Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Hillary Clinton's Campaign IEDs (Insinuations, Exaggerations and Distortions)

By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted March 17, 2008.


The Clintons have built their entire political lives on the premise that if they can't win pretty, they'll settle for winning ugly.
Advertisement

What are you going to do if Hillary Clinton succeeds bagging the Democratic Party nomination for President by playing dirty?

I've begun thinking about that more and more over the last couple of weeks. The Clintons have built their entire political lives on the premise that, if they can't win pretty, they'll settle for winning ugly.

Which is why things have gotten so ugly lately. Once it became clear she  could not beat Obama in a fair fight they switched tactics. IED's (Insinuations, Exaggerations and Distortions) are now the weapons of choice for the Clinton campaign. Hardly a day goes by now when one of these IEDs doesn't explode into the news.

"Is Obama a Muslim." Hillary was asked on 60-Minutes. "No. Not as far as I know," she replied.

BOOM!

"Obama is not ready to become Commander-in-Chief," Hillary warns then coyly adds, if voters on the fence pick her, she'd consider putting Obama a heartbeat away from becoming Commander-in-Chief.

BOOM!

"I have crossed the threshold and met the national security test to be Commander-in-Chief," Hillary says. "John McCain has also met that test. Obama gave a speech."

BOOM!

"The reason Obama has gotten where he is today is because he's black," pronounced Clinton supporter and finance committee big shot, Geraldine Ferraro.

BOOM!

BTW -- that was not the first time Ferraro set off a racial IED in the midst of a presidential primary. A Ferraro flashback:

"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.

Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in

Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history." (Politico.com)

A few weeks back Bill Clinton detonated an almost identical Jesse Jackson IED. Coincidence? No way...

BOOM!

Can you imagine! I never thought I'd see a leading Democrat dip back to the tactics of the dark days when racist Democrats ruled the segregated South, playing the fears of whites against the hopes of blacks. Disgusting.

But insurgencies are, by necessity, ugly business. Inevitably there will be collateral damage. Innocents will be hurt. The means are ugly, but the ends will make amends -- we are assured. Once they win, the insurgents promise, they will get rid of the bad and the ugly and herald in the good.

Hillary holds up her role as First Lady as the reason she's "ready to lead from day one," and there may be some truth in that. Among the things she learned during those days was how run parallel political and insurgent actions. She learned this when husband Bill helped negotiate a settlement in Northern Ireland. While the Irish Republican Army conducted the ugly part of their insurgency the leader of its political arm, Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams,


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans, which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 17, 2008 2:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McLizard, Shillary or SmoovB

That’s it?

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

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

» I Give up Posted by: Verjenie
Another attack tactic
Posted by: sliver on Mar 17, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last two times I heard Clinton speak, she used another G.W.Bush tactic, using a laugh to make a point. Both times it was when she was talking about experience, and she ended the sentence with an ugly laugh, apparently trying to show how laughable it was to consider Obama for president.

It made me angry because Bush does that (heh, heh, heh) to ridicule opposing views, instead of trying to counter it with reason and argument. I really don't want another four years with this kind of rhetoric going on at the top of our country.

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

» Hillary is a Corporate Whore Posted by: rjgwood
» Million Man March Posted by: Verjenie
» And Your Point, Madam? Posted by: blackie4aces
Read The National Enquirerer
Posted by: PJAW on Mar 17, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But just in the checkout line, don't put any money into Murdoch's filthy little hands.

Murdoch supports Hillary, and he owns both the Enquirer and FOX. The lead story in a recent issue is all about allegations against Obama that are designed to put fear and doubt about him in people's minds.

But that, unfortunately, is one of the costs of living in a "free" society. People find ways to lie with impunity and not be held accountable because they are exercising their free speech. We live among the jackals.

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

I'll Vote Democratic In November
Posted by: c&s mom on Mar 17, 2008 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes she is a disgrace and I'm beginning to truly hate her. Used to be I was proud to have 2 very good choices, but the longer this goes and the uglier she gets the more I want her out of there all together.

That being said, the Supreme Court nominees are just too important to put in the hands of the Republicans and wimpy hearings by Congress. We need a balance there and a Democrat will provide it. Never will I be more disgusted if I have to make this type of choice. I hope Obama wins and we go on from there.

