Hillary Sends Bill on Campaign Trip to Antarctica
Will Remain There Until Convention, Aides Confirm

Andy Borowitz


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has sent her husband, former President Bill Clinton, on a “special campaign trip” to Antarctica that could last “six or seven months,” Clinton aides confirmed today.

“From here on in, Bill is going to be our man in Antarctica,” said top Clinton strategist Mark Penn. “We have sent him down there with enough food and firewood to last until the Democratic convention this summer.”

The unexpected change in the former president’s itinerary happened just hours after Mrs. Clinton’s drubbing in the South Carolina primary, causing some party insiders to wonder if Mr. Clinton’s mission to Antarctica represented something of a demotion.

The decision to dispatch Mr. Clinton to the South Pole also raised eyebrows because the continent of Antarctica does not participate in the so-called “Super Tuesday” primaries on February 5 and sends no delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Mr. Penn attempted to tamp down all such speculation, telling reporters, “This race isn’t about votes or delegates, it’s about land mass, frozen tundra and penguins.”

Mr. Clinton’s itinerary change comes on the heels of a controversial incident Saturday night in which he was discovered bound and gagged in the bathroom of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign plane, his hands tied by what appeared to be the jacket of a bright yellow pantsuit.

Speaking to reporters with a strip of duct tape still over his mouth, Mr. Clinton denied that he was being muzzled by the campaign, adding, “Mmmfff mghrmfff mmbrrfff.”

Elsewhere, the White House announced that President Bush’s State of the Union address would be simulcast in English.

---

To learn about more of Hillary's problems, click here.

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

He's doing just great on the campaign trail, thank you very much. Anything that keeps Hilary off the ticket in November is fine by me.

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

When Hillary decided to stand by her man, and demonize the women he'd messed with, she showed us her level of honor and self-respect. For far too long, they did their award-winning acts of confusion and confounding and pretending, but the illusionist always gets debunked. The country is tired of drama and trauma and has decided to go with hope and dignity over smear and sneer. He really is just a lecher and she's really not an independent feminist role model. They are sick, sick, sick.

Stick a fork in 'em; they're done!

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

Unfortunately, the Clinton duo are stuck with a lose/lose situation. Hillary can't win with Bill, and she can't win without him. The more he's part of it, the more she seems too weak, and the more he stays away, the more she seems too strong. It will ultimately wear away whatever advantage she might still have.

I think she could have won it on her own . . . but there is no turning back, now, from the two of 'em together

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

I used to be a big Clinton fan. I voted for Bill twice and I thought Hillary was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But that was long ago--long before Hillary's bad imitation of Tammy Wynette in saying she was not "standing by her man" while she was doing just that, long before Bill said he wasn't caving in to Newt Gingrich's Republican revolution while he was doing just that; long before he said that he "did not have sex with that woman--Monica Lewinsky"; long before his attending the execution of a mentally retarded man; long before his welfare bashing and long before his union smashing; long before NAFTA and his becoming buddies with George H.W. Bush; long before Hillary's voting for Bush's war and implying she was for it before she was against it.

Yes, those were halcyon days. I would like to remember the Clintons as they were then--fresh with new ideas and the idealism of youth. But they keep reminding me of what they have done lately, and now I wish they would just go away.

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

Aside from Hillary's endorsement of the Bush terrorist wars, including invasion of Iran, we can read Ralph Nader's history of Bill's performance. Experience? Experience doing what?

Published on Saturday, January 26, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Eight More Years?
by Ralph Nader
For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the ultimate American dream is eight more years. Yet how do you think they would react to having dozens of partisans at their rallies sporting large signs calling for EIGHT MORE YEARS, EIGHT MORE YEARS?

Don’t you have the feeling that they would cringe at such public displays of their fervent ambition which the New York Times described as a “truly two-for-the-price-of-one” presidential race? It might remind voters to remember or examine the real Clinton record in that peaceful decade of missed opportunities and not be swayed by the sugarcoating version that the glib former president emits at many campaign stops.

