Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 19, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Carl Bernstein:  Hillary?s Politics From 1968 to 2008

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 20, 2007
Hillary Clinton
AP Photo / Jim Cole

The many phases of Hillary: Carl Bernstein traces Clinton’s career arc.

By Jon Wiener

The Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter on Watergate has just published “A Woman in Charge,” a biography of Hillary Clinton, for which he interviewed almost 100 of her friends and enemies.  Carl Bernstein spoke recently with Truthdig’s Jon Wiener about the first former first lady to make a bid for the presidency.

Jon Wiener:  When Hillary arrived at Wellesley as a freshman in 1965, she was a Goldwater Republican.  What happened then?

Carl Bernstein:  Like many rather sheltered Midwestern kids who came of age in the ‘60s, 1968 was especially significant for her: that was the year of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, and the escalation of the war.  Hillary moved from being a Goldwater Republican to becoming an antiwar Democrat.

Wiener:  She went to New Hampshire in 1968 to work in the Eugene McCarthy primary challenge to LBJ.

Bernstein: She also went to the Republican convention that year—to work for Nelson Rockefeller.  But by that time she was really a closet Democrat,  and was hoping to see McCarthy elected.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Wiener:  What did young Hillary think of Nixon at this point?

Bernstein: She always really despised Nixon. She made no bones about it.

Wiener:  This was an era when antiwar students were seizing administration buildings and confronting the police.  Was this Hillary’s world?

Bernstein:  This was not.  Hillary’s way, especially at Wellesley, was to be a student leader with one foot firmly planted in the establishment camp, with good relations with the administration of the school.  She was eager to find ways of protest that did not anger the administration, like teach-ins.  She did not join many street demonstrations elsewhere in New England, except occasionally.  It was a very cautious course. 

Wiener:  Yet her senior thesis at Wellesley dealt with radicalism.

Bernstein:  She’s always been fascinated by radicalism.  She wrote her senior thesis on a great radical organizer of poor people, Saul Alinsky of Chicago.  Though when she was offered a job by Alinsky, after she wrote about him, and she turned him down—because she didn’t think he was effective enough.  She said to her boyfriend at that time, to be in politics you have to win.  And it didn’t look to her like Alinsky was winning enough of his battles.  She came to question his methodology and concluded in her thesis that larger government programs and funding were needed, not just community action at the grass roots. 

Wiener:  How were you able to see her senior thesis?  I thought Wellesley had it locked up ever since she became first lady.

Bernstein:  I finally got it.  She did have it locked up, obviously because she feared it would paint her not only as someone fascinated by radicalism, but perhaps worse—as someone who had called for large government funding programs.  This was during that first campaign of 1992, when she and Bill Clinton were being criticized for being “tax-and-spend liberals.” 

Wiener:  Her college years ended with an article about her in Life magazine.

Bernstein:  She was the commencement speaker at Wellesley in 1969, chosen by her fellow students—there had never been a student commencement speaker there before.  The scheduled speaker was Sen. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who Hillary had campaigned for, a Republican, the first black to be a member of the U.S. Senate in a hundred years.  In his remarks he was patronizing, Hillary thought.  He seemed to defend the Nixon administration’s conduct of the war, and didn’t mention the wrenching events of 68.  When he finished, Hillary got up and extemporaneously excoriated him.  As a result of that speech, she was featured in Life magazine as exemplary of this new generation of student leaders.  They ran a picture of her in pedal pushers and her Coke-bottle glasses.  That article made her well known in the student movement in the U.S.

Wiener:  Then she went to Yale Law School in 1969.  Would you say her connection to radical politics deepened at Yale?

Bernstein:  She chose Yale because, unlike Harvard, where she had also been accepted, it was an activist school that very much believed in the use of the law as an instrument for social change—in the mold of Thurgood Marshall.  When she arrived, her reputation preceded her.  It was perhaps greater than her real accomplishments.  She was becoming a generational spokesperson, anointed by others.  That’s when she met Bill; at that point she was much more famous that he was.  This was the year of the Black Panther trial in New Haven.  She monitored the trial to see if there were any abuses of the rights of the Panthers on trial, and helped schedule the monitors.  Her reports were turned over to the ACLU.

Wiener:  And then there was her summer job in California.

