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.

Is Hillary or Obama More Vulnerable to Right-Wing Attacks?

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted December 22, 2007.


Is Obama's admitted youthful drug use more dangerous than seven years of Secret Service files on Hil and Bill?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Parry

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Even as Hillary Clinton's operatives were dropping hints that Republicans would exploit Barack Obama's youthful drug use, some Clinton insiders privately worried about her own vulnerability because the Bush administration possesses detailed knowledge of her movements -- and her husband's -- over the past seven years.

Because of Sen. Clinton's unique status as the first former First Lady to run for President - and because her husband was succeeded by a Republican -- she is the first candidate to have both her and her spouse be subject to regular, long-term surveillance by an Executive Branch agency controlled by the opposing political party.

Since they left the White House in 2001, Bill and Hillary Clinton have been under the protection of the Secret Service, formerly a branch of the Treasury Department and now part of the Homeland Security Department. Records are maintained showing where they go and whom they meet.

Homeland Security is under the control of Michael Chertoff, a longtime Clinton nemesis dating back to his work as a Republican lawyer on the Senate's Whitewater investigation in the 1990s. In 2003, Sen. Clinton cast the sole dissenting vote against Chertoff's nomination as a federal judge in protest against his abrasive conduct during the Whitewater inquiry.

Though Secret Service records are supposed to be closely held secrets, a source close to the Clintons told me that it is believed that senior Republicans have received regular briefings about movements of the Clintons that might prove embarrassing if released during the general election campaign.

Given this possibility, Clinton operatives were walking a tightrope when they began raising questions about what bare-knuckled Republican operatives might do with Sen. Obama's public acknowledgement that he experimented with drugs, including cocaine, as a young man.

As part of the Clinton campaign's broader effort to raise doubts about Obama's electability, Clinton's New Hampshire co-chairman Bill Shaheen told the Washington Post that "one of the things [the Republicans are] certainly going to jump on is his drug use. ...

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' ... There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Though an uproar over the remarks soon forced Shaheen's resignation, Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn managed to slip the word "cocaine" into a denial that the Clinton campaign was playing its own dirty trick.

"The issue related to cocaine use is not something the campaign is in any way raising," Penn said on MSNBC's "Hardball."

The Clinton campaign's gamesmanship prompted more protests from the Obama camp and a satire by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who recounted a mock Iowa debate in which Hillary Clinton inserted drug references at every possible opportunity. [NYT, Dec. 16, 2007]

Clinton/Bush Ties

But there is a history to the Clinton and Bush families possessing damaging secrets about the other, a kind of balance of terror in which the Bushes usually have the upper hand and the Clintons have chosen mostly to make concessions and seek favors from the more powerful family.

On Dec. 17 in South Carolina, Bill Clinton demonstrated that tendency, saying Hillary Clinton's first act as President would be to send Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to repair America's image.

"The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," said Bill Clinton, who is proud that he has accompanied the senior Bush on many international humanitarian missions.

Clinton's comment could be viewed as both a slap at George W. Bush and a kiss-up to his father. But the elder Bush responded icily through a spokesman, saying he supports his son's foreign policy and "never discussed an 'around-the-world mission' with either former President Bill Clinton or Sen. Clinton."

It was not the first time that the senior Bush, the patriarch of America's most prominent political family, had put down the upstart Clinton.

In 1992 when Clinton - as Arkansas governor - sought the White House, then-President Bush encouraged his subordinates to find a "silver bullet" that would kill off Clinton's presidential hopes.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, hillary clinton, 2008, secret service, drug use

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
Gosh, that settles it: Obama is less vulnerable
Posted by: Rune on Dec 22, 2007 12:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because, other than a brief mention at the outset of this article, no vulnerabilities, or anything else, regarding Obama is mentioned. Basically, this article has nothing to do with Obama.

The article is about nothing other than a fairly obscure problem facing Hillary Clinton when there are so many more and larger problems surrounding Clinton to consider. I don't dispute the points made, but I think it would have been able to summarize the point in just a couple of paragraphs without short changing most of us of anything that might matter to us a month from now.

