What a service to the nation the Clinton elective machine has done by simulating Republican attacks.To do this for no gain of their own.Yet when pressed on her record by John Edwards she claimed it was unfair “and right out of the Republican playbook”.Does she have a copy of the playbook?So Ms Clinton feels that her campaign should attack the other candidates as if she is the Republican in the race for the Democratic nomination but that she is off limits from being attacked from the Republican playbook.I think I understand it now does anybody else?

RON PAUL 2008.

All I have to say.

#120152 by reason
• I would like someone (anyone) to get her to state her view on NAFTA. What little she has said about NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agrrement) has been so superficial as to not give an answer.

Reason,
It’s never gonna happen, for the very reasons you’ve just stated. (and several others have stated). She’s perfectly fine with NAFTA, and we have to assume that she’s perfectly aware of the disaster that it is, (anti-labor, demolishing workers here as well as across the globe) and doesn’t care.

I’d have to disagree with #120140 by Jaded Prole this, but only to a degree:

• She, like her husband, are to the right of traditional Republicans like Nixon or Goldwater.
Hubby was actually closer to the center than Hillary. She’s more like Nixon, but better at covering it up. (smarter than Nixon)

#120143 by Sue

• Hillary a fraud? You just described most political figures.

Sue, I sadly have to agree with you that most politicians are frauds, to a greater or lesser degree. We could come up with varying language to apply to the same notion, that might allow for a bit more wiggle room, but in the long run, that’s the nature of politics. And, it was concern that I had myself, for Obama, when he first started out. (you’ve mentioned that). I was concerned that he would (by nature of the game) have some of this corruption rub off on him. It’s nearly impossible for it to be otherwise.

On the other hand, this part of your statement really does trouble me…

• I don’t care if she is. I don’t care how devious, immoral or whatever her haters think of her. Again these attacks fits most politicians. If she fits right in, isn’t that the norm?

Maybe it is the ‘norm’. I’m not sure what ‘norm’ we’re really speaking of here, but if it is, (and in this context I’d say yes), does that really mean that’s what’s good for ‘we the people’? This NORM? I mean really, does it matter if Hillary is still standing at the end, and the rest of us are dead or dying, or locked up in concentration camps?

And, shouldn’t we cut the drama and stop throwing around the ‘hate’ word all of the time? Doesn’t that tend to deviate from the real issues? How many of us do you suppose actually ‘hate’ Hillary? I definitely don’t hate her. I only know that her POLICIES, which she has stated over and over again, in words and more importantly in her political ACTIONS, (we’re talking about whatever is on the record here, as what she thinks and/or believes as a public representative in Congress, and as a politician on the campaign trail) are simply NOT in keeping with the interests of ‘we the people’ or the human society at large. It’s not about ‘hate’. Not for her or any other candidate. It’s about how SHE plans to implement domestic and foreign policy. It’s about how she feels about the things that have already been noted here.

The aggressive war on Iraq to steal their resources – SHE’S ALL FOR IT! Was then, is now, and forever shall be. (or at least until all of the oil has been stolen)

War on Iran? – Hill says Fire Away! They have oil too, and she wants it ALL!! (and never mind this paying them for it, or indulging in some fair trade arrangements…we just TAKE what we want!) It’s the “American Way”, and yep…Hillary is behind it 1000%!

NAFTA? It’s been the death of us all, here and abroad. So, is that the ‘norm’ that we’d like to continue? Not me, and I’d guess not anybody else who have hopes that their future generations will survive the next decade. If the ‘norm’ is what got us here, I’m thinking we need a major switch-up from the ‘norm’.

And yeah, hate has unfortunately become the norm as well. But, let’s drop that emotional drama for now, (if we can) and just think things through a bit more critically.

I mean, do you think the average politician HATES US? Probably not…they just love themselves a whole lot more.

MAY THE MUD BATH BE MADE OF QUICKSAND!

I said leave these sleeze campaigning scum to do their own thing, as they will eventually hang themselves long before election day ever arrives, that is, if the current occupants well allow it.

I am beginning to think that these escapades are meer entertainment for the dumbed down American Jerry Springer-Montel-Maury watching masses out there and whichever persons comes up with the most sleeze thinks they take the prize-the presidency. I hope those are the ones who stay home election day, which they probably will as it is easier to watch tv than stand in line for hours to vote. There may be hope for America if the informed people vote and if the illegal ballot altering of the past doesn’t raise it’s head again as it did the last two presidential elections.

ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE TRUTH A CHANCE!