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

» RE: I'll Vote Democratic In November Posted by: left_libertarian
What am I going to do on election day?
Posted by: toddcory on Mar 17, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What am I going to do on election day?

If Hillary continues to play in the gutter I do not believe I will be able to hold my nose tightly enough to vote for her. Yes, I am concerned about the supreme court and erosion of our freedom and liberties under the current administration, but I want to vote for something different and Hillary's behavior does not represent anything different than dirty politics as usual.

We are facing climate destabilization, overpopulation, the end of cheap energy, depletion of non-renewable resources, and economic collapse. We need some outside the box thinking and leadership here and what I see from Hillary is more of the same old same old. I do not think I can vote for that. If she wins the nomination I will likely write in Barack or stay home.

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

» RE: Blah, blah blah......... Posted by: johngary66
Could never vote for Hillary or any Clinton!
Posted by: thinkverybig on Mar 17, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the comment posted above. I have been disgusted by the way Hillary has run her campaign and could not cast a vote for someone so mean and divisive like Hillary. If Obama is cheated out of this nomination I will write his name in on the ballot instead of supporting a crooked person like Hillary.

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

The videos Hillary Clinton does NOT want you to see!
Posted by: jhecht on Mar 17, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

part 2 - spread it wide & far!

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

Ah, Hillary Clinton
Posted by: rickiey on Mar 17, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As close as you can get to BEING George W. Bush, without being named Cheney.

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

Second choice?
Posted by: Quasar on Mar 17, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's between Clinton and McCain, there is always the Green party. Socialist party. How about Paul Hawken? Smart guy. Decent. Progessive. Creative. A write in vote. Nader? How about a "no" vote - I vote "no" because I want my vote to count and I do not like my choices. In any case, why don't we have more viable choices? Aren't we long over due? Clinton is not a true Democrat any more than McCain is true Republican. But then who are they? Who do they represent? A little of this and little of that but not enough of one or the either. Where's Gore? Edwards? Why are they silent? Because they're toeing the Democratic line like good politicos. Obama's biggest problem is that he is a Democrat. He should be in the Purple People's Progressive Party. PPPP? To many of those. The Amercian Grassroots Party. The Vox Populi Hoi Polloi -VPHP? Or is it HPVP? The Citizens Party? Something. I want more choices for if my freedomn to vote is only to vote for someone I do not want to be my President (because I cannot distinguish between the two choices)then we need to question the viability of that freedom.

Just ask Medvedecvedvdedvdv. . . or as Clinton put it: ". . . whatever."

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

» RE: Second choice? Posted by: desidid
25% of Hillary's Vote from Republicans Rest is Red State Racism
Posted by: aamer923 on Mar 17, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Mississippi, following Limbaugh because they know it will easier to beat her. She wins the Red states due to the large number of voters who remain Anti black.

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

Won't Reward Democratic Party
Posted by: RadioGirl on Mar 17, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I expected some ugly campaigning from the Clinton campaign, but it's gone beyond what I ever imagined possible. I had hoped some of the wiser heads in the Democratic would weigh in behind he scenes effectively enough to stop the scorched-earth tactics. Tough fight, you bet. Endless smear and sleaze, and a deluge of race-bating? Nope.

Now, if Clinton takes the nomination by those scorched-earth tactics, I will not reward the Democratic Party by giving my vote. That would be the first time this lifelong, boomer, second wave feminist voter has not done so in a Presidential election.

To hold my nose and vote for Clinton would tacitly endorse the failure of the Democratic Party to keep faith with millions of voters on both sides of the Obama/Clinton divide who want a real alternative to Bush/Cheney and Karl Rovian tactics.

If we don't hold the Democratic Party accountable now, we never will. And I will not be blackmailed into feeling I'm the one helping to ruin a Democratic victory. No, Clinton and the Democratic Party are doing well enough right now. Even though I have not been a Clinton fan for many years, I would have voted for her, should the nomination go to her, had the campaign been tough, but not Rovian reprehensible, and had the Democratic Party stewarded its own ethical and moral leadership in this regard.

Would Clinton be so different from McCain? On a few issues, yes. On many of them, probably not.

So, Democratic Party, count me out if it's a Clinton nomination. I won't go to McCain or Nader. I will write in.

But I'm still banking on Obama taking the nomination.

