The Official Hillary Clinton Thread
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Re: Damn she can lie
there was no way for Iraq to prove the negative
the uranium yellow cake docs were forged- horrible forgeries- using names of officials who werent even in office at the time the letters were supposedly written
everyone in washington knew the neocon plan wolfowitz drew up years before Bush got elected
Hillary calls her time in the white house experience right? then she should have known wolfowitz and cheney sent Bill a letter asking them to invade Iraq
the bitch is a fraud
everyone who could read and had the inclination to know, knew the iraq uranium shit, WMD shit etc was bullshit before the war
there was no way for Iraq to prove the negative
the uranium yellow cake docs were forged- horrible forgeries- using names of officials who werent even in office at the time the letters were supposedly written
everyone in washington knew the neocon plan wolfowitz drew up years before Bush got elected
Hillary calls her time in the white house experience right? then she should have known wolfowitz and cheney sent Bill a letter asking them to invade Iraq
the bitch is a fraud
SHERM FREDERICK: How low can Clintons go?
If the Nevada Democratic caucuses were summarized on a bumper sticker, it would go something like this:
"When the going gets tough, the Clintons get slimy."
Nevada witnessed Sen. Hillary Clinton, who initially held a commanding double-digit lead here, stoop to conquer Sen. Barack Obama by only 5 percentage points. To do it, she played the gender card, she played the race card and she tried to stop people from going to caucus. All in all, a most disgusting display of eye-gouging politics. Let's review the lowlights, shall we?
Knowing her lead had dwindled to single digits, Hillary used gender to pander for votes. In a robo-dial phone campaign days before the caucus, the recorded voice from her campaign asked: "Isn't it time we had a woman in the White House?"
In a panic to overcome the surprise Culinary union endorsement of Obama, and in a move contrary to Democratic Party principles, she (via her teachers union surrogate) tried to suppress voter turnout by getting a judge to outlaw special "working" caucus sites inside casinos. She failed. In doing so, she revealed a ruthlessness that surely startled local Democrats. It must have been a moment akin to the horror movie cliché when the trusting villagers glimpse Dracula failing to cast a reflection in the mirror, thus realizing the presence of evil.
The Clintons are evil, politically speaking.
There's no other way to describe Hillary and Bill going racial on Obama after her Iowa loss. They are sly about it, of course, but racial nonetheless. For example, she used the civil rights struggle to contrast her ability to enact change with Obama's. She said that despite the "pretty" speeches of Martin Luther King Jr., it took President Lyndon B. Johnson to get the Civil Rights Act passed and signed into law.
In other words: "Blacks have their place ... and it's not the White House."
To their eternal discredit, the Clintons made subsequent statements highlighting Obama's race, prompting this blunt rebuke from the Rev. Al Sharpton: "Shut up!"
In Nevada, the race-baiting tactic took a new form. The Clinton campaign euphemistically calls it their "fire wall" against Obamamania. But let's call it by its right name: racism. The Clintons know racial tensions exist between brown and black communities. Tapping into that is one of the ways Team Clinton blunted the Culinary union endorsement. A whisper here and a reminder there about Obama's race touched just enough of a reaction from rank-and-file Culinary workers (many of whom are Hispanic) to help overcome the union's endorsement.
And now we are 48 hours away from Super Tuesday. By all accounts the "firewall" politics of the Clintons are in full gear, for she knows that if she can fuel the Hispanic resentment of blacks, she can win the nomination.
In California, 22 percent of eligible voters are Hispanic; in Arizona, it's 17 percent; Colorado, 12.3 percent; New York, 11.4 percent; and New Jersey, 9.9 percent. It's enough to win. All that's needed is voter turnout, and the best way to do that, as they learned in Nevada, is a whisper of hate here and a reminder of hate there.
It could not be simpler, or uglier.
But the worst part is barring a massive breakout of karmic justice, she'll win Tuesday. She'll win the nomination. And she very well could be our next president.
If that happens, for at least four years, mirrors will be banned in the White House.
Health care warning
The so-called universal health care plans being floated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are fraught with danger. If you want to catch a glimpse of what life under a "single payer" system is like, go to http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php and watch a short film by Stuart Browning about Canadian health care.
The video will only take about five minutes of your time, but it's well worth it.
Get well, Jim
My friend and colleague Jim Rogers (who also dinks around as chancellor of the Nevada university system) will undergo surgery next week for bladder cancer. The Frederick family prays for your quick and full recovery, Jim. The sooner you get back in the saddle, the more fun it is debating education issues in Nevada.
Jim should watch the aforementioned short film and be glad this country's health care system hasn't copied Canada's -- yet.
Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/15155091.html
-VG
If the Nevada Democratic caucuses were summarized on a bumper sticker, it would go something like this:
"When the going gets tough, the Clintons get slimy."
Nevada witnessed Sen. Hillary Clinton, who initially held a commanding double-digit lead here, stoop to conquer Sen. Barack Obama by only 5 percentage points. To do it, she played the gender card, she played the race card and she tried to stop people from going to caucus. All in all, a most disgusting display of eye-gouging politics. Let's review the lowlights, shall we?
Knowing her lead had dwindled to single digits, Hillary used gender to pander for votes. In a robo-dial phone campaign days before the caucus, the recorded voice from her campaign asked: "Isn't it time we had a woman in the White House?"
In a panic to overcome the surprise Culinary union endorsement of Obama, and in a move contrary to Democratic Party principles, she (via her teachers union surrogate) tried to suppress voter turnout by getting a judge to outlaw special "working" caucus sites inside casinos. She failed. In doing so, she revealed a ruthlessness that surely startled local Democrats. It must have been a moment akin to the horror movie cliché when the trusting villagers glimpse Dracula failing to cast a reflection in the mirror, thus realizing the presence of evil.
The Clintons are evil, politically speaking.
There's no other way to describe Hillary and Bill going racial on Obama after her Iowa loss. They are sly about it, of course, but racial nonetheless. For example, she used the civil rights struggle to contrast her ability to enact change with Obama's. She said that despite the "pretty" speeches of Martin Luther King Jr., it took President Lyndon B. Johnson to get the Civil Rights Act passed and signed into law.
In other words: "Blacks have their place ... and it's not the White House."
To their eternal discredit, the Clintons made subsequent statements highlighting Obama's race, prompting this blunt rebuke from the Rev. Al Sharpton: "Shut up!"
In Nevada, the race-baiting tactic took a new form. The Clinton campaign euphemistically calls it their "fire wall" against Obamamania. But let's call it by its right name: racism. The Clintons know racial tensions exist between brown and black communities. Tapping into that is one of the ways Team Clinton blunted the Culinary union endorsement. A whisper here and a reminder there about Obama's race touched just enough of a reaction from rank-and-file Culinary workers (many of whom are Hispanic) to help overcome the union's endorsement.
And now we are 48 hours away from Super Tuesday. By all accounts the "firewall" politics of the Clintons are in full gear, for she knows that if she can fuel the Hispanic resentment of blacks, she can win the nomination.
In California, 22 percent of eligible voters are Hispanic; in Arizona, it's 17 percent; Colorado, 12.3 percent; New York, 11.4 percent; and New Jersey, 9.9 percent. It's enough to win. All that's needed is voter turnout, and the best way to do that, as they learned in Nevada, is a whisper of hate here and a reminder of hate there.
It could not be simpler, or uglier.
But the worst part is barring a massive breakout of karmic justice, she'll win Tuesday. She'll win the nomination. And she very well could be our next president.