Bernstein: That summer she went to work at the most important radical law firm in America at that point: Truehaft, Walker and Bernstein in Oakland.  They defended the Panthers.  Two of their partners were members of the Communist Party—including Bob Truehaft, who was married to Jessica Mitford.  I talked to Bob Truehaft not long before he died, and he said he was certain that Hillary came there because she subscribed to some of the kind of law they practiced and the kind of clients they defended.  In her so-called autobiography, “Living History,” she put in a couple of sentences about living in Berkeley with Bill that summer and working at that law firm, but she makes it sound like their work focused on postal rate increases.  There’s not a word about radicals.

Wiener:  After Yale she got a job on the staff of the House Watergate impeachment committee.  The big question in Hillary’s life is why, after that, she gave up her own career as a rising young star in Washington, and moved to Arkansas to marry Bill and become a political wife in a poor Southern state.  When she arrived in Fayetteville in 1974, you report, a football rally was going on at which thousands of fans were wearing pig masks and chanting “oink, oink.”  Bill was running for Congress, and when she got to his campaign headquarters, she learned he was having an affair with a student volunteer.  A lot of her friends at the time considered that move a disaster for her.  Why did she do it?

Bernstein:  Because she was in love with him.  That choice was difficult for her.  She was on the fast track, a lot of people were already talking about her as someone who would run for office some day.  At the same time there is very little evidence that Hillary was ever interested in elective office.  She didn’t much like the process of rubbing elbows out there on the campaign trail.

Wiener:  And there was another factor in her move.

Bernstein:  There was one other huge factor: She failed the D.C. bar exam in 1973.  She never told anybody about it for the next 30 years.  She finally put a line about it in her so-called autobiography about three years ago.  She had been offered all these fancy jobs by Washington law firms after the impeachment committee, but in fact she couldn’t have gone to work there except as a paralegal or a telephone operator, unless she took the bar again.  But she passed the Arkansas bar, which Bill had urged her to take.  So after Nixon resigned, she moved to Arkansas, took a job teaching at the university law school, and worked in Bill’s campaign.

Wiener:  The plan was that Bill would win in 1974 [in a race for the U.S. House], and the two of them would go back to Washington together.  But Bill lost.

Bernstein:  Then for the next year and a half she wrestled with the question of whether to stay in Arkansas and marry Bill, or go back north and try another route.  She was very conflicted. 

Wiener:  The key fact about Hillary today for many of us is her Senate vote in 2002 in favor of the authorization for President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein.  Now she says that was a vote for continuing diplomacy.  Do you think that’s true?

Bernstein:  I think it’s a stretch.  One of the real problems Hillary has had is a difficult relationship to the truth.  Sometimes.  It’s true she might see her vote that way in hindsight, but she often sees things in hindsight in a way others did not see at the time.  There’s no question she believed in that vote—she believes that presidents ought to have leverage and authority, especially in matters of going to war.  She’d been in the White House for eight years while Bill Clinton had to deal with Saddam Hussein.  I don’t doubt that she would have liked to have seen Bush go back to the U.N.  But was she naïve enough to believe that Bush would do that?  I have serious doubts about it, and so do a lot of people in the Senate of the United States who voted with her at the time.

Wiener:  Finally: If Hillary got to be president, do you think her youthful progressive instincts would prevail, or would she remain in the Clintonian realm of triangulating between Republicans and Democrats?

Bernstein:  I don’t think triangulation is necessarily between Republicans and Democrats.  One of the things she’s been most truthful about is that she’s not easy to compartmentalize in terms of ideology.  Religion and family are the pillars of her belief.  She describes herself in college as a “progressive Christian.”  I think that’s not a bad description in many ways.  She has certain steady principles that hew towards traditional liberal Democratic orthodoxy, but then she also has others that don’t.  She believed in welfare reform, though she didn’t much like the formula for it.  She did come to believe in the death penalty when Bill was running for Arkansas attorney general, perhaps out of political expediency, but she has been rather consistent about that.  I think she’s not an ideologue.

 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Nitro, September 12, 2007 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

Well, to me, the picture on this article says it all as to which political party she wants to run too next. The same one I’ve thought she and her husband were a part of all along. The Nazi’s !

Isn’t she giving the Heil Hitler wave ? Ever watch her as she walks ? Got that “Goose Step” down now. But until we separate the “Corporation-State” democracy we have had in our White House for how many years now, it won’t matter who is elected next. It’s amazing how the American People have been led to bed into believing this country is supposed to be a Democracy. It is not ! Instead, a Democratic ran REPUBLIC ! Doubt that one ? Say the Pledge of Allegiance then, let alone do some research on the true history of the United States.