Come everybody. 

Let’s get the vote for Kucinich.

He has been right all of the time.

I am a VERY unhappy Republican and Kucinich stands above everybody else in his honesty.  Plus he was right about the war and he reads proposed laws.

Hillary Clinton is a female George Bush. In too many ways to list, but here’s my casual snapshot:

relative of former President
NAFTA supporter
supporter of corporate foreign policy worldwide
political dirty trickster
refusing transparency
support for IRAQ WAR
support for THE MOVE TO WAR WITH IRAN

The only significant difference with Bush that I can see is that she’s more beholden to using triangulation in her strategies to manipulate public opinion. At least Bush has the savvy not to obfuscate when he’s lying, making him appear RESOLUTE.

If faced with McCain as an alternative to Hillary in ‘08, I’m not sure I could vote for the Democrat. If she has any of the other Republican opponents, I’ll stay home.

The devil I know isn’t better than the one I don’t.

OBAMA in ‘08!

Yes, Hillary is a politcal hack and yes; if elected you can bet it will be more of the same crap we have had in the past. I would like someone (anyone) to get her to state her view on NAFTA. What little she has said about NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agrrement) has been so superficial as to not give an answer.
Hillary Clinton is the democrats equivalent to Bush.
*By the way; the last four presidents (democrat and republican) signed on to NAFTA but did not fully discuss it when running for office because it is anti-labor and encourages outsourcing of business to other countries even though it hurts the citizens of this country! You can bet she will follow in her husands footsteps in promoting NAFTA.

Every time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth she exposes herself as a cynical corporate hack. She, like her husband, are to the right of traditional Republicans like Nixon or Goldwater.

#120121 by cyrena

Just background.  I’d rather Hillary be on the defensive than being proactive in her smear attempts on the other candidates.

#120027 by PatrickHenry

PatrickHenry,

On your link from TBRnews…well. Can I say that the info that Outraged posted was really relevant, (Hillary’s old firm hooked up with defending/bailing out Harken, one of the Shrubs many screw-ups)

BUT…this one really IS NOT!! Nope, tabloid news just doesn’t do it for these issues we’re dealing with. Actually, it’s sleaze. Makes me worry for all of us.

More importantly, it’s not like Hillary doesn’t already have enough stuff to torpedo herself right into the mud with the rest of the neoconners,(on REAL issues, that we ALL care about) and we’ve still got ages to hope that an election really happens, before we become a total police state.

So, why bother with this shit?

And no, I’ve already made it very clear that I don’t want her in the office, but I’m having some difficulty with why we have to do sleaze. Is there a point?

I’m losing faith with the general intelligence level and priorities of my fellow citizens.

RE: #120075 by cyrena on 12/13

Cyrena:

I know what you mean.  It’s really a trip.  I stumbled upon that as I was checking out some other things, which BTW I can’t recall just now.  Like you I’d love to see a GREAT woman in the WH, but it doesn’t look like Hillary’s “the ticket”. 

I also thought you said something extremely intuitive.  And I believe this is very much true of GREAT women and I’ll add GREAT men (the real ones of course) and that was: “we don’t jack about with petty bullshit politics”.  Really.... for any thinking person this is kind of a “litmus test” if you will.

Kucinich isn’t a game-player in this regard, precisely why they try to “out” him.  Also, in my view, precisely why so many people support him. Have a good one and hang tough.

#119955 by Outraged
• **If you haven’t had the opportunity to read this article you may want to.  Harken...hmmm...that rings a bell… My, my..my...my..my, small world isn’t though...?  You can find it here:
Holy Shit!! I read them all. I didn’t have a CLUE!! (Well, I CAN at least say that I’m not surprised). Geeminnie Christmas!!! (as my dad would say). Ya know, Hillary had already lost my consideration, for a HOST of reasons, and NONE of them having to do with the fact that she’s female. (needless to say, I’d have NO problems with a female president, or vice president, or an entire female cabinet for that matter, just ‘cuz I know a lot of REALLY smart and effective women…we get the job done, and we don’t jack about with petty bullshit politics).
That aside, this is really looking bad for Hillary, and quite personally, I don’t believe she’s gonna get that much of the ‘swift-boating’ from the Repugs. Nope. I think the repugs will be JUST FINE with Hillary!! Oh yeah, I do.
But, not me. It pays to pay attention, and this is only the LATEST based on my own priorities in a leader. Sorry Hill, as nice as it would be to have some women in the top mix, (and let us not include Condi the Rice please) it just can’t be her. Guess we’ll have to wait until 2016 for that.
As for bad-mouthing Oprah, (if she did, I haven’t read or heard that) I’ve already admitted that I don’t think she (Oprah) is exactly the best thing in the world for Barak’s campaign. But, I’ve also admitted that most other folks think she is, so what the heck. I’ll repeat Shenonymous’ suggestion though; Oprah should just shut up and give him the money.
Jen, You said the sitting president WAS an alcoholic? I’m betting he does a quart of Wild Turkey just for breakfast – NOW. No telling what he graduates to as the day continues. And, if he doesn’t have THAT as an excuse, then exactly what the hell IS wrong with him?