The 1990’s were the first decade without the spectre of the Soviet Union. There was supposed to be a “peace dividend” that would reduce the vast, bloated military budget and redirect public funds to repair or expand our public works or infrastructure.

Inaugurated in January 1993, with a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton sent a small job-creating proposal to upgrade public facilities. He also made some motions for campaign finance reform which he promised during his campaign when running against incumbent George H.W. Bush and candidate Ross Perot.

A double withdrawal followed when the Congressional Republicans started roaring about big spending Democrats and after House Speaker Tom Foley and Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell, told Clinton at a White House meeting to forget about legislation to diminish the power of organized money in elections.

That set the stage for how Washington politicians sized up Clinton. He was seen as devoid of modest political courage, a blurrer of differences with the Republican opposition party and anything but the decisive transforming leader he promised to be was he to win the election.
He proceeded, instead, to take credit for developments with which he had very little to do with such as the economic growth propelled by the huge technology dot.com boom.

Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, he neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.

A brainy White House assistant to Mr. Clinton told me in 1997 that the only real achievement his boss could take credit for was passage of legislation allowing 12 weeks family leave, without pay.

There are changes both the Clinton Administration actively championed that further entrenched corporate power over our economy and government during the decade. He pushed through Congress the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that represented the greatest surrender in our history of local, state and national sovereignty to an autocratic, secretive system of transnational governance. This system subordinated workers, consumers and the environment to the supremacy of globalized commerce.

That was just for starters. Between 1996 and 2000, he drove legislation through Congress that concentrated more power in the hands of giant agribusiness, large telecommunications companies and the biggest jackpot-opening the doors to gigantic mergers in the financial industry. The latter so-called “financial modernization law” sowed the permissive seeds for taking vast financial risks with other peoples’ money (ie. pensioners and investors) that is now shaking the economy to recession. continued

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

The man who pulled off this demolition of regulatory experience from the lessons of the Great Depression was Clinton ’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who went to work for Citigroup-the main pusher of this oligopolistic coup-just before the bill passed and made himself $40 million for a few months of consulting in that same year.



Bill Clinton’s presidential resume was full of favors for the rich and powerful. Corporate welfare subsidies, handouts and giveaways flourished, including subsidizing the Big Three Auto companies for a phony research partnership while indicating there would be no new fuel efficiency regulations while he was President.



His regulatory agencies were anesthetized. The veteran watchdog for Public Citizen of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, said that safety was the worst under Clinton in his twenty nine years of oversight.

By reappointing avid Republican Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Clinton assured no attention would be paid to the visible precursors of what is now the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Mr. Greenspan, declined to use his regulatory authority and repeatedly showed that he almost never saw a risky financial instrument he couldn’t justify.



Mr. Clinton was so fearful of taking on Orrin Hatch, the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that he cleared most judicial appointments with the Utah Senator. He even failed to put forth the nomination of sub-cabinet level official, Peter Edelman, whose credentials were superb to the federal appeals court.



Mr. Edelman resigned on September 12th, 1996. In a memo to his staff, he said, “I have devoted the last 30-plus years to doing whatever I could to help in reducing poverty in America. I believe the recently enacted welfare bill goes in the opposite direction.”



Excoriated by the noted author and columnist, Anthony Lewis, for his dismal record on civil liberties, the man from Hope set the stage for the Bush demolition of this pillar of our democracy.



To justify his invasion of Iraq, Bush regularly referred in 2002-2003 to Clinton’s bombing of Iraq and making “regime change” explicit U.S. policy.



But it was Clinton’s insistence on UN-backed economic sanctions in contrast to just military embargos, against Iraq, during his term in office. These sanctions on civilians, a task force of leading American physicians estimated, took half a million Iraqi children’s lives.



Who can forget CBS’s Sixty Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl’s tour through Baghdad’s denuded hospitals filled with crying, dying children? She then interviewed Mr. Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright and asked whether these sanctions were worth it. Secretary Albright answered in the affirmative.



Bill Clinton is generally viewed as one smart politician, having been twice elected the President, helped by lackluster Robert Dole, having survived the Lewinsky sex scandal, lying under oath about sex, and impeachment. When is it all about himself, he is cunningly smart.