And if Dick-Tater Shrub has his way about things, and I might add, they’re just about manifested, there won’t be an election in 2008. You’ll just wake up one morning and will be told about the NEW North American Union now in place, and to cash in all your American currency for the new Amero-Dollar. 

Doubt what I say ? Go to http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com. Oh, but then everyone will find out who was really responsible for 9/11. And then you will also know why Congress has been so insistent on getting “In God we Trust” off our current currency and out of our public places.

And Mr. Chalmers… I guess some of my postings are being deleted by Truth Dig, so you reckon they are being sponsored by the corporate Lame Stream now ?

Report this

By Vita Libertas, September 3, 2007 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Clintonomics—Unfooled Around With Since The 90’s—Time To Get “Hateful” Or—Should We Let Them (Repubs) Do It For Us?

Welfare reform was needed.  We, even liberals,  watch Judge Judy & get pi**ed.  But, marching arm-in-arm w/blacks while working hard right extremes behind the scenes…  I mean that’s kind of chilling.  Scary?  Trouble is looks like the middle/ working-class are just as mis-guided and George never had to lift a finger or modify Clintonomics—unfooled-around with since the 90’s.  And, that would have to include the wild search for WMDs.  But, something HAS changed— the failed “Clintonomics”—on a scale with Armageddon— and the universal chaos it precipitated has been renamed,  forever after to be known as “Rubinomics.”  You know Hill won’t change much about the war.  Her husband, “Desert -Fox, ” was in it up to his eyeballs.

“For the Democrats, the danger is the greatest because the Republicans are clearly holding their fire until Clinton is nominated. All morality aside, to nominate Clinton is lousy politics”.  Sadly, the writer,  Sam Smith, fighting to out the Clinton’s staggering! sense of entitlement—for decades,  ends his article this way:  “Without much hope,  we rest our case”. 

A big part of the problem is We Don’t Know Where! To Start!!:  The sheer numbers of associates taking the 5th—among them Hillary herself—200 times plus, was stunning, in itself stacking up ,even lethal,  casualties among those readying to expose the Clinton’s criminal activities way! beyond Whitewater. The violations are so voluminous, the figures so over the top, most of us don’t know where to start and the rest don’t have the time, resources, energy—or GUTS, to address it. 

The media, most of it owned by multimillionaires who use it to project the ideas that support their interests are having a party since they took over the Free Press in the 90’s.  Not wanting to bite the hand that feeds! them,  they only go where they’re invited—by the Clintons. And that would be the bedroom—perish the thought, the
boardroom or the backroom where they made p-o-l-i-c-y.  I mean inquiring about those!! things would be “hateful.”  It is through the newspapers and TV channels that the fallout from reckless corporate de-regulation & lawlessness (Clintonian extremism) has been kept hidden from the people.  It’s every fascist’s dream/mission:  the Campaign For Ignorance—Stupid!

The Progressive Review 8/28/07
“Hillary haters.” The term is a second generation of the phrase “Clinton haters” used so successfully in the last administration to make criticism of one of the most corrupt presidents in history sound as despicable as denigrating blacks or Jews - thus adding Clinton and his wife to the category of oppressed peoples.”  For more than 200 years, people who criticized the president were known as opponents or critics. To transform them into haters is Orwellian manipulation of the first order and any reporters who use the term ought to have their press pass revoked”.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 22, 2007 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

#96333 by walt b on 8/22 at 6:55 am: “...Wow The last line of Bernstien’s article really got me. “ She’s not an ideologue.” Fantastic. She has my vote then. ..........Because I have just about had a stomach full of ideologues who want to “lead” America, or “transform” America and change America (and do our thinking for us). Put them all in a boat and sink it. (Tie dead lobbyists & political consultants around their necks first just to be sure they don"t come back up) .......Ideology is simply a political religion. It’s inflexible. It promotes slavish non-thinking. It gets people killed. It hurts a functioning democracy….”

Isn’t that the whole problem, though, ‘walt b’? Americans love non-thinking and pretence at thinking. They loved it so much that they even voted for a non-thinking president. Any kind of “its them or us” screaming and “stay the course” leadership has them lining up to salute the flag and to go off to be killed.

