenda voting record up until the day her campaign began! There should be no options left on the table to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. We certainly must remember the Republican media campaign to declare all candidates as "unelectable" with the exception of Kerry (Yale, Skull and Bones, Wall St.) in 2004. Hillary's playing of the race card is such a ploy. What do Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Invasion of Iran fixation.

See Hillary Clinton speak for herself here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvuzMWcz0kU

Then see the company she keeps with Rev, Hagee of Christian Zionist cult here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdsB5D1r7Y

She advocates nuclear war against Iran and has never repudiated war in any form.

And Obama. He's for nuclear power; the generators for U-238.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look, Matt, enough of measuring off a high scale.

Dick Nixon's extensive support for civil rights legislation far exceeds Hill's high profile, lip service advocacy to those guaranteed death by Congressional reality causes of the 90's.

As presidential comparatives go, Nixon couldn't compete with Hill's back stabbing killer instinct, young Cheney's input notwithstanding.

As lessor evils go, Barrak is unquestionably the more of less.

Maybe he just needs a new speech writer, ... Matt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obamagate ... Just Hushed Up `Cause the Light Is on the Shining Hill of Daley-Axelrod Chicago Machine Politics Nothingness' ... CHICAGO - A judge revoked the $2 million bond Monday for indicted businessman Antoin `Tony' Rezko, who has raised thousands for Barack Obama and Illinois politicians. U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve said she grew concerned after learning Rezko received $3.5 million from a company in Lebanon; he had claimed that he had no income. St. Eve said she feared Rezko could be a flight risk. The real estate developer and fast food magnate was arrested Monday morning at his home in suburban Wilmette. At an afternoon hearing, the judge ordered him into custody and scheduled a Tuesday hearing where Rezko's attorneys will attempt to get bond reinstated. Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering, and is scheduled to stand trial Feb. 25 and accused of pressuring businesses seeking work before two state regulatory boards to make campaign contributions and payoffs. Rezko has long been a fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich and for Obama, the presidential candidate and Illinois Senator. Obama has said he had no indication of problems with Rezko when he accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. When prosecutors unsealed their charges against Rezko in 2006, Obama gave $11,500 in Rezko contributions to charities. Obama has since sought to distance himself `very quickly' from Rezko, as Rezko's name appeared as his `slum lord business.' In fact ... the Obama campaign declined to comment on Rezko's arrest Monday. Federal prosecutors say Rezko was deceptive in leading St. Eve to grant bond by claiming in April 2007 that he had no income of his own and was instead living off the generosity of friends and relatives. Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid J. Schar said $3.5 million from a Lebanon-based firm had been distributed to various funds and individuals, indicating that Rezko had more money than he had led the court to believe. `This defendant has played a shell game and I think misled the court about what his assets are,' Schar said. He said Rezko's $2 million bond was no longer adequate to make certain he would remain in the United States and show up for trial. Defense attorney Joseph Duffy said `there isn't anything that suggests flight.' He said Rezko, a U.S. citizen born in Syria, returned from overseas to face the charges against him. Duffy said initially that the $3.5 million was a loan secured by part of a 62-acre parcel of land south of Chicago's Loop. But then in the middle of the hearing he interrupted to say he had just been informed that it was not. Asked after the hearing if the $3.5 million was a secured loan, he said: `I don't know that.' Prosecutors also said that some of the people who put up property in Rezko's name are renting out or trying to sell the property, raising concerns there may not be enough collateral to secure Rezko's bond. Schar said in the case of one man who posted his home as bond, Rezko funneled the home's exact value back to him. Rezko will still face federal charges alleging he swindled General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million in connection with the sale of two pizza restaurant chains. Earlier this month, Obama suddenly gave to charity more than $40,000 in past political contributions from seven individuals with ties to Rezko. The decision to donate the money contributed to Obama's House and Senate campaigns - but not his current presidential bid - came after a published report that OBAMA IS the unnamed `political candidate' in one paragraph of a 78-page prosecution document that outlines the case against Rezko. Obama has had to answer about how Rezko became involved in the purchase of the Obama family home as well as other ties to Rezko that go back more than 15 years. (And that transaction was only worth a `free cool, million dollars ... that's all)??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Clintons wrote the playbook. Nixon was just stupid enough to get caught at something that most Politicians did. Compare him to LBj and Nixon looks like a saint.