But during his two-term triangulating Presidency, he wasn’t smart enough to avoid losing his Party’s control over Congress, or many state legislatures and Governorships.


The editors of Fortune Magazine headlined an article last June with the title, “Who Business is Betting On?” Their answer, of course, was Hillary Clinton.

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

Give them ALL the hook.

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 think bill should continue doing exactly what he's doing... he's going to sink hillary and himself along with it, and that's a good thing... he's revealing himself to be the bastard he always was underneath the "slick willie" exterior, and also how, if his wife is elected president, we will have both bill and george h.w. holding hands in the background...

go for it, bill...!

And, yes, I DO take it personallyu

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

Altertnet is giving advise to the Robot how it should program its master? Who gives a damn what this awful human being does other than loose!

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

I hear Bill talking about the issues and the candidates. He has a lifetime of experience in politics to draw from. Give him a listen. This world is in need of people willing to talk about their views. Debate is good. I would like to hear more details from all the candidates and their spouses, running mates, possible cabinet members. If the Neocons spoke out earlier we might not be in the abyss today.

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

BUT, is anyone talking about sending Michelle anywhere?

I don't like Bill or Hillary, not because of anything 'personel', because of their political positions! Let's be real, what did Bill do besides tell the truth? and poor baby Barack, didn't like it!

Barack is playing the race card, just as much as Hillary's playing the gender. Both of them are Corporatist/Centrist Ivy League 'born & breed', other then color and gender there is no difference!

Their BOTH talking (healthcare) INSURANCE! More of our money going to over priced, over paid Insurance Co. CEO's, so their 'bean-counters' can decide if your doctor can do the tests he wants, or prescribe the treatment he wants! Hear anything about MEDIA REFORM, out of either one of them? How about a committment to restore our Constitution?

There's only ONE candidate running on Public Campaign financing! Only one candidate, born and raised in a working class family! Only one candidate saying anyone can buy into Medicare, the first step to single-payor universal healthcare!

Get passed the 'color/gender' start looking at the ISSUES!! Do you want "hope" or a candidate with a positions, and a plan to back them up!

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

...long ago. Anyone who takes him seriously anymore is in political jeopardy. Notice how his "aw shucks," good ol boy demeanor hasn't got quite the charm it used to have? Christening the both of them Billary was a true stroke of genius! That's really where it's at. You think he's gonna get out of the way and let her govern? You can see him chomping at the bit to get back into the action. It's time for the both of them to be put out to pasture. Charity work...fine. Continuing the dynasty...forget about it.

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

Okay, I get that you don't care for Bill. His blood was never blue enough. He lacks good breeding. He (gasp) courts evil supercapitalists. He's pragmatic where he should be idealistic. He's a policy wonk and a statistic nerd. Hillary should have dumped his cheating hide long ago and asserted her uber-feminism in the US Senate. You have a point, but if you wear a hat it won't show.

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

If you have ever worked in a bureaucracy you know that positive change in hard. In the case of the White House and Congress there are many different agendas to be met. There will still be obstuctive Republicans in Congress to work with as well as Democrats with varying needs and ideas. The old saying about legislation and sausage making is too true. If you expect great change from a newly elected Democrat president you will be disappointed. It will take years to do substantial legislation that makes a difference. Strong leadership in the White House is critical, but it is not the end all. There has to be a working majority in Congress that go along with the White House. The major changes that need to happen will take a long time. We are under a system that does not reward change. The people with money and power do not want change. The candidates that we have running now have already been compromised by the large sums of money needed to run their campaigns and the sources of that money. To overlook this is to bury your head in the sand. The only candidate really talking about corporate ownershp of this country and the political system in John Edwards. The only candidate who seems to understand the intensity of that battle is John Edwards. Apparently people don't want to hear reality, they want to be assured that change will happen magically. Have faith and it will happen. I'm afraid that it's just not so.