As much as I agree with you about consensus, look where it has taken the USA and countries with similar governments. China in the last century was the greatest example of incompetents leading a country to disaster. It was not until their leaders recanted and accepted the thinkers and the intelligentsia back that they improved and started to move forwards again.

Perhaps, since 2000, the USA has embarked on some kind of wearisome “long march”, too, which it won’t recover from for decades. At some stage, after its “great leap forward (backwards!)”, it will realise the disastrous outcome of its choices and belatedly recant sufficiently to allow the real thinkers and planners to lead instead of the schemers and manipulators.

Sorry, you need to conscript"ideologues” if you want to have a chance in the world of the level playing field of never-ending globalization.

Report this

By walt b, August 22, 2007 at 7:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow The last line of Bernstien’s article really got me. ” She’s not an ideologue.” Fantastic. She has my vote then.

Because I have just about had a stomach full of ideologues who want to “lead” America, or “transform” America and change America (and do our thinking for us). Put them all in a boat and sink it. (Tie dead lobbyists & political consultants around their necks first just to be sure they don"t come back up)

Ideology is simply a political religion. It’s inflexible. It promotes slavish non-thinking. It gets people killed. It hurts a functioning democracy.

Ours is not coincidentally a two party system. It was not painstakingly conceived to shut out the Raplh Naders and Ross Perots of History. It was carefully designed to force compromoise among differing points of view (ideologies included) to acheive what the founders “naively” described as “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Compromise is at the heart of functioning democracy while it is anethema to an ideologue.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 22, 2007 at 3:04 am Link to this comment

Hillary: “I don’t think Karl Rove’s going to endorse me….... but I find it interesting he’s so obsessed with me” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FGFeUIj-Cw&mode=user&search;=
Kinda says it for this week…....

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 21, 2007 at 7:11 am Link to this comment

#92447 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/06 at 1:02 am
(678 comments total)

Really NICE to notice that some of mine and others’ posts are being deleted by TruthdiG!!!

Report this

By Ray Burchard, August 19, 2007 at 8:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

America may be ready for a women president, just not this women. I think the reason she despises Nixon is because she sees herself and her own malleable code of ethics reflected by Nixon’s unrelenting quest for power.

If nothing else her life’s course demonstrates a willing allegiance to established immorality as a platform from which to project her own quest for political power. Now her willing allegiance sanctions the selling of a stake in American governance future poliical power to corporate America’s lobbyist in return for campaign financing.

I subscribe with the principles of “It Takes A Village” but I also believe changing America’s culture of institutional greed can’t be accomplished by the same “Village” that created this climate.

Report this

By Susan, August 15, 2007 at 12:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We The People have a right to know as much as humanly possible about all the candidates so that we can make an informed and intelligent decision about who we will vote for to be our next President.

What I find so troubling about the interview with Bernstein is not what he did say, but what he failed to say about Hillary Clinton.  For example, it doesn’t mention that Ms. Clinton worked on the Board of Directors of WAL-MART for six years.  She resigned the board when Bill Clinton won the Presidency.  He also fails to mention that when Clinton was First Lady, she and Donna Shalala, among others, wore a lapel pin that was a Phoenix bird clutching a pearl. This pin has nothing to do with being a “liberal democrat”.  It does, however, have everything to do with being an Illuminati member that endorses The New World Order.  I would like to give Ms. Clinton the benefit of the doubt and believe that there was a shortage of US Flag pins, or Bald Eagle pins in the Washington D.C. area during her tenure as First Lady, but I can’t.  Why?  Because she (and her husband Bill) are members of CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR makes a feeble attempt to look above board on its website, but the cold hearted fact is that the core mission of this private organization is to implement a one world government:

Quote:
The goals of the CFR is best described by its very own members. Bill Clinton’s Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley says: “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England… (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.”. Quigley differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed.

Surprisingly, its own members admit its goal is to subvert the democratic process. Another CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Chester Ward writes “The main purpose of the (CFR) is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into and all powerful, one world government.” Unquote

If the above revelations leads you to consider changing your vote to either Obama or Edwards you may want to think twice; these two “liberal democrats” are also members of the CFR.

http://www.wexlerreport.com/
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/hillary_lapel_pin.htm

Report this

By NewsSophisticate, August 14, 2007 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hill is nothing more than the old guard wrapped in sheep’s clothing.