If Hillary had a fraction of the foreign policy skills Nixon had I might vote for her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hilary Clinton is a contemptible candidate because she supported the invasion of Iraq that has led to the deaths of more than one million civilians; supported the embargo against Iraq that killed more than 500,000 children; supports the death penalty domestically; is not calling for universal health care, in defiance of the clear desire for it by most Americans.

No one should care what Hilary Clinton says about the press and no one with any self-respect should be writing articles about this non-subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

just a page of links to some very real points to consider when considering Hillary --> Click.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

According to Patrick Healy in the NYTimes blog, Mark Penn's consulting firm represents Blackwater, subprime mortage lenders, union-busting corporations, you name it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Recall Tricky Dick campaigned with a plan to get out of Vietnam. Those looking at his actual record could see he had always supported the war. But many held onto the hope that as commander in chief he would reverse course and end the killing. They were wrong, he was just lying.

And now we have Clinton and Obama, both with records of voting for more funding for the genocide in Iraq. Once in a while they issue a protest vote against it, but before the money runs out they make sure it gets replenished so the killing can go on. And so you have been warned, a vote for either is a vote to continue the war profiteering genocide.

They're both lying Nixons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Matt Taibbi is a brilliant writer, so why does he constantly fall back on vulgarity, profanity, sexism, and woman-hating? It really showed in this article when he reduced Obama to a woman's body part. He needs to get his mind out of the middle-school locker room.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton is the FIRST WOMAN in our history to run for President of the United States. Try to imagine her feelings of being overwhelmed by archaic ways of thinking and the hostility of those who are frightened at the prospect of being led by a WOMAN, those men who are afraid of women, anyway, and react the only way they know how-with hostility. Karl Rove fits this picture nicely. Remember him? He's the forgotten but not gone swiftboater and master of nasty tricks, quick to expolit those who can't get their minds around the concept of a woman president. There's also the fact that Hillary's husband got himself a hummer in the Oval Office. Tough one to live down, don't you think? Expect more dirty lies and innuendos from the Rove gang as time goes by. It'll be a war of nerves, and the bad guys hope Hillary will break under the intense pressure. She won't. Hillary's a little more volatile than her husband, and more quick to anger over lies and insults, but she's still far superior to all the losers on the rethug side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There used to be something called "yellow journalism" which was greatly looked down upon because it contained bias. Yellow journalism was where someone tried to cleverly disguise their opposition to something or someone. I thought that was bad enough in its hayday. BUT now, we have Matt and others who are not 100% in their own skins so HATE has become their aphrodisiac and mother's milk. They haven't a clue what being unbiased and straight-forward means in journalism. (Facts, those are just little embellishments you make up as you go along.) Matt is like an immature kid using dirty words because he thinks it makes him sound grown-up. Matt, in my opiniopn, your article is pure tripe. If all you can do is sling crap, what a crappy world you inhabit. I am getting so tired of St. Obama vs. Wicked Witch Hillary. Such stuff just becomes cannon fodder for the Republicans to use against either Hillary or Obama in the general election race. Obama or Clinton, you've made the Republican's job at shooting them down much, much easier. But, hey, you couldn't give a shit; you're just having a good time, being a cute little devil. Right? Then it's going to be left up to the rest of us to clean up your caca. Is HATE the new major ingredient of journalism? Apparently so if Matt and his article are any measure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Matt, Read the recent endorsement of Hillary by Kathleen and Kerry Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr, printed in the L.A. Times. It's well written and astute.

You seem to have fallen prey to Obamamania. The guy is smart and speaks brilliantly, but doesn't offer much substance nor a real track record of much import. What does he actually stand for, and when will the press stop fawning all over him and really examine his record? It ain't much, and he sure as hell was pandering to Repubicans when he mused about Reagan. I heard the comment and his later explanation of it was utter B.S.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The New Nixon???!!!
Hillary Clinton is a politician and she is certainly not perfect - but she is no worse than any of the other candidates and yet look at the outrageous media coverage that no other candidate gets: looks, clothes, cleavage, husband, crying, etc.
A woman running a successful campaign for president is driving so many people crazy. I wish voters and the press would just stop and ask themselves before proceeding in attack mode: "If Hillary were a man would I be focusing on this issue - would I even be thinking about this issue?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Matt, you nailed it. And I thought 2004 was bad.