#119890 by Douglas Chalmers
• As regards Obama’s “use of cocaine and marijuahana” in the past, just look at his eyes in a close-up when you get the chance. For a start, they are uneven........ maybe he is still a user??? Of course, other users will deny that their/his habit affects their brains!

Douglas, What’s gotten into you? We know you like Hillary, and that’s fine. But come on dude? What’s up with the attack on Barack’s eyes? “Uneven?” Uneven HOW? Like, are they not situated properly on his face, or what? They look more ‘even’ than mine, and I don’t DO drugs.

Well, now that I think about it, I DO have some legal ones in the cabinet that can’t afford. Like, should I eat or take the legal meds today? Think Hill’s gonna help me out with that? Like put in a good word for me with Big Pharma? Better yet, maybe Obama will legalize marijuana, and I won’t NEED to depend on Big Pharma. I could just grow my own meds.

Hillary representing Harken. Ain’t that a blip.

#120015 by mythbreaker on 12/1: “This country no longer has the time to appease children looking for their teething rings and all dressed up as adult leaders...”

You obviously seem to have a problem with WOMEN as authority figures in your life, mythbreaker.......

Or, perhaps you are in denial about “that fraud” you voted for who is already in the White House?

#119994 by Sue on 12/13 at 11:18 am: “Barack is not strong or tough enough yet to be leader of the free world. It takes more than fancy eloquent talk to to hold that positon. He’ll be a stronger force in 8-years. Hillary doesn’t need to prove anything. She should just push issues and let all her haters continue to worry about her becoming the next president....”

Agreed, Sue, and obvious to all except the dreamers still being led by their illusions and delusions......

#119991 by kevin99999 on 12/13: “… every one is aware of animosity of Ariana Huffington..... towards Clinton, and she uses this site to foist almost daily attacks on Clinton without much merit....”

Same with Robert Scheer on Truthdig.com, kevin99999. Sexism raises its head in many places - and in many different forms, uhh. Its pathetic to behold!

People in glass houses....Here ya go.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2798.htm

Seeing as how a good portion of the population is hooked on “legal” drugs, this really is pretty dumb. No doubt the repubs are crafting attacks on Obama if necessary, but they will find a way to use the “race” card, never mind the drug thing, because so many of them are “closet” racists.

As far as Hillary is concerned, we don’t need to help the dirty side with suggestions on how best to attack her. I’m sure they have their war chest chock full, just waiting. Why do you think the media has been pushing Hillary from day one?

A favorite family friend helped steer my kids away from messing with drugs. Very successful now, he never misses an opportunity to tell his story. How as a young and dumb kid, he almost blew his future because of peer pressure from losers. Obama’s experience may actually prove valuable, should he decide to use it.

As far as anybody caring, look at who sits in the White House now! Someone who stands as an excellent example to the youth of America on the effects of permanent brain damage caused by years of drug and alcohol abuse.

Try though he might, he seems quite incapable of grasping the big picture, following through, or understanding the difference between what happens when things go horribly wrong and trying to set things right.

Duh ...

But, and this is an important but, Hillary is in big trouble if she lets minds like the one rattling around in Billy Shaheen’s head intercede on her behalf.

What a Maroon.

In addition to my original comment “#119955 by Outraged on 12/13” there are also three more recent articles (12- 4, 7, & 12 of 2007) dealing with the issue of the seed monopoly.  All of them can be found on the home page of global research site:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home

However, if you’d like to link directly they are:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=7602
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=7529
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=7561

Of course, if you’re REALLY inquisitive go to the home page of the global research site and choose “biotechnology and GMO” from the sidebar menu.

If you think Hilliary’s legit then I would say to do some more “digging”.  My estimation is, she’s in it deep.......