America needs new leadership. For the last 28 years Yale Alumni have been running the executive branch. From 1981 to 2008 either the office of the Vice President or the President himself was a Yale grad. Reagan had George H.W. Bush for 8 years as VP (1981 - ‘89), then H.W. for 4 yrs. as President(1989 - ‘93), Bill Clinton for 8 yrs. (1993 - ‘01), and unfortunately it looks like ‘W’ will get his full 8 yrs in the Oval Office as well (2001 - ?). What is Yale teaching our political elite while they attended Yale? and why do we continue to elect them?

Please read the article
http://newssophisticate.blogspot.com/2007/07/4th-branch-membership-requirment-yale.html

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 6, 2007 at 2:02 am Link to this comment

#92402 by Bob In Pacifica on 8/05 at 6:06 pm
politics is a fixed game. The actual folks running the country pretty much make sure that no one who could disturb the status quo is going to get far….... The Clintons were owned decades ago. If Edwards and Obama aren’t they will be or they are otherwise compromised….”

Yes, Bob, that’s why Obama moved so far right so quickly.

Hillary is still another matter, though, as she is free more or less of what encumbered Bill back then. Also, she knows their game and is ahead of them….. this time.

Report this

By Bob In Pacifica, August 5, 2007 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

Having lived through the sixties, the seventies and the rest, it’s pretty clear to me that politics is a fixed game. The actual folks running the country pretty much make sure that no one who could disturb the status quo is going to get far. They did the lone nut thing past believability, they got rid of Nixon when he got too big for his britches. October Surprise. Monkey Business, plane crashes. Did you ever notice how it’s progressive Democrats whose planes crash? Everybody’s compromised. If J. Edgar Hoover could control Presidents with what he had on index cards what do you think the current spy orgs have, not only on John Q. Public, but on every politician above dogcatcher.

The Clintons were owned decades ago. If Edwards and Obama aren’t they will be or they are otherwise compromised.

Report this

By Allan Wheeler, August 3, 2007 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

In answer to SOCKS, #88427, you will not find out anything about HRC or what she truly stands for except that she wants to be president. The campaign material I get from her is that I should vote for her because “it is time to elect a woman!” I agree. It IS time to elect a woman BUT NOT HRC! She is/was/would be MORE OF THE SAME. Why do you think the media is pushing her candidacy? Because she does NOT stand for change. Just business-as-usual.

Report this

By Harry H. Snyder III, August 3, 2007 at 5:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Well, both Condi and Hillary are “the most experienced and most qualified persons” in their respective parties”

Yeap, and Herbert Hoover was the “most qualified in 1932, and Carter was the most qualified in 1980, and Bush was the most qualified in 1992 SFW they still lost.


I suppose if whoring for Tyson and Walmart makes one “qualified” to be president, Hill-the-business-shill and Obama’s wife have the edge.

“Give the people a choice between a republican and a Republican, ant they will choose the Republican every time”

Harry S. Truman

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 3, 2007 at 12:40 am Link to this comment

#91799 by Skruff on 8/02 at 4:38 pm: “...no fan of Obama either, same stripe, but he hit the front-running business shill hard…I approve. .....My first choice would be Kucinich, followed by Paul then Gravel. .....
But the gloves are off. If the Dumbocrats run Hill-the-busine$$-$hill, I’ll hold my nose and Vote Repug ....... With all the other issues against her, one more is I used to believe our Revolution REMOVED the concept of royalty… Clinton/Bush have brought us back…!”

Ha ha, “Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton” is a dynasty? It can only happen in the uSA! Whatever happened to “Camelot”? Overcome bu Bush-regulars and Bush hi-malts? Obaman surely must be one of the latter, duh!

“I’ll hold my nose and Vote Repug .......” Well, both Condi and Hillary are “the most experienced and most qualified persons” in their respective parties so you shouldn’t have much trouble there, Skruff, ha ha.

Report this

By Skruff, August 2, 2007 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

91790 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/02 at 4:02 pm

“While you are still rabbiting on about “Hill-the-business-shill”, Skruff, Obama has already proved himself to be a “Bush heavy”. The new dictatorship???”

no fan of Obama either, same stripe, but he hit the front-running business shill hard…I approve.

My first choice would be Kucinich, followed by Paul then Gravel.