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

Most of the above comments are about what Bill did or didn’t do and that is just the point. As I read through there was little there there to Hillary except the analysis of her standing by her man while denying it. And that is just the point. If Hillary were elected, it would be 3-4 terms as co-presidents with Bill playing a very significant, possibly dominant role. Remember, Bill said right from the beginning of his 1st term that we were getting “two fur one". That would be 12 to 16 years of the same couple in the White House as co-presidents. So the biggest issue for me is not how effective Hillary would be; it is a rejection of eight more years of a co-presidency. As Senator Ted Kennedy is indicating with his endorsement of Obama, it is time to pass the torch.

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

He's her husband and could be a major asset, but last weeke he got way out of line. This is her campaign and he should be there with her but but it's not his show to run. Like it or not, the world likes Bill Clinton. He would be good for mending fences and re-establishing old friendships. He cost her the Kennedy endorsement after having been told by Ted Kennedy to 'tone it down'. He has to sit this one out. He owes it to her to calm down. ANNA

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

I STRONGLY Disagree!! If the People of the United States see MORE of Billy Boy on Hillary's "campaign", it will do a tremedous amount of GOOD.... For the PEOPLE! Hillary's campaign will get 'flushed' down the toilet where it belongs and America will be that much Better for it!

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

Oh, Please, Bill, stay on the Hillary campaign trail, so you can keep showing us who you and Hillary really are. If Hillary should win, God help us, we have a major dictator in our White House. If you look at Hillary's astrological chart, she is right up there with the other dictators and fascists of the world. Believe me, this is no joke. Keep it up Billy Boy. Save us from Hillary and your deceitful ways. The planets have just shifted in favor of Obama and Ron Paul. I hate to say it but the ever-wavering, mind-changing, "shift your focus guy," John McCain is up there, too. But please save us from Hillary. Keep up the good work Billy Boy!

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

So, do you folks really buy the "unity" , "I am not a politician" theater?
Why I want Hillary:
Forget Bill, it's politics and it's about Hillary. I want a technocrat pragmatist that I already know.

1. She knows the White House and how it works.
2. She learned how the Senate runs.
3. She works hard.
4. She likes government.
5. She wants to make government work.
6. She will make all those lazy ass fat old Dem Senators do something for once (watch her interview with Reno Gazette)
7. She is a woman...yes a woman, women in Government do a much better job and we don't have time to train another man.

Obama
1. The couple of things he did in the neighborhood he flubbed up and blamed the victims (his work in affordable housing).
2. He is a carefully packaged by Axelrod and backed by a political machine that we don't know.
3. His positions are to the best right of Hillary. Yes, when it mattered he voted with the system.
4. He loves power for power sake.
5. He does not care or understand how government works.
6. The idealist package will blind the masses while his cohorts continue to rip off our government, while he trains, and looks pretty, two-three years of nothing.
7. He will delegate and do nothing but happy talk. (watch the Reno Gazette interview for one hour)
8. Why do the right wingers love him?
9. Why does the media love him?

My take, look now that they privatized government the Chicago mob wants a piece of the action, why should the Texas boys get it all.

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

And the joke is on you!
The joke IS you.. if you think Bill staying home or Bill going to antartica or Bill hiding in the closet makes a damn bit of difference. They're corrupt. They're scum. They lie. They dont care about you. They care about bilderberg. They care about China, and their vaunted eugenics project. They only care about how dumb yall are and how much its going to cost to keep the slave population under control. The least you could do is make it more costly for your captors, if you have no interest in being free!

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

I did not use to like them. But now I do. Compared to the iChange package, in this time when we need to clean up government, give me a technocrat. I don't want to be sweet talked and I am tired of being fooled. I know what they are. At least we will get some good hires in Government, get somebody who knows and does not delegate. It's not about Bill. You are all distracting from the issue.

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

there must be a limit. Corruption is not compulsory. I won't vote in 08 if Hillary is the Dem candidate.

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

This threat of not voting for Hillary if she is the candidate is petulant to say the list. Who cares. Don't vote.

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

Bill Clinton needs to shut up!

There is a big difference betwen campaigning for your spouse and trashing her opponents.