If that happens, for at least four years, mirrors will be banned in the White House.
Health care warning
The so-called universal health care plans being floated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are fraught with danger. If you want to catch a glimpse of what life under a "single payer" system is like, go to http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php and watch a short film by Stuart Browning about Canadian health care.
The video will only take about five minutes of your time, but it's well worth it.
Get well, Jim
My friend and colleague Jim Rogers (who also dinks around as chancellor of the Nevada university system) will undergo surgery next week for bladder cancer. The Frederick family prays for your quick and full recovery, Jim. The sooner you get back in the saddle, the more fun it is debating education issues in Nevada.
Jim should watch the aforementioned short film and be glad this country's health care system hasn't copied Canada's -- yet.
Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/15155091.html
-VG
Re: SHERM FREDERICK: How low can Clintons go?
I missed that one myself. Whats that about?
-VG
I missed that one myself. Whats that about?
-VG
Clintons 35 years of change boiled down to less than a year
Posted on Sun, Feb. 03, 2008
Clinton's '35 years of change' omits most of her career
Matt Stearns | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: February 03, 2008 11:09:08 PM
WASHINGTON — To hear Hillary Clinton talk, she's spent her entire career putting her Yale Law School degree to work for the common good.
She routinely tells voters that she's "been working to bring positive change to people's lives for 35 years." She told a voter in New Hampshire: "I've spent so much of my life in the nonprofit sector." Speaking in South Carolina, Bill Clinton said his wife "could have taken a job with a firm ... Instead she went to work with Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund."
The overall portrait is of a lifelong, selfless do-gooder. The whole story is more complicated — and less flattering.
Clinton worked at the Children's Defense Fund for less than a year, and that's the only full-time job in the nonprofit sector she's ever had. She also worked briefly as a law professor.
Clinton spent the bulk of her career — 15 of those 35 years — at one of Arkansas' most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards.
Neither she nor her surrogates, however, ever mention that on the campaign trail. Her campaign Web site biography devotes six paragraphs to her pro bono legal work for the poor but sums up the bulk of her experience in one sentence: "She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm."
The full truth doesn't fit into the carefully crafted narrative the campaign has developed about Clinton, said Sally Bedell Smith, the author of "For Love of Politics," a study of the Clintons' partnership.
"She wants to be seen as someone who has devoted her life to public service," Smith said. "I suppose if you say it enough, maybe you can get people to believe it."
Spokesman Phil Singer said the campaign highlights Clinton's side work because it discovered early on that voters didn't know about it.
Clinton did a great deal of public service work during her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. She served on the board of the Legal Services Corp. during the Carter administration and for a time was its chair. She helped found a child advocacy system in Arkansas and took on several tasks as the state's first lady, such as revisions of the state's education system and rural health care delivery. She also served on the board of directors of the Children's Defense Fund, and on the board of a children's hospital.
"It's important for voters to know that she worked to improve rural health care, to improve education," Singer said. "Yes, she worked at a law firm. Are voters interested in hearing about some accounting case she worked on, or things people care about in the real world? ... That's the point, that's the rationale. It's nothing more complicated than that."
Clinton did receive a smaller salary than most other Rose partners, topping out at about $200,000, in part because of her outside activities, according to several biographies.
But "these were all activities on the margins of her professional life, working as a corporate lawyer, representing corporations," biographer Smith said.
In her autobiography, "Living History," Clinton mentions two cases. In one, she represented a canning company against a man who found part of a dead rat in his pork and beans. In another, she represented a logging company accused of wrongdoing after an accident injured several workers. While Clinton used both anecdotes for comic effect, in both cases she was working for corporate interests.
She also served on corporate boards, including that of retail giant Wal-Mart from 1986-1992, frozen yogurt purveyor TCBY from 1985-1992 and cement manufacturer LaFarge from 1990-1992. She earned tens of thousands of dollars in fees from each.
Clinton's firm represented Wal-Mart and TCBY while she sat on their boards, a cozy practice that corporate governance experts frown upon because of the potential for conflicts of interest.
Politicians naturally want to stick to their chosen narratives, but other aspects of Clinton's relationship with the Rose Law Firm could remind voters of the more controversial side of the Clinton legacy.
There was her work on behalf of Madison Guaranty, a failed savings and loan at the heart of the Whitewater investigation — the billing records of which were mysteriously found in a White House storerooms years after investigators first asked for them. And there's Webster Hubbell, a Rose partner, Clinton pal and high-ranking Justice Department official who was convicted of fraud charges related to his work at the firm.
Clinton isn't the only candidate downplaying less high-minded work. Rival Barack Obama cultivates a squeaky-clean image and referred to his work as a "civil rights attorney" at Thursday's Los Angeles debate. He didn't mention other work he did during his decade at Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, a small Chicago law firm, helping craft housing deals involving millions of dollars in public subsidies.
Among those involved in some of the deals: Obama patron Tony Rezko. He donated thousands to Obama's campaigns, raised thousands more and was even involved in the purchase of the Obama family home in Chicago.
These days, Rezko is awaiting trial in federal court on fraud charges.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/26377.html
-VG
Posted on Sun, Feb. 03, 2008
Clinton's '35 years of change' omits most of her career
Matt Stearns | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: February 03, 2008 11:09:08 PM
WASHINGTON — To hear Hillary Clinton talk, she's spent her entire career putting her Yale Law School degree to work for the common good.
She routinely tells voters that she's "been working to bring positive change to people's lives for 35 years." She told a voter in New Hampshire: "I've spent so much of my life in the nonprofit sector." Speaking in South Carolina, Bill Clinton said his wife "could have taken a job with a firm ... Instead she went to work with Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund."
The overall portrait is of a lifelong, selfless do-gooder. The whole story is more complicated — and less flattering.
Clinton worked at the Children's Defense Fund for less than a year, and that's the only full-time job in the nonprofit sector she's ever had. She also worked briefly as a law professor.
Clinton spent the bulk of her career — 15 of those 35 years — at one of Arkansas' most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards.
Neither she nor her surrogates, however, ever mention that on the campaign trail. Her campaign Web site biography devotes six paragraphs to her pro bono legal work for the poor but sums up the bulk of her experience in one sentence: "She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm."
The full truth doesn't fit into the carefully crafted narrative the campaign has developed about Clinton, said Sally Bedell Smith, the author of "For Love of Politics," a study of the Clintons' partnership.
"She wants to be seen as someone who has devoted her life to public service," Smith said. "I suppose if you say it enough, maybe you can get people to believe it."
Spokesman Phil Singer said the campaign highlights Clinton's side work because it discovered early on that voters didn't know about it.
Clinton did a great deal of public service work during her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. She served on the board of the Legal Services Corp. during the Carter administration and for a time was its chair. She helped found a child advocacy system in Arkansas and took on several tasks as the state's first lady, such as revisions of the state's education system and rural health care delivery. She also served on the board of directors of the Children's Defense Fund, and on the board of a children's hospital.
"It's important for voters to know that she worked to improve rural health care, to improve education," Singer said. "Yes, she worked at a law firm. Are voters interested in hearing about some accounting case she worked on, or things people care about in the real world? ... That's the point, that's the rationale. It's nothing more complicated than that."
Clinton did receive a smaller salary than most other Rose partners, topping out at about $200,000, in part because of her outside activities, according to several biographies.