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

What a question!!
Posted by: talkville on Dec 22, 2007 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why on earth would the Right, even the Hard Right want to attack HRC?? She's already on board with regard to the most critical aspects of the current Administration!

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

» RE: I guess one reason might be Posted by: atheistcable
» Are only two Democrats running? Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: What a question!! Posted by: Lauren
Give it a Rest, Already!
Posted by: armorypk on Dec 22, 2007 12:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, along with the majority of progressive Democrats will be voting for Kucinich in the primaries. Second choice: Edwards
And we are sooo tired of reading about Clinton and Obama. The corporate media have been trying their damnedest to convince the public that it's a two-way race. They've failed. The Republicans are praying for a Clinton or Obama candidacy, and any so-called "attacks" on them are just red herrings.

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

» RE: Give it a Rest, Already! Posted by: Susan Kipping
» Progressives for Biden Posted by: tigesgirl
» RE: Give it a Rest, Already! Posted by: skepticgod
» RE: Give it a Rest, Already! Posted by: EdinIowa
They both can find a way to lose.
Posted by: vox persona on Dec 22, 2007 12:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary brings more baggage than United Airlines, and the right wing can hammer the bread basket mid-West/South with commerciials stressting Barack HUSSEIN Obama, which would be enough to lose him those folks. Besides, he's so green that few would feel safe pulling that lever, and many won't get past thinking they're electing a former drug addict from the hood, plus his first name being so close to Osama. None of these are intelligent reasons, but was intelligence involved when so many pulled the lever to "re-elect" this homicidal boy emperor with delusions of grandeur? The Dems would do well to go off the board at the convention and draft an Evan Bayh or (Bill?) Nelson of Florida, which ain't gonna happen. So the right wing would have a field day with Billary, it's a win-win for them. If she does get elected, she would just carry on Bush's war agenda. At least Obama isn't more of the same, but I just don't think he's electable.

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

Years of watching the Republican Machine Branding a Candidate as LIBERAL
Posted by: jlc on Dec 22, 2007 3:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is the one most vulnerable to being branded as both LIBERAL and NAIVE. Two weak points going into a general election. Yes, his race wont help either, The country is still racist and divided on mnay issues. What makes Obama think that he can change the policies or procedures of Washington. What friends and support will he have in congress. He will help to dovide this country even further.
Alternet, you disappoint me. We dont need a feel good candidate that loses to an experience Republican Machine. What you need is a Clinton candidate that knows how to beat the republicans because they did it before.

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

Dirt, drugs and peace!
Posted by: carbon-based on Dec 22, 2007 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's pretty difficult to feel sorry for Hillary. no doubt both sides have and use any unpleasant information they may have - the Clintons are know for their dirty tricks and can stay toe to toe with Bush in this regard - it seems to be Obama which is now getting the lesson.

As for Obama and his drug use, in todays drug infested world it's hard to see how that will affect any outcome. It didn't seem to hurt Bush although many like to bring it up -

Maybe Obama can pass some weed to Ahmadinejad as a peace offering - Bush was too stingy.

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

» RE: Dirt, drugs and peace!???? Posted by: niliadis
Barack's drug use
Posted by: jlohman on Dec 22, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, at least they can get off the kick that Barack lacks experience! :-)

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

» He IS inexperienced Posted by: tigesgirl
Edwards least vulnerable
Posted by: bthespoon on Dec 22, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and best candidate for the Democratic Party. I truly believe Republicans are hoping for Barak or Hillary.

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

» You mean the "advocate for the poor"... Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: dwards least vulnerable Posted by: Lauren
» RE: dwards least vulnerable Posted by: niliadis
Obama is the better candidate
Posted by: atheistcable on Dec 22, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama experimented with cocaine, but he became addicted to the more dangerous drug nicotine--and he recovered from that. This highlights the fact that tobacco is a far more addictive and dangerous drug than cocaine. What is more of a concern to me is his religiosity and homophobia. For "Republicans to jump in his drug use" may be a positive because finally a political candidate may be forced to deal with the drug war. The Republicans do not have a viable candidate. If Obama became the Democrat's nominee, we then compare this fine, intelligent gentleman with Huckabee or Romney. The last two will go down in flames!