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

» RE:FWEEEEEEEEEET! Posted by: Longdream
» RE: FWEEEEEEEEEET! Posted by: joeunix
» RE: The problem is-- Posted by: Longdream
» RE: The problem is-- Posted by: joeunix
Paul Cardwell
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Mar 17, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If she should get the nomination, don't boycott the election - vote for Green candidate Cynthia McKinney, black, female, and experienced (six terms in Congress). At least we will get a viable "third party" and escape the Tweedledee/Tweedledumber choice we have often had with the one-party, two name system of recent years.

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

» RE: Paul Cardwell Posted by: koolwoman
really disappointed
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Mar 17, 2008 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am also very disappointed in how Hillary has either changed or morphed into the persona she has recently projected. I started out for her--even causcasing in Nevada. But when I heard Obama speak in Houston, and it brought shivers up my spine, I switched.

Write to her and tell her to stop, acquiece to Obama or go down. Write to the DNC and Howard Dean. What can it hurt? Use the web. Use the power of the pen. Telephone. Seriously--what can it hurt?

That said, and done, however, I am going to vote and I'm going to vote Democratic no matter what, because there is no nose-clip strong enough to keep out the stink that 4-8-12 years of more neo-con, repubs will cause. As a democracy we'll be done for.

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

» PHONE THE DNC Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: PHONE THE DNC Posted by: Longdream
» RE: really disappointed Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: really disappointed Posted by: YogiBear
Mr. Kruse
Posted by: Gregory Lynn Kruse on Mar 17, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think a vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain and Joe Lieberman. I won't be a party to that leadership, and I won't vote for them. The only political influence I have is the infinitesimal power of my vote. I will not cheapen it further by giving it to them.

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

» Speaking of snakes Posted by: jwg
» I think you need to check your facts Posted by: geisinger999
ISN'T THE QUESTION FOR OBAMA
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 17, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only he can clear up the religion question. He claims he's belonged to his church for 20 years. What did he do before that? His sister was more forthcoming about their early lives. just tell us so all this guessing can stop. People truly like the man and I don't understand why he avoids answering the questions while others keep speculating. Clear it up and it'll go away. ANNA

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

» MY QUESTIONS ARE FOR THE CLINTONS Posted by: foreverhope
Obama is NOT a Progressive
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 17, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can send you to several reliable sources to prove this! Paul Krugman, Progressive Economic Guru: said 'Obama is Right of Hillary'! (I would have thought that hard to do and still have a "D" after your name! There's a Great article on; Progressive Review, 'How Obama and Hillary are Alike', www.prorev.com; funny and informative!

Then I read, in The Nation, (who endorses, Obama) an article by Hayes, 'Subprime Obama', which lists his three chief economic advisers!
Gogoogle them and your in for a Shock!! Anti-'Sicko' (the movie), Pro (health)Insurance (high costs good for Wall Street)& Privatizing Social Security, and paying for Private Retirement Accts. by cutting benefits to widows, orphans, and the elderly by 45%!

NO, I do not support Hillary! I supported Edwards, and find Both of these candidates completely distasteful! I have worked for, donated to, the Dems. for years! Always disappointed when they get into office, and do the opposite of what they promised! Or did I just think they promised??

With the Green Party, the Mystery is gone! There's a simple, but clear Party Platform! Every candidate signs on to before running!
You know where your candidate stands, No Corporate Money, Non-Profit Single-Payer HealthCARE! Corporations are NOT People, have no Right to Free Speech! Need to be Regulated!
Instante Run-Off Elections! No one becomes President with less then 50% of the vote!

I breathed a sigh of relief, and knew, I'd found a home! No more holding my nose to Vote!
No more giving money to candidates, (told their Progressive) only to Discover Later, their Really Blue-Dogs with Red Fleas!

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

» Andie what 927 Posted by: jwg
» RE: Andie what 927 Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: And you Posted by: Longdream
» RE: And you Posted by: joeunix
» Excuse me? Posted by: foreverhope
fabienne
Posted by: Fabienne on Mar 17, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting that someone who believes Senator Obama is farther to the right than Senator Clinton supported Edwards, who, when he was in the Senate, voted FOR everything he said he was AGAINST in his campaign. At any rate, I'll write in an Obama/Feingold ticket, as it seems more of a protest vote than voting third party. I don't care if the Democratic Party disintegrates since Bill Clinton destroyed its soul with his 8-year presidency and his consort is attempting to destroy its shell.