But "these were all activities on the margins of her professional life, working as a corporate lawyer, representing corporations," biographer Smith said.
In her autobiography, "Living History," Clinton mentions two cases. In one, she represented a canning company against a man who found part of a dead rat in his pork and beans. In another, she represented a logging company accused of wrongdoing after an accident injured several workers. While Clinton used both anecdotes for comic effect, in both cases she was working for corporate interests.
She also served on corporate boards, including that of retail giant Wal-Mart from 1986-1992, frozen yogurt purveyor TCBY from 1985-1992 and cement manufacturer LaFarge from 1990-1992. She earned tens of thousands of dollars in fees from each.
Clinton's firm represented Wal-Mart and TCBY while she sat on their boards, a cozy practice that corporate governance experts frown upon because of the potential for conflicts of interest.
Politicians naturally want to stick to their chosen narratives, but other aspects of Clinton's relationship with the Rose Law Firm could remind voters of the more controversial side of the Clinton legacy.
There was her work on behalf of Madison Guaranty, a failed savings and loan at the heart of the Whitewater investigation — the billing records of which were mysteriously found in a White House storerooms years after investigators first asked for them. And there's Webster Hubbell, a Rose partner, Clinton pal and high-ranking Justice Department official who was convicted of fraud charges related to his work at the firm.
Clinton isn't the only candidate downplaying less high-minded work. Rival Barack Obama cultivates a squeaky-clean image and referred to his work as a "civil rights attorney" at Thursday's Los Angeles debate. He didn't mention other work he did during his decade at Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, a small Chicago law firm, helping craft housing deals involving millions of dollars in public subsidies.
Among those involved in some of the deals: Obama patron Tony Rezko. He donated thousands to Obama's campaigns, raised thousands more and was even involved in the purchase of the Obama family home in Chicago.
These days, Rezko is awaiting trial in federal court on fraud charges.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/26377.html
-VG
Re: Clintons 35 years of change boiled down to less than a year
When it comes to politricks, I like to relate methodology to cooking. As you create your perfect sauce, using the perfect ingredients(presidential candidates) and their M.O.(motus operandi), heat(debates, candidate history), the cream rises to the top. In cooking terms, if you trust the intregrity of the sauce and skim the scum that is prevalent at the top and discover the real sauce contained within, the mother sauce, most abundant. The remnants, should be strained(write your candidate with your point of view) and disgard(don't fund), the minor things. All in all, sauces, need to be seasoned(candidates, coached and endorsed)and finished with just the right touch and pairing to the appropriate food(political issues, the machine), my bad I got carried away, lol...
When it comes to politricks, I like to relate methodology to cooking. As you create your perfect sauce, using the perfect ingredients(presidential candidates) and their M.O.(motus operandi), heat(debates, candidate history), the cream rises to the top. In cooking terms, if you trust the intregrity of the sauce and skim the scum that is prevalent at the top and discover the real sauce contained within, the mother sauce, most abundant. The remnants, should be strained(write your candidate with your point of view) and disgard(don't fund), the minor things. All in all, sauces, need to be seasoned(candidates, coached and endorsed)and finished with just the right touch and pairing to the appropriate food(political issues, the machine), my bad I got carried away, lol...
Re: Clintons 35 years of change boiled down to less than a year
It was heading out pretty nice though. But I'm glad you pulled up before the Cuisinart, garlic press and turkey baster got in the mix. lol.
-VG
It was heading out pretty nice though. But I'm glad you pulled up before the Cuisinart, garlic press and turkey baster got in the mix. lol.
-VG
Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
<h2>Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5 Million, Spokesperson Confirms</h2>
<div class="byline">
By <a linkindex="13" href="/profile/sargent">Greg Sargent</a> - February 6, 2008, 3:30PM</div>
<div class="body">
<p>This morning, Mark Halperin <a linkindex="14" href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/the-clintons-of-chappaqua/"> floated</a> an intriguing question: Are the Clintons financing Hillary's campaign with their own money?</p>
<p>Now the Clinton campaign has finally answered: Yes, they are. Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson sends over the following:</p>
<blockquote>Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million.The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton’s commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation. We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy.</blockquote>
<p>The revelation suggests another emerging dynamic in the race: Now that the campaigns are committed to grinding it out for weeks and weeks, perhaps all the way until the convention. The Hillary camp faces the prospect of being dramatically outspent by the Obama campaign, which has enjoyed huge fundraising success. </p>
<p>In January, for instance, Obama raised $32 million -- well over double the $13.5 million Hillary raised in the same month. This perhaps explains the self-financing loan at the end of last month.</p>
<p>More in a bit.</p>
<p><i>Late Update</i>: Wolfson confirms to me that the $13.5 million that Hillary raised in January does not include this $5 million.</p>
------------------
---------------------------
That last highlighted part is one critical part. Hillary is half paid for by maxed out contributors. Obama has more contributors than anyone in history, who haven't even come near the limit for the most part (two thirds).
Add to that - HILLARY is financing herself ala Mitt. Bad move. Now all of her hubbies Middle Eastern business partners and other shady deals will be at issue.
This is fatal for Shillary. She loans herself $5m that her hubby earned as ex-president. Her backing is politico scumbag insiders who her hubby earned as president. Where is she in all this? She's a shadow of Bill trying to impersonate a real candidate.
You might see Hillary's folks online or on tv using her talking points but does she have anyone excited, in a positive way that is?
Some idiot blogger actually had the nerve to suggest she could mount a "Lets match Hillary" fund drive. WTF?
I hope someone takes her to task on this.
The reason Hillary wants all those debates is that it is free advertising. Obama said he'd do one more. He also said he doesn't have time to debate since he needs to be out with the voters.
I don't know what the polls look like but Obama has the cash, TIME and personality to win some of these last states. If he can win Texas it would be big.
BTW I can't lie, Hillary makes me want to become an Obama precinct captain.
<h2>Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5 Million, Spokesperson Confirms</h2>
<div class="byline">
By <a linkindex="13" href="/profile/sargent">Greg Sargent</a> - February 6, 2008, 3:30PM</div>
<div class="body">
<p>This morning, Mark Halperin <a linkindex="14" href="http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/the-clintons-of-chappaqua/"> floated</a> an intriguing question: Are the Clintons financing Hillary's campaign with their own money?</p>
<p>Now the Clinton campaign has finally answered: Yes, they are. Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson sends over the following:</p>
<blockquote>Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million.The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton’s commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation. We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy.</blockquote>
<p>The revelation suggests another emerging dynamic in the race: Now that the campaigns are committed to grinding it out for weeks and weeks, perhaps all the way until the convention. The Hillary camp faces the prospect of being dramatically outspent by the Obama campaign, which has enjoyed huge fundraising success. </p>
<p>In January, for instance, Obama raised $32 million -- well over double the $13.5 million Hillary raised in the same month. This perhaps explains the self-financing loan at the end of last month.</p>
<p>More in a bit.</p>
<p><i>Late Update</i>: Wolfson confirms to me that the $13.5 million that Hillary raised in January does not include this $5 million.</p>
------------------
AP said:
---------------------------
That last highlighted part is one critical part. Hillary is half paid for by maxed out contributors. Obama has more contributors than anyone in history, who haven't even come near the limit for the most part (two thirds).
Add to that - HILLARY is financing herself ala Mitt. Bad move. Now all of her hubbies Middle Eastern business partners and other shady deals will be at issue.