I want to congratulate AlterNet's intention to focus on the drug war which will bring out the facts. AlterNet will have a big hand in changing American politics for the better.

Under Parry's "Unearthing Dirt," where he describes Clinton ignoring Sr Bush's scandals in hopes that Bill Clinton's scandals would be ignored--this is the thing that turns off voters--include me. I'm so tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Obama doesn't have any scandals. It's hard to see that his cocaine experimentation constitutes a scandal and by November 2008, that will be an old hat. I certainly see more JFK in Obama than I do in HRC, plus the fact that Americans are more aware of Repub dirty tricks.

Parry worries about what will be jumping into the mainstream press. I think we need to compare the mainstream press with alternative websites. When I read a headline in the WaPo, for example, I first jump to the comments, read a dozen of them, then go to the main article. If there are only one or two comments, I usually skip the article. The collective opinions of the readers usually have more credibility than a single writer.

I also look for articles that will challenge the sheep of this country to become responsible voters by educating themselves--and the Internet easily provides that opportunity.

In spite of some misgivings I have about Obama, Robert Parry's article bolsters my support for Obama.

Personally, I think the best team for America would be Barack Obama and Howard Dean. Who might be the running mates for Obama and HRC?

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

» It's the little things Posted by: carbon-based
Al is making another huge mistake
Posted by: bthespoon on Dec 22, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If he chooses not to run again.

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

tigesgirl
Posted by: tigesgirl on Dec 22, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a case of the "least worst" or as more familiarly called "lesser of two evils". I certainly don't want to see either as the nominee -- neither is among the best of the candidates. They are both buying the nomination---with disgusting amounts of money and use of celebrities. Why don't we for once really go with a quality candidate: Joe Biden would be first on my list; with Bill Richardson a close second. They both possess all that we have lacked in our democratic nominees and there are no skeletons in the closet. BIDEN is is uniter, not a divider. Why don't we have more stories on all his accomplishments--bipartisan legislation and superb international skills.

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

» RE: Forget Biden Posted by: chorton
Here is a page of problems that Hillary has.
Posted by: TarryFaster on Dec 22, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Click here.

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

» This site is worth reading Posted by: herbal
Vote For Kucinich!
Posted by: PJAW on Dec 22, 2007 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you ever get the chance. Not a single vote has been cast as yet and the MSM (with benign complicity on the part of Alternet and other "progressive" outlets) has annointed their candidates and repeats their names at every opportunity.

Congressman Kucinich is the only progressive stil in the race. Repeat his name whenever you can, do not repeat the names of those you do not support. Any mention of any type, positive or negative, only advances public perception of their importance. KUCINICH KUCINICH KUCINICH

Repeat it often.

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

» I certainly plan to. Posted by: photon's feather
Quack Quack Quack ....
Posted by: dsmidiman on Dec 22, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I said the day back in 2001 when they "gave" the presidency to GWB that by the time he got out of office he will have screwed things up so badly that the people of this nation will elect donald duck before they elect another republican to the White House...

QUACK QUACK QUACK !!!!!


Face it people, we are doomed. Our political system has become so corrupted and is so controlled by people and corporations that have one thing and one thing only on their agendas. HOW TO MAKE EVEN MORE MONEY SO THEY CAN CONTROL EVERY ASPECT OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL ON THIS PLANET !!!!

It's the too many rats in one box syndrome. The people "driving the bus" are not only obsessed with fear greed and control they truely believe that they and only they have the best answers to the problems facing our planet today. Their answer is "Beat the people who don't willingly follow into submission" Whether the beating is physical, mental or monetarilly it is still all about forcing anyone who questions them into submission.

All this chatter about the candidates running for office and thier drug use, their experience or inexperience, their infidelity bla bla bla is just a bunch of hocus
pocus!!!

Anyone with half a brain would not even consider running for a high end public office these days simply because of the trashing and bashing that goes on whether it is fact or not.