Like it or not, right or wrong, Hillary carries enough negative baggage that many will not vote for her come hell or high water. The worst thing the Democrats can do is to nominate her for President.

Both of the Clintons' egos have gotten in the way of what is best for the Democratic party and the nation as a whole. Hillary would do best to remain a senator from New York, and maybe become Senate Majority Leader.

Wild Bill out frothing on the campaign trail does neither of them any good.

Send him on a world tour to raise money for AIDS.

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

America should give Billary the hook.

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

because that will better the odds of Hillary not getting elected. Besides that she will never get past Borack Obama anyway and we don't need any more Clintons in the White House.

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

The United States constitution allows for 8 years in the office of President. Not 12, not (God forbid) 16. To put Hillary in the White House is tantamount to giving 12 or 16 years to BILL. Hillary didn't have the guts to stand up to her hubby, who made a complete FOOL of her in front of the entire WORLD (with Monica and others). Hillary behaves like a middle class housewife who cares more about keeping her man (and his power) than being a Person in her own right. When people were arguing that Bill's outrageous behavior had nothing to do with his ability to be President, that was one thing. Here we have the facts of life: if people elect Hillary, they are electing Bill, and that is WRONG and should not be allowed. Additionally, she is using the community property money that Bill earns in speaking engagements for spending on her campaigning. Other candidates have limits to how much can be given, but Bill and Hillary are apparently above the law. Regardless of her views on any subject whatsoever!!

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

I voted for the "good" guy Nader because I knew that Gore had my state all sewed up. Kerry likewise.

This time I'd like to vote for the "strong" candidate, and that's HRC. Both candidates are good and strong. But Hillary is strong before she is good, and Barack is good before he is strong. Our nation is in such a mess, that we need an executive who can get the hard work done.

Obama is being compared to JFK. Well, take a look at JFK's legislative accomplishment before he died--nada. We cannot continue without doing the hard work. I want a president who can govern. True, the Shrub has contaminated the office with stubbornness so that a strong president will be hard to elect.

It is Hillary's strength that scares people off. Yet it is what we need at this time.

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

I'm not clear on why Alternet should care whether Bill Clinton helps or hurts Hillary. Does Alternet have a dog in this race? Does Alternet actually think any of the other "major" democratic candidates will lead us to the promised land of freedom and democracy? To me, this is just political-junkie gossip. I don't think most of us give a rip. How about some news about the powers behind the political sock puppets. Where's our correspondent in Davos?

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

The media have many of you jumping through hoops. They teach you to say almost in a chant "Me Hate Hillary. Me Hate Bill". In the article about Hill dumping Bill, Carl Bernstein is used as though he has something relevant to say. He wrote a scathing book about Hillary and he is everywhere these days (even in this article)trying to promote his book via Hillary and Bill bashing. What a gossip hack--trying to make a buck off of character assassination. And Chris Matthews? You remember him? He's also a chief barking hound in all this. Okay, let's see what's going on. The media for some reason hate HILLARY and BILL. I can't figure it out unless they're trying to keep a Republican in the White House. So, in order to try to sink the two of them, the Media have taken a page from the Edward Bernays handbook. You remember Edward, don't you? He invented modern media propaganda methods in the 1920s and his biggest fan of whom he was quite proud was none other than Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda. Edward's recipe for doing someone in reads: How to turn a respected entity into a fearsome eneny: plant negatives about the person in all media outlets; once you have your public repeating those perjoratives, then begin issuing distortions, half-truths, overstatements and misquotes about your target. This is how you energize the puppies out there to do your hoop jumping. You have plugged into their unconscious fears, suspicions and innate love of negative gossip. You have at this point succeeded in turning the respected person into a "threat". Then over and over use the "threat" to justify an outright attack. Before you know it, you have the common person out there jumping up and down repeating your attacks. They become extremely energized with HATE and before you know it, they'll be just so many clones of you and what you have told them. Remember, it all started with them telling you Hillary is "cold, I don't trust her, she's self-serving, etc." Then you find yourself saying those very same things and sometimes you add your own charm and wit to embellish your hate, all the while bhelieving you are doing your own thinking. The media these days have via this method managed to make Hillary and Bill not just a THREAT but a DOUBLE THREAT in the eyes and ears of the great sea of the gullible out there. So LIKE GOOD PAVLOVIAN DOGS, YOU START JUMPING THRUGH HOOPS FOR YOUR MEDIA MASTERS. Unbelievable. A nation of sheep? You got it because you asked for it! Either reclaim your brains and cut out the hoop jumping or keep it up and see where it lands us as a country. Just read most of the comments at the end of this article and you'll see what I'm talking about. Oh, by the way, it also works in reverse. Take an unknown person, apply positives (magnificent speaker, a uniter, new face, change) and then you use positive quotes, positive images and positive half-truths and before you know it, the puppies out there are barking in unison. Thanks, Edward Bernays.