This is fatal for Shillary. She loans herself $5m that her hubby earned as ex-president. Her backing is politico scumbag insiders who her hubby earned as president. Where is she in all this? She's a shadow of Bill trying to impersonate a real candidate.
You might see Hillary's folks online or on tv using her talking points but does she have anyone excited, in a positive way that is?
Some idiot blogger actually had the nerve to suggest she could mount a "Lets match Hillary" fund drive. WTF?
I hope someone takes her to task on this.
The reason Hillary wants all those debates is that it is free advertising. Obama said he'd do one more. He also said he doesn't have time to debate since he needs to be out with the voters.
I don't know what the polls look like but Obama has the cash, TIME and personality to win some of these last states. If he can win Texas it would be big.
BTW I can't lie, Hillary makes me want to become an Obama precinct captain.
Last edited:
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
What's really fucked up is she's got 5 million in the 1st place. When Bill took office he was the one of the brokest people to ever be pres. He spent his whole life living off the public. His mom was a welfare queen, prolly one of the biggest whore's in Ark if she didn't get lucky and convince some rich white dumbass to marry her this punk would have ended up in a steel mill somewhere. Now they have 5 million to give to her campaign. This is bullshit.
What's really fucked up is she's got 5 million in the 1st place. When Bill took office he was the one of the brokest people to ever be pres. He spent his whole life living off the public. His mom was a welfare queen, prolly one of the biggest whore's in Ark if she didn't get lucky and convince some rich white dumbass to marry her this punk would have ended up in a steel mill somewhere. Now they have 5 million to give to her campaign. This is bullshit.
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
What percentage of Hillary supporters would absolutely refuse to vote for Obama?
What percentage of the entire voting population on both sides would absolutely refuse to vote for Hillary?
From people who havent had a chance to hear Obama, democrat racists, renegade femenists etc.
What percentage of Hillary supporters would absolutely refuse to vote for Obama?
What percentage of the entire voting population on both sides would absolutely refuse to vote for Hillary?
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
I didn't read this. Just going off instincts. Do you know how much she spent on Minnesota? $0.00. I didn't see ONE commerical for her. Know how many supporters she had come to her rally at Ausburg. Not as many as Obama. He was 20.000 deep at least. i been resting my vote until Nov, but since she trying to keep up with Obama, I think I'll get more into it before then. This race is getting interesting by the day and me knowing the Clintons most of there money is from GIFTS.
I didn't read this. Just going off instincts. Do you know how much she spent on Minnesota? $0.00. I didn't see ONE commerical for her. Know how many supporters she had come to her rally at Ausburg. Not as many as Obama. He was 20.000 deep at least. i been resting my vote until Nov, but since she trying to keep up with Obama, I think I'll get more into it before then. This race is getting interesting by the day and me knowing the Clintons most of there money is from GIFTS.
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
She lost Minnesota too. She spent money you never saw. Campaign HQ etc. But she probably didnt spend much.
My wife's friend emailed us pics from Obama's rally in Connecticut on Monday. She waited 3 hours in line and 2 hours inside before seeing him. The place was packed -18,000 in an arena.
She lost Minnesota too. She spent money you never saw. Campaign HQ etc. But she probably didnt spend much.
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
Yeah, Obama packin them in while Hillary just showing her presense. I don't know how it goes but they saying Minnesota isn't a delegate state, we a caucus. So thats the reason we believe she didn't spend any bread. But still not on commercial Makk? I need to see something before I vote for her. And besides that, Minnesota looking for that CHANGE!! He most definitly gonna win the Midwest states he need 2 to get him in office.
Yeah, Obama packin them in while Hillary just showing her presense. I don't know how it goes but they saying Minnesota isn't a delegate state, we a caucus. So thats the reason we believe she didn't spend any bread. But still not on commercial Makk? I need to see something before I vote for her. And besides that, Minnesota looking for that CHANGE!! He most definitly gonna win the Midwest states he need 2 to get him in office.
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
Basically she is saying she doesnt want your vote.
Minnesota has delegates but the way they are given out is through a caucus not a primary is what you mean. I know that some states yesterday had caucuses but I don't know which ones were which offhand. Yeah Hillary thinks she cant win caucus states so she doesnt bother.
Basically she is saying she doesnt want your vote.
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
Only one thing about Hillary I can't knock. She got bread. I wish I had the ability to just loan 5 mil. Thats bank shit.
Only one thing about Hillary I can't knock. She got bread. I wish I had the ability to just loan 5 mil. Thats bank shit.
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head for me. She basically saying fuck us, while Obama is reaching these people and making us FEEL like we a part of something, while Hilary runs around trying to get the valuable states where she believes going to put her in office. I'm not feeling her for that move. It's going to backfire.... Unless she been chatting with George Jr.
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head for me. She basically saying fuck us, while Obama is reaching these people and making us FEEL like we a part of something, while Hilary runs around trying to get the valuable states where she believes going to put her in office. I'm not feeling her for that move. It's going to backfire.... Unless she been chatting with George Jr.
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
Hillary has taken many hints from George W with her campaign. So far some shit has backfired but not everything.Exactly. You hit the nail on the head for me. She basically saying fuck us, while Obama is reaching these people and making us FEEL like we a part of something, while Hilary runs around trying to get the valuable states where she believes going to put her in office. I'm not feeling her for that move. It's going to backfire.... Unless she been chatting with George Jr.
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
I got this from somewhere else.
Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume’. Sounds more like an organized crime family’s rap sheet.
I got this from somewhere else.
Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume’. Sounds more like an organized crime family’s rap sheet.
Re: Clintons 35 years of change boiled down to less than a year
Here is some more dirt on her, she won in California's Primaries...
Pt.1
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/xq8aopATYyw&rel=1[/FLASH]
Pt.2
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/AMfUajhL24I&rel=1[/FLASH]
Here is some more dirt on her, she won in California's Primaries...
Pt.1
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/xq8aopATYyw&rel=1[/FLASH]
Pt.2
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/AMfUajhL24I&rel=1[/FLASH]
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
QueEx
Paragraphs, please.
QueEx
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
`
And . . .
- Some Clinton staffers going without pay; Campaign faces cash crunch as Obama continues to raise money. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23037431/
- $32 million, $13 million, $5 million, and $20 million. The first of these is how much the Obama campaign raised in January — a staggering figure. The second is how much the Clinton campaign raised that month — a relative pittance. The third is the amount, we learned today, that Hillary personally loaned her campaign in the past couple of weeks. And the fourth is the amount that her husband, Bill, is reported to be due as a payout after severing his ties with Ron Burkle — and which, presumably, will soon be available to pay for TV ads in Texas and Ohio. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/john_heilemann_on_the_democrat.html
`
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
Obama just raised $7million in one day.
Clinton's campaign is saying she raised "approximately $4million since Tuesday from 35,000 donors". For some reason I don't believe her.
Obama just raised $7million in one day.
Clinton's campaign is saying she raised "approximately $4million since Tuesday from 35,000 donors". For some reason I don't believe her.
Re: Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5Million In January. That's $18M - Obama Raised $32M
Makk, you need to go on and be an Obama precinct captain. We can't expect another moment like this anytime soon, so you need to take this opportunity now. Adventure is where you find it, if you have the nerve.
Besides, what do you want to tell your grandkids? If he wins? If he loses?
Keep posting.
Makk, you need to go on and be an Obama precinct captain. We can't expect another moment like this anytime soon, so you need to take this opportunity now. Adventure is where you find it, if you have the nerve.