The only thing that can change all this now is for Noah to build another great big boat and load up a bunch animals (NO PEOPLE) on it and flood this planet again wiping out any trace of what was here before. Then if human beings evolve back into the world again make it impossible for anything like MONEY and POWER over others to exist. Because that is what is driving all aspects of life today....

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

Vulnerable is the middle and working class..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Dec 22, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama and Hillary are both vulnerable for different reasons but who is really vulnerable are the American people..

These two along with Edwards all want us to still be the subjects and slaves of the corrupt Insurance companies who dictate our Health care rather than our doctors so any of us could be sacrificed for the sake of profit like this poor girl Cigna killed..

That's why Hillary and Obama especially are to change candidates at all..they are stooges to the callous corrupt murderous Insurance companies and so is Edwards unfortunately..

We Need Single Payer Health Care..


I think the Republicans believe that it would to to much to hope for that the Democrats nominate Obama as they can be him with one hand tied behind their back...


Hillary scares them a little more but they have their strategy for her and she will galvanize their base and get many out to vote against her who might otherwise not vote..

Edwards scares them most of all..

He is the most electable of the Democrats..by far..

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

» Can't say it often enough Posted by: bthespoon
Digging Up Dirt - Another Angle
Posted by: radical53 on Dec 22, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading the article on the Clinton campaign's concern about Republicans using the products of federal surveillance made me consider another angle on the 2008 campaign. As the article pointed out, the Clinton folks have also reminded voters repeatedly about Obama's use of drugs as a young man.

It's beginning to appear to me that the nomination of Clinton would be another step in our descent into negative campaigning and ruthless politics. Hillary has been disappointing in her willingness to stoop to very low levels in an attempt to defeat her opponents. In addition to my objections to the drug use issue, I was not particularly touched by her purportedly poignant assertion that she needed an asbestos pant suit to defend against attacks from Obama and Edwards. If she is trying to sell herself as the serious, "experienced" candidate, she needs to handle attacks and arguments more gracefully. Her recent flip-flop on getting the troops out by the end of her first year instead of her first term was not very impressive, either.

It seems that she has retained the worst of Bill Clinton's campaigning traits, namely pandering, while losing sight of his impressive command of policy issues.

I sincerely hope she gets back to the issues and starts stating her actual policy positions. Whining and pandering just serve to associate her with the weaknesses of the Democratic Party.

I am hoping against hope that her recent tactics have something to do with her slide in the polls. Could voters actually be rejecting this kind of campaigning? It's probably too good to be true.

Maybe the descent into the abyss is inevitable, but I would much prefer an Obama or Edwards vs. Huckabee or McCain contest on issues to a muck-raking campaign between Hillary and either Romney or Giuliani.

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

Edwards is the best choice
Posted by: old prof on Dec 22, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it. The right-wing will have a field day with both Clinton and Obama. Pragmatic politics tells me that Edwards is in the best position to take the White House. His populist, anti-corporate message is resonating with the people and his personal life seems immune to attack. Quite frankly, I think the corporate media is playing up Clinton and Obama because they know that either of them will be easier to defeat than Edwards.

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

» RE: Absolutely Right Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: dwards is the best choice Posted by: tigesgirl
Clinton scandals already out in the open Obama's yet to be revealed
Posted by: macmcd on Dec 22, 2007 11:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that the Republicans have already spent $60+ million on uncovering every iota of dirt on both Bill and Hillary. If Obama were to be the nominee, I am certain they will be able to come up with another $50-100 million to examine his and his wife's personal lives. That is a Pandora's box that I would rather not open. We already know the worst they can do with the Clintons and there is nothing there that would cause anyone to think that Hillary would not make a very competent President. I personally doubt if Obama has any fewer personal weaknesses. After all the only thing they could blame on Bill was that he would, if pressed, lie about a sexual indiscretion. In the end, so would we all.

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

Thank You (I think) for digging up these old (skull &) bones
Posted by: johnclark on Dec 22, 2007 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a warrior in these battles past, I often assume that the people around me remember all of this. But I find that I have to school them on Daddy Bush - all the way back to when he was in charge of privatizing the CIA (Church was gonna' kill it). When Jr gave Poindexter & Abrams jobs, I couldn't believe how many of my friends & co-conspirators had no clue about this past.