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

When we struggled for women's rights, it was for choice. Choice in all respects. Not for a standard of expected behavior. Yet, apparently, women are still expected to "act" a certain way. It is her life, her marriage, her choice.

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

After seeing that video, I can't bring myself to read articles about Hill or Barak. If a candidate can't talk about quiting the Federal Reserve Bank, or auditing our gold & getting back on gold standard, it seems like tabloid news; as meaningless as Britany or Paris.
Ron Paul seems most relevant to me now.

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

We've had enough of the Clintons. Hillary could'nt keep her 'house in order' and proved it when she did'nt kick Bill to the curb for his 'IS' defense. She has proven herself untrustworthy by giving the Bush administration unlimited power to wage war and said she'd do the same if she had 'good intelegence'. Bullshit!! There is no such thing in DC. We need to think outside the system.
www.youtube.com/RevJeffrey7
definatly not a corprate-owned Freedom Fighter. But the rest of the 'candidates' truly are.

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

I would not change a thing if I were in Hillary Clinton's shoes. It is about time we detach from media driven reactive politics. This whole Clinton issue is starting to solidify my decision for who I want to choose for my vote, and it is not Barack Obama.

On Saturday I watched MSNBC claim Bill Clinton was again injecting "race" into his speech. That so-called race injection amounted to the use of the word "race." In short, it was the poorest example of someone injecting "race" I have ever scene. More important, it really spoke to the partisan nature of the press, in which Obama has yet to acknowledge he does not support. I don't expect for him to run for Clinton; it would be nice for him to speak out by telling the media to butt out.

I am still not sure how much of his appeal is coming from the free negative campaign ads from the media. This is influence we could do without because what really matters to me is who can beat the Republicans in November. So far, the media has muddied that picture and no true Democrat will deny their influence is very strong.

What the media is doing can backfire, if it has not already. It has with me. I refuse to be a puppet of their tactics. I truly was leaning toward Obama, but in fear of division, and the lack of real examples of what the media and the Obama supporters call race baiting is drawing me toward a protest vote for Cllinton. Also, until Obama distances himself from the media, he runs the chance of being associated with the negative Republican driven attacks. In other words, he can come off as being too embedded with the Republicans.

Joseph

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

Yes, you're right, Hillary should never have allowed Bill to run for a third term (or appear to do so), but as far as giving this petulant little tyrant the hook is concerned, she should have done that at least 10 years ago, during the Monica business. Instead, she coddled and made excuses for her dreadfully spoiled little boy. Hillary disqualified herself from the presidency a long time ago, however, and giving Bill the hook, while the right thing to do and have done, isn't going to save her from herself and get her the nomination. The torch has been passed.

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

The Clintons thought they had it all wrapped up. Until Iowa. What an ego debilitating loss to that entitlement that cause her to cackle on so many occasions when she thought she had it "wrapped up"

After Iowa, Hillary the candidate decided she was not really the sole candidate, but was a co candidate with Bill who apparently was running for the co-presidency with Hillary as his running mate. LOL She handed it over to the dominant male.