Besides, what do you want to tell your grandkids? If he wins? If he loses?
Keep posting.
Re: The only Experience she has Is, takin Shit off Bill!
Your comments make me wonder:
Wonder if Ole Bill thought about the consequences of fuckin wit mother nature (his race baiting antics in South Carolina)?
Wonder if he thought about the backlash that might ensue; how quickly it might occur; and how resolute it might be?
Wonder if he thought about how a lot of the damage might be impossible to undue?
Wonder if he thought about the unintended favor he might be doing Black people with respect to the Democratic Party?
QueEx
Your comments make me wonder:Wonder if Ole Bill thought about the consequences of fuckin wit mother nature (his race baiting antics in South Carolina)?
Wonder if he thought about the backlash that might ensue; how quickly it might occur; and how resolute it might be?
Wonder if he thought about how a lot of the damage might be impossible to undue?
Wonder if he thought about the unintended favor he might be doing Black people with respect to the Democratic Party?
QueEx
Good Break Down of Billary
<nyt_kicker>Op-Ed Columnist</nyt_kicker></div>
<h1><nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">
Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War
</nyt_headline></h1>
<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" ">
</nyt_byline><div class="byline">By <a linkindex="2" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/frankrich/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More Articles by Frank Rich">FRANK RICH</a></div>
<nyt_text>
</nyt_text><div id="articleBody">
<p>WHAT if a presidential candidate held what she <a linkindex="3" href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/02012008/tv/hil_mark_998846.htm">billed</a> as “the largest, most interactive town hall in political history” on national television, and no one noticed? </p>
<p>The untold story in the run-up to Super Tuesday was Hillary Clinton’s elaborate live prime-time special the night before the vote. Presiding from a studio in New York, the candidate took questions from audiences in <a linkindex="4" href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5729">21 other cities</a>. She had plugged the event four days earlier in the last gasp of her <a linkindex="5" href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/01/31/us/politics/20080131_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html">debate</a> with Barack Obama and paid a small fortune for it: an hour of time on the Hallmark Channel plus satellite TV hookups for the assemblies of supporters stretching from coast to coast. </p>
<p>The same news media that constantly revisited the <a set="yes" linkindex="6" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-maria4feb04,1,4376318.story">Oprah-Caroline-Maria rally</a> in California ignored “Voices Across America: A National Town Hall.” The Clinton campaign would no doubt attribute this to press bias, but it scrupulously designed the event to avoid making news. Like the scripted “<a linkindex="7" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13338-2004Aug18.html">Ask President Bush</a>” sessions during the 2004 campaign, this town hall seemed to unfold in Stepford. The anodyne questions (“What else would you do to help take care of our veterans?”) merely cued up laundry lists of talking points. Some in attendance appeared to trance out.</p>
<p>But I’m glad I watched every minute, right up until Mrs. Clinton was <a linkindex="8" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2183717/">abruptly cut off</a> in midsentence so Hallmark could resume its previously scheduled programming (a movie promising “A Season for Miracles,” aptly enough). However boring, this show was a dramatic encapsulation of how a once-invincible candidate ended up in a dead heat, crippled by poll-tested corporate packaging that markets her as a synthetic product leeched of most human qualities. What’s more, it offered a naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come.</p>
<p>For a campaign that began with tightly monitored Web “<a linkindex="9" href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/conversation/conversation.aspx">chats</a>” and then <a linkindex="10" href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3848826&page=1">planted</a> questions at its earlier town-hall meetings, a Bush-style pseudo-event like the Hallmark special is nothing new, of course. What’s remarkable is that instead of learning from these mistakes, Mrs. Clinton’s handlers keep doubling down. </p>
<p>Less than two weeks ago she was airlifted into her own, less effective version of “Mission Accomplished.” Instead of declaring faux victory in Iraq, she starred in a made-for-television rally declaring faux victory in a Florida primary that was held in defiance of party rules, involved no campaigning and awarded no delegates. As Andrea Mitchell of NBC News <a linkindex="11" href="http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/chutzpah_hoopla_ambush_victory.php">said</a>, it was “the Potemkin village of victory celebrations.”</p>
<p>The Hallmark show, enacted on an anachronistic studio set that looked like a deliberate throwback to the good old days of 1992, was equally desperate. If the point was to generate donations or excitement, the effect was the reverse. A campaign operative, speaking on MSNBC, claimed that 250,000 viewers had seen an online incarnation of the event in addition to “who knows how many” Hallmark channel viewers. Who knows, indeed? What we do know is that by then the “Yes We Can” Obama video fronted by the hip-hop vocalist will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas had been averaging <a linkindex="12" href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/yes-we-can-has.html">roughly a million</a> YouTube views a day. (Cost to the Obama campaign: zero.) </p>
<p>Two days after her town-hall extravaganza, Mrs. Clinton <a linkindex="13" href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/06/644157.aspx">revealed</a> the $5 million loan she had made to her own campaign to survive a month in which the Obama operation had raised $32 million to her $13.5 million. That poignant confession led to a <a linkindex="14" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/us/politics/08clinton.html">spike</a> in contributions that Mr. Obama also topped. Though Tuesday was largely a draw in <a linkindex="15" href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html">popular votes</a> and <a linkindex="16" href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html">delegates</a>, every other indicator, from the candidates’ real and virtual crowds to hard cash, points to a steadily widening Obama-Clinton gap. The Clinton campaign might be an imploding Potemkin village itself were it not for the fungible profits from Bill Clinton’s murky post-presidency <a linkindex="17" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html">business deals</a>. (The Clintons, unlike Mr. Obama, have <a linkindex="18" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/us/politics/08clinton.html">not released</a> their income-tax returns.)</p>
<p>The campaign’s other most potent form of currency remains its thick deck of race cards. This was all too apparent in the Hallmark show. In its carefully calibrated cross section of geographically and demographically diverse cast members — young, old, one gay man, one vet, two union members — African-Americans were reduced to also-rans. One black woman, the former TV correspondent Carole Simpson, was given the servile role of the meeting’s nominal moderator, Ed McMahon to Mrs. Clinton’s top banana. Scattered black faces could be seen in the audience. But in the entire televised hour, there was not a single African-American questioner, whether to toss a softball or ask about the Clintons’ own recent misadventures in racial politics. </p>
<p>The Clinton camp does not leave such matters to chance. This decision was a cold, political cost-benefit calculus. In October, seven months after the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in Selma, <a linkindex="19" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-01-obama_cover_N.htm">USA Today found</a> Hillary Clinton leading Mr. Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of 62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought. In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, <a linkindex="20" href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/the-early-word-off-camera-antics/">Mark Penn</a>, among <a linkindex="21" href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.html">others</a>), “the black candidate” (as Clinton strategists <a linkindex="22" href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/obama_runs_away_with_sc_primar.php">told</a> the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by <a linkindex="23" href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/26/for_bill_clinton_echoes_of_jac.html">Mr. Clinton himself</a>).</p>
<p>The result? Black America has largely deserted the Clintons. In her California primary victory, Mrs. Clinton <a linkindex="24" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#CADEM">drew</a> only 19 percent of the black vote. The campaign saw this coming and so saw no percentage in bestowing precious minutes of prime-time television on African-American queries. </p>
<p>That time went instead to the Hispanic population that was still in play in Super Tuesday’s voting in the West. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles had a cameo, and one of the satellite meetings was held in the National Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s smart politics, especially since Mr. Obama has been behind the curve in wooing this constituency. </p>
<p> But the wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by <a linkindex="25" href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=3">telling</a> The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then <a linkindex="26" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22682821/">seconded the motion</a> by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.”</p>