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

Spare me
Posted by: Alyx on Mar 17, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Proof that ALL news media, even AlterNet, is biased and has an agenda. Alternative news reporting? BS! Why not just call it ObamaNet.

Obama's campaign has done just as much lying and smearing, with the same conclusion, Obama states "that isn't his opinion."

And exactly what are you all doing here? Playing the same pass the fake story game as everyone else.

It wasn't McCain supporters who tore down the signs in my front yard, that was Obama supporters, it wasn't McCain supporters who exploded soda all over my car and ripped off my bumper sticker, nope that was Obama supporters, and I was at the Democratic county convention when they did it! It was McCain supporters who painted "KKK" all over my girlfriends bumper sticker, nope, that was Obama supporters.

But I don't for a minute believe that Obama came down from on high and told his supporters to run around vandalizing his opponents supporters, get real, people are more than able to open their mouths and put their foots in it all by them selves. There are more than capable of going over the top and doing stupid stuff all by themselves.

Obama staffers have called her a "monster", they've called peoples homes and played the same dirty tricks, smearing her record, lying about her role in the health care, lying about her role as First Lady, on Facebook there are forums that describe how to get Clinton supporters forums and facebooks shut down.

In both Ohio and Texas his staffer got caught breaking rules an in attempt to circumvent the process, at my own caucus the Obama precinct capitan tried to run my precinct's caucus, WTF? He KNEW that was against the rules, trying to intimidate the unaffiliateds and others, he took our precinct sign and plastered it with Obama stickers, another complete violation.

All of this? business as usual for a competition that results in top position in the country. Just wait, while Clinton and Obama are sniping, and thats all it is, sniping, McCain is in DC gathering money and dirt for the upcoming battle.

You want to not vote? vote green? Go for it, and when McCain wins and we get another four years of high gas prices, bottoming housing market, a government spending hundreds of billions to bail out banks who thought they'd get rich quick on the backs of Americans, and more wars over oil, have at it. But don't come here and bitch when you get what you voted for.

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

» Speaking of facebook Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
» RE: Speaking of facebook Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Sorry to Tell you Posted by: blackie4aces
» Why not just call it ObamaNet Posted by: YogiBear
I'm surprised
Posted by: Fishbone Soldier on Mar 17, 2008 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't think it would come to this. I assumed I would vote for whoever got the Democratic nomination. But watching Clinton run her campaign this way... I can't in good conscience give her my vote. In my opinion, she's George Bush in a pantsuit. The same attacks on her opponent, sure. But also the same "say one thing, do the opposite." She says, "hold me accountable," but I don't believe she means that. It's all about triangulation, microtrends, and anything-to-get-elected. That's how Bush became president (with help from the Supreme Court, yes).

Obama is the candidate I've been waiting for my whole life. An intelligent, honest politician who puts the good of the American people above his own interests. Had Clinton beaten him fair and square, maybe I'd feel differently. But her tactics (shortsighted as they are), indicate that she cares not about either moving America forward or the welfare of its citizens. She cares about winning at all costs. I firmly believe there is no reasonable way she can garner the nomination - and if she does, there's no way she wins in November. It's impossible.

But if my some miracle the Superdelegates turn against the will of the voters, I will surely vote Green. Heck, I'll put a sign in front of my house for them.

Fight the Youth

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

Fabienne on Obama
Posted by: Ginga on Mar 17, 2008 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been heartened by almost all of the comments posted about Hillary's dirty tricks. As an Illini I know that Obama is a progressive, a brilliant man. and a man more than capable of being our president. And like Fabienne, I will write in Obama/Feingold if he is not the democratic nominee.

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

» RE: Don't do that! Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
» RE: Fabienne on Obama Posted by: koolwoman
Holding One's Nose
Posted by: blackie4aces on Mar 17, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, for one, will not vote for Hillary Clinton should she become the Democratic Party nominee. Although I understand the "hold your nose and pull the lever" concept," I think this strategy only insures that we will continue to get candidates that require the procedure. Until the Democratic Party understands that it cannot field candidates with no more than a shade of difference from the Republicans and even be in a position to win, we will continue to get candidates of that stripe. Until the Democratic Party comes to understand this, this country will continue to have what amounts to a one-party system at the functional ideological level.