But the gloves are off. If the Dumbocrats run Hill-the-busine$$-$hill, I’ll hold my nose and Vote Repug

With all the other issues against her, one more is I used to believe our Revolution REMOVED the concept of royalty… Clinton/Bush have brought us back!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 2, 2007 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment

#90833 by Skruff on 7/30 at 8:53 am: “...89178 by Emily Anne on 7/24 at 1:46 pm .....“While all you kids are busy trashing Hillary, your country has been taken over by what is tantamount to dictatorship. Wake up!” .......“but a situation and her hubby helped create….Obama said Hill is Bush lite?  I’d agree accept about the “lite” part…!”

While you are still rabbiting on about “Hill-the-business-shill”, Skruff, Obama has already proved himself to be a “Bush heavy”. The new dictatorship???

Report this

By NewsSophisticate, August 2, 2007 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why is nobody mentioning her Yale days.  For 28 uninterrupted years a yale alumni has been in the Oval Office.  What is the probabilities of that happening?
Slim.  Yet, they keep getting in the WH..odd

Hill and Joe Biden as her VP.  You heard it from me.  Yale will get in again and again.

here is my article http://newssophisticate.blogspot.com/2007/07/4th-branch-membership-requirment-yale.html

check my full blog

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, August 2, 2007 at 2:07 am Link to this comment

For your entertainment: Things I know about Hillary Clinton after 2; going on 3 drinks:

1. Hillary Clinton KNOWS who the “rats” are, I mean the really bad political rats not our usual run of the mill type.

2. She was attacked ruthlessly by the neocons as first lady.

3. She may not be a “Stephen Hawkins” but she’s definitely not an idiot.

4. She’s attracting powerful lobbyists.

5. Bill and Hillary’s daughter is not a bimbo.

6. She didn’t fade away into ex-first lady status after the whole “debacle”.

7. Michael Moore thinks she’s hot. (whatever that means)

8. She hasn’t had to open a clinic in her name.

9. To my knowledge she hasn’t had to have a building named after her. (No, I didn’t look it up.  I didn’t look up No. 8 either I just improvised)

10. Ann Coulter hates her. (makes me like Hillary all the more)

11. She has a husband named William Jefferson Clinton….whoa!!! (It outta be criminal what we do to our children)

12. She DOES NOT LIKE GW Bush. (really makes you feel bad for all those nasty things you said about her now doesn’t it?...c’mon a little camaraderie here, folks…)

It is my supreme estimation that the average voter on the street knows this too. Beware, beware this is “COMMON” knowledge.

Report this

By aileench, July 31, 2007 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies, campaign advertisement and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like to see Senator Clinton and the political leaders behind her campaign, support more international problems that affect our place in this world, such as global poverty. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

Report this

By Skruff, July 30, 2007 at 9:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

89178 by Emily Anne on 7/24 at 1:46 pm

“While all you kids are busy trashing Hillary, your country has been taken over by what is tantamount to dictatorship. Wake up!”

True enough, but a situation Hill-the-business-shill and her hubby helped create.

I find it interesting that while working for the Florida Ave Friends meeting in Washington in 1969 when Life magazine posted her picture; “That article made her well known in the student movement in the U.S.”  I never heard of her until her donut-munching mate gave the 38 minute introduction at the Dukakis convention.  Bernstein feels she spoke for me and my generation??? maybe That’s why I don’t recognize “the sixties” as it is depicted today.

Obama said Hill is Bush lite?  I’d agree accept about the “lite” part!

Report this

By Talitha, July 30, 2007 at 12:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I guess that everyone has forgotten about Mena, Ark.
Hillary has too many unanswered questions about her past for me to vote for her.

Report this

By CitizenDefender, July 29, 2007 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment

Iran-Contra and the so called war on drugs are both a farce. However, the Clintons appear to be connected.

There has been a long standing connection between the Clinton and Bush family.

Trafficking in Cocaine took place using the CIA, covert activity and the community referred to as Mena, Arkansas while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. It is the contention of the attached report that arms were also shipped out of the Mena airport.

Barry Seal was piloting some of these military aircraft under the Rich Mountain Aviation.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she will continue the Bush agenda.

She can give the Bohemian “owl” sign all she wants. She doesn’t fool me. She will continue to push the New World Order agenda.

America is in a tough situation since all the presidential candidates need very close scrutiny.

It is a shame to writethis story. The American people deserve better.