<p>It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez <a linkindex="27" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez28jan28,0,5950176.column">pointed out</a> in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to “undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.”</p>
<p>If that was the intent, it didn’t work. Mrs. Clinton did pile up her expected large margin among Latino voters in California. But her tight grip on that electorate is loosening. Mr. Obama, who <a set="yes" linkindex="28" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NVDEM">captured</a> only 26 percent of Hispanic voters in Nevada last month, did better than that in every state on Tuesday, reaching 41 percent in <a linkindex="29" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#AZDEM">Arizona</a> and 53 percent in <a linkindex="30" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#CTDEM">Connecticut</a>. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign’s attempt to drive white voters away from Mr. Obama by playing the race card has backfired. His white vote tally rises every week. Though Mrs. Clinton won <a linkindex="31" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#CADEM">California</a> by almost 10 percentage points, among whites she beat Mr. Obama by only 3 points. </p>
<p>The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That’s why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack <a linkindex="32" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9T3ToQrPGqc&refer=home">366 ghost delegates</a> from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton’s <a linkindex="33" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html">assurance</a> on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn’t matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote “is not going to count for anything.”</p>
<p>Last month, two eminent African-American historians who have served in government, Mary Frances Berry (in the Carter and Clinton years) and Roger Wilkins (in the Johnson administration), wrote Howard Dean, the Democrats’ chairman, to <a linkindex="34" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/04/dnc-urged-to-end-fight-ov_n_84810.html">warn him</a> of the perils of that credentials fight. Last week, Mr. Dean became sufficiently alarmed to <a linkindex="35" href="http://www.observer.com/2008/dean-favors-arrangement-between-candidates-over-brokered-convention">propose</a> brokering an “arrangement” if a clear-cut victory by one candidate hasn’t rendered the issue moot by the spring. But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?</p>
<p>A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.</p>
<nyt_kicker>Op-Ed Columnist</nyt_kicker></div>
<h1><nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">
Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War
</nyt_headline></h1>
<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" ">
</nyt_byline><div class="byline">By <a linkindex="2" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/frankrich/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More Articles by Frank Rich">FRANK RICH</a></div>
<nyt_text>
</nyt_text><div id="articleBody">
<p>WHAT if a presidential candidate held what she <a linkindex="3" href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/02012008/tv/hil_mark_998846.htm">billed</a> as “the largest, most interactive town hall in political history” on national television, and no one noticed? </p>
<p>The untold story in the run-up to Super Tuesday was Hillary Clinton’s elaborate live prime-time special the night before the vote. Presiding from a studio in New York, the candidate took questions from audiences in <a linkindex="4" href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5729">21 other cities</a>. She had plugged the event four days earlier in the last gasp of her <a linkindex="5" href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/01/31/us/politics/20080131_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html">debate</a> with Barack Obama and paid a small fortune for it: an hour of time on the Hallmark Channel plus satellite TV hookups for the assemblies of supporters stretching from coast to coast. </p>
<p>The same news media that constantly revisited the <a set="yes" linkindex="6" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-maria4feb04,1,4376318.story">Oprah-Caroline-Maria rally</a> in California ignored “Voices Across America: A National Town Hall.” The Clinton campaign would no doubt attribute this to press bias, but it scrupulously designed the event to avoid making news. Like the scripted “<a linkindex="7" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13338-2004Aug18.html">Ask President Bush</a>” sessions during the 2004 campaign, this town hall seemed to unfold in Stepford. The anodyne questions (“What else would you do to help take care of our veterans?”) merely cued up laundry lists of talking points. Some in attendance appeared to trance out.</p>
<p>But I’m glad I watched every minute, right up until Mrs. Clinton was <a linkindex="8" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2183717/">abruptly cut off</a> in midsentence so Hallmark could resume its previously scheduled programming (a movie promising “A Season for Miracles,” aptly enough). However boring, this show was a dramatic encapsulation of how a once-invincible candidate ended up in a dead heat, crippled by poll-tested corporate packaging that markets her as a synthetic product leeched of most human qualities. What’s more, it offered a naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come.</p>
<p>For a campaign that began with tightly monitored Web “<a linkindex="9" href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/conversation/conversation.aspx">chats</a>” and then <a linkindex="10" href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3848826&page=1">planted</a> questions at its earlier town-hall meetings, a Bush-style pseudo-event like the Hallmark special is nothing new, of course. What’s remarkable is that instead of learning from these mistakes, Mrs. Clinton’s handlers keep doubling down. </p>
<p>Less than two weeks ago she was airlifted into her own, less effective version of “Mission Accomplished.” Instead of declaring faux victory in Iraq, she starred in a made-for-television rally declaring faux victory in a Florida primary that was held in defiance of party rules, involved no campaigning and awarded no delegates. As Andrea Mitchell of NBC News <a linkindex="11" href="http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/chutzpah_hoopla_ambush_victory.php">said</a>, it was “the Potemkin village of victory celebrations.”</p>
<p>The Hallmark show, enacted on an anachronistic studio set that looked like a deliberate throwback to the good old days of 1992, was equally desperate. If the point was to generate donations or excitement, the effect was the reverse. A campaign operative, speaking on MSNBC, claimed that 250,000 viewers had seen an online incarnation of the event in addition to “who knows how many” Hallmark channel viewers. Who knows, indeed? What we do know is that by then the “Yes We Can” Obama video fronted by the hip-hop vocalist will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas had been averaging <a linkindex="12" href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/yes-we-can-has.html">roughly a million</a> YouTube views a day. (Cost to the Obama campaign: zero.) </p>
<p>Two days after her town-hall extravaganza, Mrs. Clinton <a linkindex="13" href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/06/644157.aspx">revealed</a> the $5 million loan she had made to her own campaign to survive a month in which the Obama operation had raised $32 million to her $13.5 million. That poignant confession led to a <a linkindex="14" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/us/politics/08clinton.html">spike</a> in contributions that Mr. Obama also topped. Though Tuesday was largely a draw in <a linkindex="15" href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html">popular votes</a> and <a linkindex="16" href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html">delegates</a>, every other indicator, from the candidates’ real and virtual crowds to hard cash, points to a steadily widening Obama-Clinton gap. The Clinton campaign might be an imploding Potemkin village itself were it not for the fungible profits from Bill Clinton’s murky post-presidency <a linkindex="17" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html">business deals</a>. (The Clintons, unlike Mr. Obama, have <a linkindex="18" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/us/politics/08clinton.html">not released</a> their income-tax returns.)</p>
<p>The campaign’s other most potent form of currency remains its thick deck of race cards. This was all too apparent in the Hallmark show. In its carefully calibrated cross section of geographically and demographically diverse cast members — young, old, one gay man, one vet, two union members — African-Americans were reduced to also-rans. One black woman, the former TV correspondent Carole Simpson, was given the servile role of the meeting’s nominal moderator, Ed McMahon to Mrs. Clinton’s top banana. Scattered black faces could be seen in the audience. But in the entire televised hour, there was not a single African-American questioner, whether to toss a softball or ask about the Clintons’ own recent misadventures in racial politics. </p>
<p>The Clinton camp does not leave such matters to chance. This decision was a cold, political cost-benefit calculus. In October, seven months after the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in Selma, <a linkindex="19" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-01-obama_cover_N.htm">USA Today found</a> Hillary Clinton leading Mr. Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of 62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought. In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, <a linkindex="20" href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/the-early-word-off-camera-antics/">Mark Penn</a>, among <a linkindex="21" href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.html">others</a>), “the black candidate” (as Clinton strategists <a linkindex="22" href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/obama_runs_away_with_sc_primar.php">told</a> the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by <a linkindex="23" href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/26/for_bill_clinton_echoes_of_jac.html">Mr. Clinton himself</a>).</p>