That did not work out too well, as we have seen. Bill spent more time talking about himself, than promoting his wife and injected the ninties style of mud slinging that this country is sick and tired of, and she let him. They both had "fun" lying about their competitor. So much for the feminist approach of the strong, independant woman eh? She is such a strong woman that after having spent millions on her campaign for a year promoting herself as a strong woman, ends up being a weak woman dependant upon her husband to win. She lost in Iowa and that sent her into the never never land and sent Bill into a rage. Never mind--she had Bill to bail her out. Err, that did not work out too well either.Her feminist image was definately trashed into the garbage bag with his interference, with her approval, in her campaign. I mean, he, apparently the dominant male, stole it from her, took over, and damaged her. But, let us not forget, she let him. Real strong woman, she is. Not.

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

"Talk is cheap." "Actions speak louder than words." "Everyone makes mistakes." Who will do the BEST JOB? Charisma and charm?, Don't be fooled again. It was predicted in the nineteeth century that women will come to the fore in the next century and after for the time of war, death and destruction is over. It will be women who will heal the planet. It is time.

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

Clinton's economy puts the economies of both Bushes and Reagan to shame. Elimination of the deficit was one achievement, something the Republicans have not even come close to delivering. Clinton's policies essentially gave America strong economic growth along with a strong dollar. The current administration, trying to develop a strong economy on a weak dollar, is a recipe for disaster as inflation skyrockets along with the price of gold.

Now, it's up to Hillary how much she wants or does not want to use Bill. Ironically, however, and what you never here much from on the Clinton haters, is who they support or don't support for political office. If some are Bush supporters, then they are supporting a man who we all know has shredded the constitution with crimes 1000 times worse then Bill, to include lying to start a war, sanctioning torture and illegal imprisonmnent, the list goes on and on. If they are otherwise Dem supporters, I would like to hear from them who they support.

Otherwise, even though I am not a Hillary supporter, Hillary and of course, Bill, are/would be 1000 times better then the trash we currently have in the oval office. Let's admit that fact.

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

THE DEFENDER OF THE WORKING MAN???

HE SIGNED NAFTA
HE BACKED WORLD BANK AN IMF
HE REPEALED THE GLASS STEAGALL ACT
HE SUPPORTED REPUBLICAN PRIVATIZATIONS IN TOTAL
HE APPOINTED SUPREME COURT APPROVED 1ST BY REPUGS
HE BOMBED KOSOSVO WITH DU KILLING MILLIONS
HE ALLOWED AND PROBABLY ABETTED RWANDA

BILL CLINTON WORKS FOR THE ELITE

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

This is the first time a woman has
run for President of the US whose
husband served two terms.

The rules were never written for
a campaign like Hillary Clinton's.

Likely we'll never see something
like this again for a long time hence.

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

The real Hillary Clinton gets exposure 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. Please prove me wrong.

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

such as the razor thin dreck manifest at this Nation column.

All celeb candidates on the "left" are sincere as their corporate monopolist paymasters eager to maintain bogus Big Oil "war on terror" that is actually war on human life at home and abroad. Even the domestic rhetoric is no more than cheap pap and Hollywood cartoon sogans.

All roads lead to Facism where DC "progressives" are neocon makeover artists for sale to the usual suspects.

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

Honestly, hard to link. But Google Reno Gazette, go to the video section and look for the 1 hour interview with Hillary and 1 hour with Obama. Think of it as a job interview. This is where he made the famous Reagan comment.

Forget the debates, this is where I saw how they would act as president not candidates.

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

Here's a novel idea; by gosh, I think I have it figured out. When Hillary gets the Democratic Party nomination, she is going to shock the country by choosing (big drum roll)....Bill......as her VP running mate. Besides, I'm not sure anyone else would want to run with her This would solve everything, especially not having to worry about what his role would be as First Spouse. Since anyone else would be elbowed aside by Bill in the VP position, why not keep it simple (stupid). Then she can ignore him or take his advice as she sees fit, but mainly she can send him abroad most of the time to get him out of her hair.

So there you have it: it will be Hill and Bill vs. McCain and Lieberman. Yes, folks, it just doesn't get any better than this.