After the most ruinous 8 years in memory, and the anti-corporate Edwards studiously ignored by the corporate media until dropping out, it's going to be at least another 8 more (if a Democrat is elected) before there can possibly be anything resembling "change" of the sort espoused by Obama - you know, the guy with a closet full of hawkish advisors like Brzezinski and a pile of money from Wall Street, big pharmaceuticals and insurance companies and who continues to vote to fund the immoral criminal atrocity of Iraq. Watching Obama speak of the tragedy of US soldiers killed there with nary a mention of the Iraqi casualties (about 100 times more numerous, although it's hard to really have a number since we're not, you know, all that interested in THAT number or its implications), you'd never know that the US attacked them in violation of international law, not the other way around.

The DNC knows this, of course, which is why they've taken this gamble; that people will be disgusted enough by the Bush years that there's no need to offer up an actual progressive candidate - that people will hold their nose and vote for the corporate shills the DNC has insultingly offered them, because the alternative is John McCain, who will blow up the world. The same thing happened in 2004 - just substitute Bush for McCain and Kerry for Clinton/Obama.

Well, it's not your fault for not obeying them, people. It's the Democratic Party's fault for offering up these people and for forming a party apparatus that makes it acceptable for them to do so. Don't blame yourself, and vote your conscience in the primaries and election. It's a foregone conclusion that the nominee will stand for nothing.

I can understand why people support Obama, or I suppose Clinton for that matter (okay, maybe not in her case). It's a lot easier to convince yourself that a front-runner represents change than to fight for somebody who does. It doesn't beget actual results, but at least they can delude themselves every few years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Barry Goldwater were with us today he would not be a "Conservative Republican". Over the years things have been redefined and people considered to be Liberal/Progressive might have been considered conservative back then. The Right Wing Nut Religious crowd changed how we are now perceived. A plain old liberal is now a godless, infidel, baby killer, etc. That was not always the case. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The comparison to Nixon is a bit of a stretch. I think you're talking about two different animals.

I also disagree that "Clinton fatigue" was responsible for bringing us GWB. I think it's more accurate to say that the Right-wing machine manufactured and sold "Clinton fatigue". Compared to those who came before and after him, the Clinton years were relatively tame. What fatigued me the most was the Monica thing, but only in terms of the media's and the wing-nuts' obsession with it.

Having said all that, I loved reading this article. Classic Taibbi. I can't wait to read his next one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I understand that some want all of us registered dems to stick together. They even want the lefty-independents to "stick together". Funny thing is, I thought it was the repukes who voted "R" straight down the ticket no matter what.

I'm not a sheeple. I am a human being. I make my own decisions, and I will not vote for someone who happens to stick a "D" behind his/her name. I've been burned on that one too many times. Too many times has a "D" changed to "R"... I have voted the "D" ticket only to be betrayed.

Lately the D's are keeping the letter behind their name. This time they simply keep their D's but vote with the R's, obviously they never cared about the D, they only wanted the dems vote.

So, what's a person to do? If Hillary/Bill actually make it to the general election, do I vote for him/her? Hillary, who owes way too many favors to the wrong people? Hillary, who has attacked in a very R way (I just love this display of unity)? Hillary, who is as divisive or more so than Georgie (you think a dem hates Georgie? Wait and see what a repuke thinks of Hillary)? Hillary, who has never stood up against America's first dictator (yessir, yessir, yessir... any more I can do for you sir)?

I cannot vote a straight D ticket if Hillary is on it - like some brainless dumba republican voting an R ticket no matter who's on it!