<p>The result? Black America has largely deserted the Clintons. In her California primary victory, Mrs. Clinton <a linkindex="24" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#CADEM">drew</a> only 19 percent of the black vote. The campaign saw this coming and so saw no percentage in bestowing precious minutes of prime-time television on African-American queries. </p>
<p>That time went instead to the Hispanic population that was still in play in Super Tuesday’s voting in the West. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles had a cameo, and one of the satellite meetings was held in the National Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s smart politics, especially since Mr. Obama has been behind the curve in wooing this constituency. </p>
<p> But the wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by <a linkindex="25" href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=3">telling</a> The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then <a linkindex="26" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22682821/">seconded the motion</a> by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.”</p>
<p>It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez <a linkindex="27" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez28jan28,0,5950176.column">pointed out</a> in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to “undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.”</p>
<p>If that was the intent, it didn’t work. Mrs. Clinton did pile up her expected large margin among Latino voters in California. But her tight grip on that electorate is loosening. Mr. Obama, who <a set="yes" linkindex="28" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NVDEM">captured</a> only 26 percent of Hispanic voters in Nevada last month, did better than that in every state on Tuesday, reaching 41 percent in <a linkindex="29" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#AZDEM">Arizona</a> and 53 percent in <a linkindex="30" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#CTDEM">Connecticut</a>. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign’s attempt to drive white voters away from Mr. Obama by playing the race card has backfired. His white vote tally rises every week. Though Mrs. Clinton won <a linkindex="31" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#CADEM">California</a> by almost 10 percentage points, among whites she beat Mr. Obama by only 3 points. </p>
<p>The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That’s why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack <a linkindex="32" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9T3ToQrPGqc&refer=home">366 ghost delegates</a> from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton’s <a linkindex="33" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html">assurance</a> on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn’t matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote “is not going to count for anything.”</p>
<p>Last month, two eminent African-American historians who have served in government, Mary Frances Berry (in the Carter and Clinton years) and Roger Wilkins (in the Johnson administration), wrote Howard Dean, the Democrats’ chairman, to <a linkindex="34" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/04/dnc-urged-to-end-fight-ov_n_84810.html">warn him</a> of the perils of that credentials fight. Last week, Mr. Dean became sufficiently alarmed to <a linkindex="35" href="http://www.observer.com/2008/dean-favors-arrangement-between-candidates-over-brokered-convention">propose</a> brokering an “arrangement” if a clear-cut victory by one candidate hasn’t rendered the issue moot by the spring. But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?</p>
<p>A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.</p>
Clinton Dirt
All Things Considered, February 13, 2008 · Political campaigns spend thousands, even millions of dollars to acquire good mailing lists.
Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons' connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.
It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.
"As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over," he said. "This is the mother's milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently."
There are no records that any other presidential candidates rented out mailing lists last year.
Several sources who work in political consulting and in direct mail, who would not speak for attribution, said they were surprised by the deal, as well as its low price.
According to one direct-mail professional, $800,000 would have seemed like a more plausible price for a quality list. A political consultant suggested that the list broker's unidentified client could have rented the list as a sample one — to do a test-run mailing.
But most intriguing of all was the renter of the Clinton list: a list brokerage company that is a subsidiary of one of the data-collection industry titans, Info U.S.A.
Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta, a close ally of both Clintons. Gupta's empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN.
Vin Gupta has a long history of giving and raising campaign money for the Clintons, and gave $1 million for the 2000 Millennium Celebration, a New Year's Party thrown by the Clintons.
When he was president, Bill Clinton named Gupta to the Kennedy Center board of directors. Gupta also got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. He gave another million to the Clinton Presidential Library.
The library is run by the National Archives, but Bill Clinton raised the money for its construction and always refused to identify his major donors.
Last fall, ABC News reported that the library rented out a portion of its donor list to a list broker — the same one that rented Hillary Clinton's campaign lists.
Gupta spent $900,000 of corporate money flying the Clintons to various destinations. The Clinton campaign said in May that Info U.S.A. had been reimbursed to comply with federal campaigning and ethics rules.
After the Clintons left the White House, Gupta hired Bill Clinton as a consultant. It's one of two continuing business relationships he has had since leaving office, and it has been worth $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock.
When challenged about that outlay of cash to the former president, Gupta has said Clinton is worth $40 million to the company.
Kevin Starke is a stock analyst in Connecticut who follows Gupta's company.
"If it were me, and I had hired Bill Clinton to the tune of $3 million, I think I would try to make a fairly distinct case for why that was money well spent, and I'm not entirely clear on why he hasn't done so," Starke said.
The corporate spending on behalf of the Clintons helped fuel a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta and 10 corporate directors.
There are plenty of other allegations in the suit about homes, cars, and a yacht for Gupta. A Delaware chancery court judge dismissed some of the allegations involving the Clintons. But the case is still proceeding. It has led to an informal inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is also asking if Gupta misspent corporate funds.
"It's not a company that's threatened with bankruptcy or anything like that. It needs probably to be run with more of a view toward generating value for all shareholders, and not just the main shareholder," Starke said.
Info U.S.A. did not respond to interview requests this week.
The Clinton campaign said Wednesday that the lists were rented out by her 2006 Senate campaign committee — and that the rentals took place before she began her formal campaign for president last January.
That would mean the rental fees went unpaid for at least 11 months. Starke, the analyst, cites Info U.S.A. data showing that on average, it settles accounts within 64 days.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958566
All Things Considered, February 13, 2008 · Political campaigns spend thousands, even millions of dollars to acquire good mailing lists.
Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons' connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.
It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.
"As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over," he said. "This is the mother's milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently."
There are no records that any other presidential candidates rented out mailing lists last year.
Several sources who work in political consulting and in direct mail, who would not speak for attribution, said they were surprised by the deal, as well as its low price.
According to one direct-mail professional, $800,000 would have seemed like a more plausible price for a quality list. A political consultant suggested that the list broker's unidentified client could have rented the list as a sample one — to do a test-run mailing.
But most intriguing of all was the renter of the Clinton list: a list brokerage company that is a subsidiary of one of the data-collection industry titans, Info U.S.A.
Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta, a close ally of both Clintons. Gupta's empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN.
Vin Gupta has a long history of giving and raising campaign money for the Clintons, and gave $1 million for the 2000 Millennium Celebration, a New Year's Party thrown by the Clintons.
When he was president, Bill Clinton named Gupta to the Kennedy Center board of directors. Gupta also got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. He gave another million to the Clinton Presidential Library.
The library is run by the National Archives, but Bill Clinton raised the money for its construction and always refused to identify his major donors.
Last fall, ABC News reported that the library rented out a portion of its donor list to a list broker — the same one that rented Hillary Clinton's campaign lists.
Gupta spent $900,000 of corporate money flying the Clintons to various destinations. The Clinton campaign said in May that Info U.S.A. had been reimbursed to comply with federal campaigning and ethics rules.