It didn't take us long to figure out that Clinton wasn't the answer we'd been looking for, for all of the reasons above, as well as for all the other stuff -- NAFTA, "don't ask, don't tell", ...

But like lots of soldiers on leave, we wound up making babies and were too busy changing diapers to hold Bill's feet to the fire. His inability to hold these (four letter word)ers accountable led us directly to butterfly ballots and the train wreak that is Jr.

I find that I have to school many Clinton lovers on these facts in my explanations against her. Maybe it's us veterans do this that's taking the wind out of her support.

As for Obama, my only problem is the single payer stuff. Krugman's convinced me on that. Frank Rich pointed out that Obama's 'naive' comments on Pakistan turned out to be ahead of the curve after all. I remind people that Obama is the most electable Black candidate in history. It actually makes me hopeful, a feeling on national politics I hadn't had since Jimmy Carter (& that didn't last long). Current polls show him beating every republican by at least 10 points. As for the cocaine & madrass crap -- that's all they got on him. And it backfired.

I mean, doesn't it just go to show that Obama is an honest man? Isn't that a quality we haven't had in the president in a long time? And since my kids are no longer in diapers, I'll be able to put his feet near fire when necessary - like on health care and the nationalizing of it.

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

Harry Greenwood,Vancouver,BC
Posted by: Truelass on Dec 22, 2007 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Canadian I have no status in voting in the Presidential or any other campaigns in the US. I am commenting only on the ludicrous political system south of our borders which resembles a re-run of the Keystone Kops or some other nonsensical cartoon episode. Not one of the candidates for President, from either party, could hold their own in any Canadian High School debate on International Affairs. When George Galloway, the British Member of Parliament, came before the US Senate Foriegn Affairs Committe to defeend himself over the false accusations against him on the Food for Oil deal with Saddam Hussein made by this Mickey Mouse group, he made them look silly and proved how this kindergarten in the "so called" seat of democracy was ruled by idiots whose only justification for being there was family, or someone elses family, money. If the US is not being ruled by big fat black cats it will be ruled by big fat white cats and either way the whole world suffers.

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

» Hey! Just where do you get off... Posted by: photon's feather
Right wing attacks aren't the problem
Posted by: xbj on Dec 22, 2007 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is when Red State and Blue State Red County Nazi KKK trailer trash Amerika line up in unprecedented numbers at the polls to keep a black man (and not what they will be calling him either) out of the White House. They might hate Hillary, but they hate poweful black people even more. Oprah included.

You know, like Imus who referred to Gwen Ifill as "the cleaning lady" at PBS. AND IS BACK ON THE AIR.

That's what the Democratic Party has to worry about. We are nowhere NEAR the top of Dr. King's mountain. Not by a long shot.

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

» Obama not progressive Posted by: bthespoon
Right wing attacks are very much the problem. The answer is...
Posted by: EdinIowa on Dec 22, 2007 3:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is the candidate they don't want to run against. And Edward's is right on the issues, Edward's is populist and his anti-corporate sentiment is real.

I have a lot of respect for Kucinich, but hell, let's be real, he's not going to win a national election, won't happen and wishing won't make it happen.

And given the country we live in I seriously wonder if Barak would even have a chance, and all it'll take is just a couple of obstacles to derail everything.

Sure Hillary can fight, they've been through it, but we don't know what kind of crap might be thrown up in the election, what unknowns are out there - waiting to be dropped. (Any one really think Bill's been a saint for the last 7 yrs?)

There's 2 things we do know -
We know that if you want to galvanize the Republicans and insure that every demoralized one of them rises off their asses and gets to the polls on election day '08 (assuming the election even occurs) then put Hillary on the ticket. Their irrational hatred of everything Clinton guarantees a massive Republican turnout and guarantees a close election.

And secondly we know that close will NOT get it done. Anything close is going to go to the Republicans, they stole the elections in 00 and 04 - they would've in 06 if the vote had not been so massively against them - and they will in 08 if we have anything less than a decisive victory. It's suicide to think otherwise.