I am compelled to look to other political groups like the Green Party to find a trustworthy Presidential candidate.

I included an interesting article that connects Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

“Barry Seal - gunrunner, drug trafficker, and covert C.I.A. operative extraordinaire - is hardly a familiar name in American politics. But nine years after he was murdered in a hail of bullets by Medellin cartel hit men outside a Salvation Army shelter in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, he has come back to haunt the reputations of three American presidents.” Excerpt from THE CRIMES OF MENA
By Sally Denton and Roger Morris

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8681225708920427234&q=clinton+bush+and+the+cia+terry+reed&hl=en


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/crimes_of_mena.html

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, July 29, 2007 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment

#90640 by felicity on 7/29 at 11:16 am: “...Just finished Bernstein’s book and shocked myself when I came away with the belief that Hillary’s personality profile would quite closely match George Bush’s…..’

Also, ‘felicity’, just for fun, compare her background - and Bill’s - with Obama’s:-

“Hillary Diane Rodham,  was born on October 26, 1947 ......first child, two brothers, Hillary’s childhood in Park Ridge, Illinois, was happy and disciplined .........” 5’ 6”, blonde hair, blue eyes, Methodist - SCORPIO!  http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43  “After graduation, Hillary ...... joined the impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives ...........”  http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html  Her opponent, Barack Obama, represents Illinois.


“Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961 (Hillary’s husband, Bill, was born 19 August 1946 - both are LEOS!) to an American mother and a Kenyan father ......his parents ......divorced .......Obama lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather for part of his childhood, returning to Hawaii to finish high school….......”  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930136.html  “Obama represented the South Side of Chicago in the Illinois State Senate from 1996–2004 as a Democrat. In 2004, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, winning with 70% of the vote against the conservative black Republican   .........”  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-youth-story,1,4006113.story?coll=chi-news-hed


1984 has come and gone, but George Orwell’s prophetic nightmarish vision in 1949 of the world we were becoming is timelier than ever. “1984” is still the great modern classic of Negative Utopia — a startingly original and haunting novel that creates an imaginary world that is completely convincing, from the first sentence to the last four words. No one can deny this novel’s power, its hold on the imaginations of whole generations, or the power of its admonitions—a power that seems to grow, not lessen, with the passage of time….....

The YouTube parody video is a take–off on an Apple Computer ad based on George Orwell’s novel, “1984”.  It depicts Hillary Clinton as a “Big Sister” speaking to “zombies” .......Hillary is the inevitable nominee and everyone must fall into line behind her campaign…........!!!  I just hope that she has realized, ha ha! (Hillary “1984” - Vote different! 2008 Democratic primary - “Big Sister”!) Hillary Clinton? Oh, I’m sick of that voice already…......!!!

Report this

By felicity, July 29, 2007 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment

Just finished Bernstein’s book and shocked myself when I came away with the belief that Hillary’s personality profile would quite closely match George Bush’s.  The arrogance, the messianic ‘visions’, the intractability, the fast-and-loose handling of the truth, the ‘enemies’ behind every door, the uncanny ability to sell anything to anybody, the need to avenge past wrongs, the need to ‘get even’...

That said, Hillary doesn’t come across quite as smart as she’s been made out to be.  She’s dogged, hard working and amazingly self-disciplined, but brilliant she’s not.  That should be mentioned because her supposed super intelligence is often her saving quality for people who don’t really like her but think she’ll do the right thing because she’s ‘brilliant.’  Tain’t so.

Report this

By John Borowski, July 29, 2007 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ardee,
Although I may not agree with you at times, you have every right to writewhatever you believe. I think you are ten times smarter that some of these right- wing lackeys that infest this web page. It is hard for me to side with the right-wingers. How can they justify stealing from the average Americans baby’s milk bottle and put it in the dirty pocket of the rich. How can they justify reducing the quality of life and living standards of the average American by shipping all decent paying jobs to China and India and other low wage countries. How can you side with these right-wing lackeys when the only jobs average Americans will have is dead-end jobs taken away from immigrants? If I had a choice to only choose the mythical devil or the right-wing currently in office I would be forced to choose the mythical devil.

Report this

By ardee, July 29, 2007 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

polite no moe hey “KUCKER”

??? Am unfamiliar with neoconspeak, but then again who gives a shit what you say anyway. You may note that I was about the only one to respond to you and that will cease now.