After the Clintons left the White House, Gupta hired Bill Clinton as a consultant. It's one of two continuing business relationships he has had since leaving office, and it has been worth $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock.
When challenged about that outlay of cash to the former president, Gupta has said Clinton is worth $40 million to the company.
Kevin Starke is a stock analyst in Connecticut who follows Gupta's company.
"If it were me, and I had hired Bill Clinton to the tune of $3 million, I think I would try to make a fairly distinct case for why that was money well spent, and I'm not entirely clear on why he hasn't done so," Starke said.
The corporate spending on behalf of the Clintons helped fuel a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta and 10 corporate directors.
There are plenty of other allegations in the suit about homes, cars, and a yacht for Gupta. A Delaware chancery court judge dismissed some of the allegations involving the Clintons. But the case is still proceeding. It has led to an informal inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is also asking if Gupta misspent corporate funds.
"It's not a company that's threatened with bankruptcy or anything like that. It needs probably to be run with more of a view toward generating value for all shareholders, and not just the main shareholder," Starke said.
Info U.S.A. did not respond to interview requests this week.
The Clinton campaign said Wednesday that the lists were rented out by her 2006 Senate campaign committee — and that the rentals took place before she began her formal campaign for president last January.
That would mean the rental fees went unpaid for at least 11 months. Starke, the analyst, cites Info U.S.A. data showing that on average, it settles accounts within 64 days.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958566
Re: Clinton Dirt
Heh heh. This is gonna get ugly. Pls see the "Good Read" thread.
Funny, seems like some people just assume that if they like a brother, that he must lack the heart of a warrior. They just keep underestimating Obama.
Gotta love it. Keep giving the Clintons Hell, Senator Obama.
Heh heh. This is gonna get ugly. Pls see the "Good Read" thread.
Funny, seems like some people just assume that if they like a brother, that he must lack the heart of a warrior. They just keep underestimating Obama.
Gotta love it. Keep giving the Clintons Hell, Senator Obama.
Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw
<img src="http://pundits.thehill.com/wp-content/themes/pundits/images/header.gif" width="690" height="83">
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#D90000">
Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw</font>
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>
by Brent Budowsky
<font face="arial" size="2" color="#0000FF">
Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit. Left goverment in 1990 for marketing and public affairs business including major corporate entertainment and talent management. He can be reached at brentbbi@webtv.net. </font>
February 20, 2008 </b>
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/02/20/hillary-clinton-should-withdraw/
The most likely outcome is that on March 5 Hillary Clinton withdraws from the presidential campaign and endorses Barack Obama.
At this moment, Sen. Clinton (N.Y.) has three options, two of which are acceptable, one of which would be disastrous for her and the Democratic Party.
In my view she should withdraw today, though she won’t. Her second option is to campaign through March 4 at least but suspend all negative attacks and whatever happens, do it with class and grace as a unifier.
Her third option is to continue and escalate the negative attacks in a wrecking-ball, demolition-derby, scorched-earth desperation play that will be rejected by voters and do permanent damage to her national stature.
Two facts are obvious. First, she cannot be nominated at a price worth the nomination. If she pursues the desperation strategy, it will be rejected by voters as her attacks were rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin and nationally. Such a strategy would drive superdelegates to stampede to Sen. Obama (Ill.) and would be viewed as a direct attack on the prospects of the Democratic Party and on the aspirations of political independents that would make her nomination both impossible and worthless.
The worst case for Sen. Clinton is not that she loses the nomination, which is close to inevitable today, but that she loses in a way where she is seen as a destructive and divisive force that leaves large numbers of a generation of young people largely angry and bitter towards her for the rest of her career.
The second fact is equally clear. Contrary to myths propagated by the pundits in the media and their embarrassing misreading of the history of our times, neither the voters nor the superdelegates want any part of any effort to steal the nomination, corrupt the democratic process of the Democratic Party or continue the politics of demeaning that the Clinton campaign has sadly trafficked in this year.
In the end, the superdelegates would never have considered violating and abusing the trust of the people who voted in primaries and caucuses. Equally ridiculous and offensive, the chance that Hillary Clinton could steal the support of elected pledged delegates is mathematically zero. The very notion that the Clinton staff would even consider this shows how far from the reality of 2008 the Clintons and their staff have been with tactics that have been a $150 million fiasco of division, mismanagement and self-destruction.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good person, a good senator and a good public servant who has many years left in a career that could well ultimately lead to the presidency. She and her campaign have done some very bad things, in a very bad way, with very bad results.
It is time to begin a serious discussion of her upcoming withdrawal, and hope as Democrats and Americans that in the closing days of her campaign she acts as a healer and unifier who does credit to herself and a service to our party and our country.
</font>
<img src="http://pundits.thehill.com/wp-content/themes/pundits/images/header.gif" width="690" height="83">
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#D90000">
Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw</font>
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>
by Brent Budowsky
<font face="arial" size="2" color="#0000FF">
Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit. Left goverment in 1990 for marketing and public affairs business including major corporate entertainment and talent management. He can be reached at brentbbi@webtv.net. </font>
February 20, 2008 </b>
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/02/20/hillary-clinton-should-withdraw/
The most likely outcome is that on March 5 Hillary Clinton withdraws from the presidential campaign and endorses Barack Obama.
At this moment, Sen. Clinton (N.Y.) has three options, two of which are acceptable, one of which would be disastrous for her and the Democratic Party.
In my view she should withdraw today, though she won’t. Her second option is to campaign through March 4 at least but suspend all negative attacks and whatever happens, do it with class and grace as a unifier.
Her third option is to continue and escalate the negative attacks in a wrecking-ball, demolition-derby, scorched-earth desperation play that will be rejected by voters and do permanent damage to her national stature.
Two facts are obvious. First, she cannot be nominated at a price worth the nomination. If she pursues the desperation strategy, it will be rejected by voters as her attacks were rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin and nationally. Such a strategy would drive superdelegates to stampede to Sen. Obama (Ill.) and would be viewed as a direct attack on the prospects of the Democratic Party and on the aspirations of political independents that would make her nomination both impossible and worthless.
The worst case for Sen. Clinton is not that she loses the nomination, which is close to inevitable today, but that she loses in a way where she is seen as a destructive and divisive force that leaves large numbers of a generation of young people largely angry and bitter towards her for the rest of her career.
The second fact is equally clear. Contrary to myths propagated by the pundits in the media and their embarrassing misreading of the history of our times, neither the voters nor the superdelegates want any part of any effort to steal the nomination, corrupt the democratic process of the Democratic Party or continue the politics of demeaning that the Clinton campaign has sadly trafficked in this year.
In the end, the superdelegates would never have considered violating and abusing the trust of the people who voted in primaries and caucuses. Equally ridiculous and offensive, the chance that Hillary Clinton could steal the support of elected pledged delegates is mathematically zero. The very notion that the Clinton staff would even consider this shows how far from the reality of 2008 the Clintons and their staff have been with tactics that have been a $150 million fiasco of division, mismanagement and self-destruction.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good person, a good senator and a good public servant who has many years left in a career that could well ultimately lead to the presidency. She and her campaign have done some very bad things, in a very bad way, with very bad results.
It is time to begin a serious discussion of her upcoming withdrawal, and hope as Democrats and Americans that in the closing days of her campaign she acts as a healer and unifier who does credit to herself and a service to our party and our country.
</font>