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

I find it insulting when Bill Clinton suggested that Senator Obama won South Carolina because he is black just as Jesse Jackson won SC primaries in 1984 and 1988. These kinds of comments are highly inappropriate and nasty. These are the type of tactics Karl Rove would use. Hillary’s injection of racial politics and prejudice in California is divisive, despicable and highly offensive. Her campaign’s odious assertion that Latinos will not vote for a black man is an insult to Latinos. Latinos have voted for black candidates in Illinois, New York and California. Hillary and her husband who has lost his stature as a statesman are using the race card again to inject division and hatred in California. Her strategy to divide and conquer is getting tired and will not do the Democrats any good in November. My early suspicions are getting proven of her consistent lack of her character. I personally would not vote for a candidate like the Clintons who will say or do anything to get elected even using the race card to their advantage. As a Democrat I will vote for a candidate who inspires, who looks to the future and who brings hope to all Americans irrespective of race and color. Hillary has lost my vote and the votes of my circle of friends and relatives. I cannot support a candidate who lies, distorts and misrepresents facts. Her consistent lack of character is something that matters most to me as a voter because this election is about inspiration, trust and character.

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

I find it incredible that anyone thinks a black man can get elected president of this racist bigotted country.
The best we could hope for is a woman president and that's pushing it with the old farts.
I am sorry to make that remark, I am not racist but...reality ...is what it is.
That is one huge reason the repubs like the thought of Obama getting the nomination. They know that racist evil still rules supreme on both sides of the aisle and that they can trigger deepseated irrational fears in whitey Dems.
Really though it doesn't matter with all the diebold voting machines still in place(minus two states). The republicraps will once again steal the election. What part of that don't people understand?
Don't even get me started on genetically engineered food.
I hope to be proven wrong.
Power to the people, all colors!

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

Here's something to show you what's what in Clinton's campaign.

So the announcement has been made that Hillary "won" Florida. She was the only candidate that showed up in Florida, basically because the other two respected the ban on campaigning there that she, for one, voted for when the Florida and Michigan delegates were taken away.

Now that she's running for her life, she's changed her mind and says all of a sudden that this delegate-stripping disenfranchises people who might want to swing those nonexistent delegates her way.

She was always tone deaf, clumsy, clueless, and prone to stepping in big piles of doo doo whenever she campaigned. This, however, is not a misstep, it's a crooked maneuver, and shows her to be no woman of her word when it comes to getting what she wants. And as a campaign strategy, it's about as good as shooting herself in the ass.

Why doesn't she just come out and say, "I'm a craven whore"?

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

The that tought that someone would say that
Bill Clinton is the first b..... president,sicken me.always did make not cents.
Not worth a tinkers d...

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

Bill Clinton was nothing but an embarrassment to the Presidential office of the United States. And the thought of even having another Clinton in office just makes me sick. Bill should shut up and sit down. He was a lousy president, he was an impeached president, and he has the gall to get in front of the camera over and over and over.

People are sick of Bill Clinton. And Hillary isn't much better either. She should sit down and shut up to.

We have had two presidents that have either made a mockery or worse out of this country. Neither were worthy of this lands highest office. Yet we get to see them even after their terms. You know, if I had been an impeached president, I think I would just shut up and sit down.

US politics and those whom run for office has basically come down to a circus act. From actors
to wannabe cowboys.

Things went to shit with Reagan and never recovered. Only got worse.

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

Watching from Europe I wonder wether such ridiculouse purely taktical events like the appearance or not of Bill in Hillary's campain will decide of who should become Pres. of the USA.

That's not even skin deep in a time when the USA is in the midst of a huge self inflicted economical crisis and widely contested if not abandoned world wide for its desastrous foreign politics (mainly by blindly allowing Israel to build and keep perfectly illegal civil(!) settlements in the occupied territories and this in blattant violation over an incredibly long period of 40 years of the Geneva Convention.

One key issue in her future as president is certaily her so far unconditional support of, if not surrender to the AJPAC.

Nobody will take the US seriouse as long as it matters wether Hillary spends a night less in N.C. than Obama to become President. Poor USA.

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