What's a person to do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although I would LOVE to see a woman president, I have always had my reservations and suspicions about Hillary Clinton. I have watched her and frankly her politics of fear REALLY turn me off. I can see the Kerry story in Hillary all over again: if the Democrats nominate her, I truly believe that we WILL have a new Republican President *barf* next year that will basically be Bush Part 2 or even worse: Bush Part 2 to the Max. Yes, the Republicans may be weak and splintered right now but Hillary, who has always been a polarizing and divisive figure, will unify and activate their base like no other. Yes, I love Bill Clinton too but let's make something clear: he is NOT the one that is running for President-Hillary is and she is NO Bill Clinton. In addition, I have had it with the Democratic Leadership Council (of which Bill and Hillary are members of) and its sell-out policies (for those of you that don't know-this group operates within the Democratic Party and has been influencing it for close to two decades now). Yes I will always admire Bill Clinton but I'm sorry: we need to stop looking to the past of the 90s. Those years are long gone and now we have to look towards the future and grab onto what Obama represents: the new face of the Democratic Party. Yes, of course Hillary would be a far better president than ANY of the current Republican contenders. But that's just exactly it: in this election cycle we truly have the opportunity to NOT just settle for Hillary. We have the opportunity of voting not just with our brains, but of voting with our hearts as well.

In addition, my support for Obama is NOT a blind adoration for Obama as a person himself. Let's talk about the way that he is portrayed for a minute: the mainstream media is TOTALLY missing the point on his appeal. Obama is NOT talking to us about putting our faith on him. He is talking about putting our hopes, dreams, and faith on OURSELVES and the movement that we-the-people have been either desiring for or have been working towards for the past few years. You see, Obama's message is NOT the usual conservative "go-at-it-alone" individualistic rhetoric that Republicans and frankly most Democrats have erroneously adopted. Obama's message resonates because he is talking about what Democrats should have been talking about from the very beginning: he is talking about US, he is talking about how "WE are all in this together" and how WE must work together and leave no one behind.

That, my friends, is why I am supporting Obama full force-meaning volunteering for his campaign, donating money, etc. No matter what happens, whether he gets the nomination or not, what he embodies will continue on. To all those present and potential Obama supporters: I ask that you please do NOT take things for granted. Just because the opinion polls show support for Obama it doesn't mean that he will instantly win. Look at what happened in New Hampshire. We must all work hard to make sure that our dream comes true. Finally, I ask that you get out there and do whatever you can possibly do in your power to make sure he is elected. In closing, when you cast your vote, please do so against fear and instead vote BECAUSE of hope: vote for Obama!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

journalism in the past 30 years. The pop culture stuff passed me by about 15 years ago but William Greider was writing on economics during the Reagan/Bush years. National Affairs is always a thought provoking read. I enjoy Matt's perspective (his early article on Huckabee was disturbing), I can do without the fat bashing (reminds me of that yuppie twit Megan McArdle)-but Jabba the hut like evil? Maybe so. Jack Abramoff sure looked like Boris Badinov-and his kind will be the ruin of this country. Seriousely though, Bill had to work with the republican revolution of newt gingrich-but his economic success was on the backs of the poor and middle class. Hillary lost badly needed medical reform to the insurance industry shills. I think it is very unfair to her not to vote for her because you don't want to hear about her husbands penis till hell freezes over so the argument for the politics of a new day has alot of appeal to me. So while at first blush the Jabba the Hut reference might seem juvenile, if the end of the empire is a hand and balance returns to force, Thank God, because right now we are so very lost. John Edwards really looked the part of Luke to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is NOT a woman! She is a corporate machine. It's BAU in another Clinton white house. She has played the game right down the line and hnow she feels entitled, it's her turn. Well hopefully Obama will stop her, he is not the same although he is corporate too. But at least he has roots. She, being a robot, does not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Matt:

Please, please, please write a response to David Brooks "editorial" in NYT Tuesday, February 19, titled, "When the Magic Fades." I cannot handle this guy anymore. You're the only writer I know who puts this guy in his place. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Robert

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd rate the entertainment value of this piece at a ten, but the facts take a low 3. Hillary was a republican, you're right, but when she was 19! What do 19 year olds know? She explained very clearly in her auto that the second she had her own politics, as opposed to that of her staunch republican supporting father, she declared herself a democrat. (and yes, i DO believe her). Why would she say she was a democrat if she really liked the republicans? There is no reason, because she's not a republican and doesn't agree with their views. Also, the way that the idea of her being a republican sympathizer equating her with being a traitor to the cause is just ridiculous. Republicanism and Democrat(ism?) are just two ideas. People can agree with both, and most people agree with parts of both parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]