Clinton has used two mantras almost continuously during her campaign. Each are for the most part false. The first is the "change" claim. So what is this so-called "change" all about. There was no disagreement on her part with George Bush regarding the invasion of Iraq. Nor in continuing to support the occupation throughout its duration until she began to run for the presidency and it was also apparent that a large majority of Democrats were for ending it. Her position suddenly changed, but she offers no guarantees of withdrawal. All of her statements are very hedged on this point.

Her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bill seems to indicate that she is in sync with King George as far as Iran is concerned. She scolded her oponent Obama for suggesting talks with Iran. She also chastized him for "taking nuclear strikes off the table as an option." Where, exactly, is all this "change" she is talking about? This is nothing more than a continuation of the current administrations policies.

It is also important to note what she hasn't said. Has she committed to repealing the Bush userpations of American constitutional civil rights, the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act. If so, I haven't heard it. Has she repudiated the use of signing statements when she is President? If she has, I haven't heard it. Has she talked at all about restoring the equilibrium of checks and balances between the three branches of the American government that the Bush Administration has all but destroyed? If she has, I haven't heard it.

Regarding her thirty-five years of experience, and of late, the almost comic repetition in her speeches of a direct allusion to the 3:00 A.M. telephone call commercial, I have to ask how sitting on the board of WalMart in the late eighties relates to national political experience? How is practicing corporate law in Arkansas related to national political experience. Is Mrs. Clinton math-challenged or just a liar?

Change, experience, and self-serving campaigning at any and all costs? No I won't be casting my vote for Clinton. There will probably be Nader or a communist on the ballot.

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

People, get a clue! Who controls/handles Mr. Obama
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 17, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[1] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Russophobe and War monger. National Security adviser and handler of the disastrous fool from Georgia, Jimmy Carter.

[2] Anthony Lake, Clinton administration national security adviser. Bill Clinton, by the way, is right-winger (a so-called "Reagan Democrat"), not a "progressive".

[3] Richard Clarke, Clinton and Bush administration counter-terrorism expert.

[4] Sarah Sewall, Clinton administration deputy secretary of defense, counter-insurgency czar.

[5] Susan Rice, Clinton administration Africa specialist (read, Genocide specialis) and National Security Council member of right-wing Brookings Institution.

[6] Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer; NSC Near East and Asian affairs at the right-wing Brookings Institute.

--------------------

Obama stated publically that he wants to bomb Pakistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski has had a hard-on for war with Russia since the 1950s.

With advisers of this milieu, how can anyone consider Mr. Obama a so-called "progressive"?

The fact is, Mr. Obama is a right-winger and his adviser's are all the proof you need to come to that conclusion.

Wake up, Obama-dupes, because you're in for a rude surprise if you don't extract your head's from your backside before it's too late.

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

» OOOOH! HE CALLED ME 'INSECT'! Posted by: Longdream
» And yet another question Posted by: joeunix
» RE: And yet another question Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
» RE: And yet another question Posted by: joeunix
» RE: And yet another question Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
People, get a clue! Who controls/handles Hillary Clinton
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 17, 2008 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[1] Bill Clinton (need I say more?).

[2] Madeline Albright, Clinton administration secretary of state responsible for the bloody intervention in the Balkans.

[3] Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security adviser and handler.

[4] Richard Holbrooke, Former US Ambassador to the UN and a member of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[5] Gen. Wesley Clark (War monger), handled the bloody attack on Serbia and Kosovo.

[6] Leslie Gelb, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, former State and Defense Department official (ie., War monger).

[7] Martin Indyk, Clinton administration Israel ambassador, member of the right-wing Brookings Institute.

[8] Strobe Talbott, Clinton handler, and Deputy Secertary of State, creator of Caspian oil group, member of the right-wing Brookings Institute.

[9] Jeffrey Smith, former CIA general counsel.

--------------------

So, if you elect "Goldwater Girl", Hillary Clinton, all you get are war mongers and spooks (CIA agents).

Hillary is another stealth right-winger, and her advisers/handlers are all you need to arrive at that conclusion.

Want more war? Elect Hillary "Goldwater Girl" Clinton.

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

» Compare national defense advisors Posted by: foreverhope
» so joe... Posted by: Moira61
» Bingo! Posted by: joeunix
» RE: Ummm.....Bradley? Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Ummm.....Bradley? Posted by: joeunix
People, get a clue! Who controls/handles John McCain
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 17, 2008 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[1] Henry Kissinger (need I say more?).