Listen to what John Edwards has to say - I'm in Iowa, I've heard him. Go to his website
http://johnedwards.com/iowa/issues/ and
download and read "The Plan to Build One America - Bold Solutions for Real Change".

And then tell me that he's not the progressive candidate we've been waiting for. No one is ever going to get everything they want but this man is as good a progressive choice as we have ever had and he can win. The very fact that Hillary and Obama have already been anointed by the corporate MSM should tell us all we need to know - STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THEM.

Edwards '08

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

» Not really. Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Not really. Posted by: EdinIowa
» Sentiment is not enough. Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: Sentiment is not enough. Posted by: EdinIowa
» Edwards closest to FDR Posted by: bthespoon
Who Cares.
Posted by: mom'z the word on Dec 22, 2007 4:10 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vote for Kucinich.

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

Obama is untouchable because he's Black.
Posted by: cjohnson44 on Dec 22, 2007 4:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every criticsism of him is attaced as a smear or as racist. It's happening already. Americans are scared of coming off as racist, so they'll give the guy a pass (yeah, Republicans will too - maybe even moreso.)

Americans are more afraid of appearing racist (after seeing how any White who makes any kind of comment gets crushed) than they are of appearing anti-woman.

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

How vulnerable
Posted by: chlamor on Dec 22, 2007 5:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can two right-wingers be to attack from right-wingers?

Do you mean here that these two are vulnerable from attacks from the less far-right wing of the American Business Party or from the hard right-wing of the War Party?

Damn, American politics is so confusing.

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

Special Pleading
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 22, 2007 5:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's ironic that the right embraced GW Bush despite his history of alcoholism, arrests for drunk driving and cocaine possession, desertion from the Air National Guard, insider trading at Harken and other felonies,all of which he lied about, while making so much of Clinton's infidelities. Obama did what most people of his generation did and tried drugs, and told the truth about it. The right's attempt to vilify Obama is clearly special pleading, not righteous indignation.

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

Mark Penn: not guilty
Posted by: BobbyLip on Dec 22, 2007 8:08 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's too bad that Parry chooses to repeat the canard that it was Mark Penn who made a big deal about Obama's admitted cocaine use. If you actually watch the clip from "Hardball" you will see that the first--and repeat==user of the word "cocaine" was the estimable Tweety, well known sexist, Clinton hater, and all around knucklehead.

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

Neither Should Be President
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 22, 2007 11:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1- Both are JUNIOR SENATORS with no prior Federal elected experience.
2- Neither have executive experience at any level of government.
3- By policy, both are Republican-lites.
4- Neither could debate their way out of a wet paper bag with a chainsaw.

We need a REAL Democrat and although there are many, only 2 are seriously in the race.
John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich

The rest have more baggage than Paris Hilton, the charisma of a flat tire and the presentation skills of a 4th grader. I would also strongly suggest that cleaning up behind Bush is going to call for someone who will stand up and fight- ruling out all but the same 2.

Give Hillary or Obama the nod and get a Republican in 2008.
It's your vote.

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

Which is dumber
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Dec 22, 2007 11:37 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a bag of hammers or a box of rocks?

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

The truth about your loverboy Dennis Kucinich
Posted by: gregallen on Dec 23, 2007 12:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://news.clevescene.com/2007-12-05/news/the-king-of-spin/
This is for all of you so called progressives who never bother to look into the candidate you support. Start thinking for yourselves, because you need to start to. I can no longer stand the support so many people give to this man. I live in Ohio now and listen to me, it is not in good shape. He has brought nothing to the state and the economy continues to go downhill. If you support playing race politics at the expense of real action, then Dennis Kucinich is your man. This is not to defend Obama or Clinton, but to give you Kucinich supporters something to think about. The scene is a fine free press and you should take heed in what it says.

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

"IS" Hillary or Obama?
Posted by: midwestblue on Dec 23, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My goodness. It should be "ARE" Hillary or Obama...your grammar has really reached a low point here. I know. I know. Trivial, but it really does make you look stupid.

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

Oops!
Posted by: midwestblue on Dec 23, 200