From an article By F. William Engdahl, August 27, 2006:
“The Stephens Group prides itself on being the nation’s largest investment bank outside Wall Street, based, of all places, in little ol’ Little Rock, in hillbilly land, Arkansas, one of the poorest states in the United States. Stephens Inc. is also one of the biggest institutional shareholders in 30 large multinationals including the Arkansas based firms Tyson Food, the world’s largest chicken industrial factory operation and the infamous Arkansas giant, Wal-Mart.”

**The article continues:

“1977

Hillary Rodham Clinton joins the Rose Law Firm. Jackson Stephens joins with former Carter administration budget director Bert Lance and a group of Mideast investors--later identified as key figures in the corrupt Bank of Credit & Commerce International--in an unsuccessful attempt to acquire Financial General Bankshares in Washington, D.C

1978

October: Mrs. Clinton, now a partner at the Rose Firm, begins a series of commodities trades under the guidance of Tyson Foods executive Jim Blair, earning nearly $100,000. (author’s emphasis). The trades are not revealed until March 1994.

November: Bill Clinton is elected Governor of Arkansas.

The Rose law firm was the house law firm of Jackson Stephens’ Stephens Group investment bank in Little Rock. To be the corporate law firm of the Stephens Group was no casual affair. It implied a deep trust relationship and perhaps more. As one crony of Jackson Stephens put it at that time, ‘Jackson Stephens? He’s the man who owns Arkansas.’

The head of the prestigious Rose law firm in Little Rock in those days was C. Joseph Giroir jr. In 1977 Giroir hired a young lawyer named Hillary Clinton to work for Rose. It was all one cozy Arkansas-Indonesia family back then.

The Wall Street Journal commentary on the Clinton years had the following entry for 1987, as Clinton was still Arkansas Governor: 

1987:

Officials at investment giant Stephens Inc., including longtime Clinton friend, David Edwards, take steps to rescue Harken Energy, a struggling Texas oil company with George W. Bush on its board. Over the next three years, Mr. Edwards brings BCCI-linked investors and advisers into Harken deals. One of them, Abdullah Bakhsh, purchases $10 million in shares of Stephens-dominated Worthen Bank. (author’s emphasis).”

**If you haven’t had the opportunity to read this article you may want to.  Harken...hmmm...that rings a bell… My, my..my...my..my, small world isn’t though...?  You can find it here:

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Monsanto/mon santo.html

This will backfire on the Clintons. Experimental drug use by candidates seeking high office doesn’t have the same taint it did 10 or 15 years ago. It’s more of a poor reflection on the Clinton camp, and certainly will be more of a poor reflection of the Republican’s desperate efforts to derail Obama’s campaign.

http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/

#119914 by RdV on 12/13: “...As a woman I take great offense that you would use that cynically to silence others and it makes it seem that women can always yell sexism to hide behind rather than proving themselves without a crutch. Please stop....”

Oh RdV, as this is a political issue aren’t you being sexist yourself in insisting that I shut up - because you are a woman and I am talking about a woman, uhh?

Hillary has been proving herself while some others have been playing politics. At least she puts herself fully into the role as a concerned American instead of the pathetic “I wanna be president” speeches from the male contenders.

Hillary didn’t bring up the issue of sexism and neither did her campaign manager - I did. You are attempting cynically to silence me......

Douglas Chalmers--Please stop pulling the sexist card as a cover-all defense of every typical dirty Clinton campaign ploy or policy. Criticism of Clinton--or disdain for unethical practices is legitimate in and of itself. As a woman I take great offense that you would use that cynically to silence others and it makes it seem that women can always yell sexism to hide behind rather than proving themselves without a crutch. Please stop.

If Billy Shaheen is so worried about what Republicans might use against the Democratic nominee, then Shaheen should tell Hillary Clinton to come clean about that $100,000 (from a $1,000 investment) she supposedly made trading cattle futures, though she never explained how or explained why she quit trading if she is so good at it.  She needs to tell who really gave her the $100,000 and why.

Quote Truthdig’s unnamed author: “Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign co-chair issued a sleazy attack on Barack Obama...”

Oh, really, Scheer, again how sexist and hypocritical of you to allege that Shaheen’s comments were either an “attack on Barack Obama” or “sleazy”. Obviously, any of the impudent and irresponsible attacks that Obama has launched against Hillary Clinton must be fair, according to your mentality.......

As regards Obama’s “use of cocaine and marijuahana” in the past, just look at his eyes in a close-up when you get the chance. For a start, they are uneven........ maybe he is still a user??? Of course, other users will deny that their/his habit affects their brains!