[2] Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state, covert CIA drug pipeline manager and Bush family ally.

[3] Robert McFarlane, Reagan/Bush national security adviser, Iran-Contra scandal.

[4] William Kristol, arch neo-con editor of The Weekly Standard.

[5] Alexander Haig, Reagan/Bush secretary of state.

[6] George Shultz, Reagan/Bush secretary of state, Hoover Institution, Bechtel executive.

[7] Brent Scowcroft, Kissinger associate and national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush.

[8] James Woolsey, former CIA director (spook).

[9] Lawrence Eagleburger, Secretary of State under Bush, Sr.

[10] William Ball, diplomat and Reagan administration Secretary of Navy.

[11] Colin Powell, Secretary of State under Bush and Army officer who helped cover up the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam. Bald faced lied before the UN to get us into the Iraq war. A major scumbag if there ever was one.

--------------------

So, if you elect John McCain all you get are war mongers, drug dealers and spooks (CIA agents).

So take your pick of three right-wingers: Obama, Clinton and McCain.

That's equivalent to a "choice" limited to chocolate ice cream, chocolate ice cream and chocolate ice cream.

Some choice, eh?

Wake up, before it's too late!

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

Hillary Clinton has lost.
Posted by: Aaunk on Mar 17, 2008 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only way she can win the nomination is to convince enough super delegates to overturn the Democratic electorate. This is not going to happen, supedelegates aren't fools, and they are not going to tear the party apart just to support a looser.

Even if she somehow managed to steal the notation, she will have made herself so divisive that she will loose the general election, and will probably cost the Democrats the Senate, and maybe even the House.

Its time for Clinton and her supporters to face the reality that she is not going to be the President, and to rejoin the Democratic party in the battle to beat McCain and the Republicans in November.

Or do Hillary and her supporters really think that McCain would make a better President then Obama?

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

» Good point. Posted by: joeunix
Politics in America
Posted by: Mac Geek on Mar 17, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'-Bill Hicks

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

» RE: Politics in America Posted by: Aaunk
SIGH...
Posted by: profedwards on Mar 17, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I miss Kucinich...
Seriously, if you are going to choose to "write in" over supporting a great third party choice (McKinny rocks!) - why not write in Dennis? That way, you are taking a stand for a real progressive.

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

» RE: SIGH... Posted by: joeunix
I will vote for...
Posted by: jmooney on Mar 17, 2008 1:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nader or the Green Party candidate. I cannot in good conscience vote for the Clintons. They are putrid and pathetic and need to be defeated.

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

» RE: I will vote for... Posted by: left_libertarian
Hillary
Posted by: pana on Mar 17, 2008 2:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary, what can I say? I am dumb founded at her tactics. You'd think she would want to bring the Democratic party together instead of giving our country away one more time to the highest bidder. I don't believe Hillary, I never have, and I cannot and will not support her. Hillary, like the vast majority of lifetime politicians are in it to line her own pockets. In this case, I believe Hillary wants power and to put it lightly to live one more time in the White House, and have the BEST perks and healthcare anywhere around the world, while the rest of us slobs struggle.

Questions for Hillary:
Where were you when you voted for the illegal war on Iraq on signed the NCLB Act? Where were you when those in need called for your support?

Has anyone thought of the following: 4 years of Bush, 8 years of the Clintons, 8 years of Bush. I don't think the presidency should be a dynasty. We are OVER the years of kings and queens.

Hillary, if you do decide to support Obama, that would be refreshing, and maybe I'll believe you. Right now, well.....I cannot believe much of what you spout.

Concerned

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

What if?
Posted by: healinghawk on Mar 17, 2008 3:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if, after Hillary wins the Democratic nomination through ratfucking Obama so Nixon chuckles in his grave, Obama people refuse to vote for her, or to ever vote Democratic again? What if they vote for McCain?

One thing is almost certain. Roe v Wade is DOA. If the law that was overturned by Roe v Wade's passage again becomes law through Roe v Wade being overturned, then women once again will be *legally required* to obey men.

Where does that put the women who support Hillary no matter what she does?

I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for McCain. Obama brought me back to the Democratic Party from the Green Party. I know Hillary's history of corruption with Monsanto, et al. She will never get my vote.

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

» RE: What if? Posted by: left_libertarian
What if? Ain't no "if."
[