Report this

By omop, July 29, 2007 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

ardee 9580.

polite no moe hey “KUCKER”

Report this

By ardee, July 29, 2007 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

#90527 by omop on 7/28 at 7:53 pm
(8 comments total)

Hey jackass, guess which finger Im holding up…...

Take your neocon simplistic crap and place it in a suppository, then do what you do best.

Report this

By ardee, July 29, 2007 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

#90511 by Sally A. Bridges on 7/28 at 6:42 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

I have mixed feelings about Hillary.  As one who has just recently awakened to the truth about our government and the powers that run the planet, I am suspicious of all things political.  I am afraid that Hillary is so ambitious that she may be willing to compromise ideals in order to win the presidency.

I wonder if there has ever been anyone campaigning for the highest office in the land who was not ambitious? It is not her competitiveness or her ambition that bothers me about Mrs. Clinton but her corporate ties and her being wedded to a system that no longer serves us best.

Of course that can be said about almost every single candidate out there…almost.

Report this

By omop, July 28, 2007 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment

ardee’s comments on omop’s quiz.

your logic bespeaks a certain inanity in that you claim to have been quite polite in your commentary belaboring my youth, as well as judging me a fool.

Obviously you are one of a kind in thinking that an individual can act ethically, morally and rationally in non personal matters while maintaining a personal/private separate rationality.

You know similar to your claim of being polite several sentences after adjucating me a fool. Think about it nebish.

Report this

By Sally A. Bridges, July 28, 2007 at 7:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have mixed feelings about Hillary.  As one who has just recently awakened to the truth about our government and the powers that run the planet, I am suspicious of all things political.  I am afraid that Hillary is so ambitious that she may be willing to compromise ideals in order to win the presidency.  This saddens me because I think that the American people have awakened to the fact that it’s time to hold politicians accountable.  But, I am equally afraid that those who are experienced in political life (especially those behind the scenes and drive the machine) are too clever for the rest of us.  The truth is that those once in office, or just knocking on the door to office, are too eager to continue, and become corrupted by this need to win, at high cost to their previous moral judgments.  In our country, today, ambition is more important, and valued, than the moral obligations to ourselves and our fellow creatures.  To sum it up, Hillary is not mannish, but she has seen that it is still a man’s world, and she needs to cater to those standards of behavior.  I am not sure, at this juncture, whether or not I will pick her as the lesser evil of the other political evils.  I really wish that the media didn’t dwell on the front-runners so early on.  We need to hear more from those who need the boost because they don’t have the monetary credibility (aka “money).  The persistent mantra is that a third political party can’t win.  Of course it can’t win, if everybody is made to believe it can’t win.  Hillary is no exception to the rule of ambition; I don’t think she will be any different than what we have seen.  Frankly, I’m disappointed.

Report this

By ardee, July 28, 2007 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

#90359 by omop on 7/28 at 8:08 am
(7 comments total)

Well, where to begin….I think your pseudo riddle has taught me one thing, but perhaps not that which you might have wished it to teach.

Are you very young? Are you so agendised that you cannot see beyond your brainwashing to the reality? Are you so inexperienced in life that you are unaware that many folks cheat on their spouses? That many spouses forgive and try to make the marriage work? That said spouses do not call a fool like you and pour their hearts out to them in public?

But more importantly than all of that, you seem unaware that this is July , 2007 and we have a President engaged in so very many Constitutional violations, so many incompetencies, so many outrages of all sorts that for you to dwell upon a marriage infidelity says volumes about you and absolutely nothing about Hillary Clinton.

I would add only that it took great willpower for me to be this polite, as you deserve much more contempt than kindness.

Report this

By omop, July 28, 2007 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

Hiyah girls and boys.

Here’s a quiz to tittilate or yust make you think or both.

Say you and a mate of the opposite sex are living in a new house, it could be the White House or just any house.

You have been living together for a number of years as wife/husband or vice versa.

One of you, in this quiz we will use the wife [thats good for thinking, hey?] finds out/learns that hubby has been engaged in pseudo sex with a young woman [who apparently had a thing for being under a desk while engaged in such acts] for a number of months.

Do you act as if you were not aware of what your hubby was doing while you both were in the same house?

Do you really care one way or the other? Would you stand by your man if he were, say a fireman, a rich lawyer or a rich doctor or just a regular schmuck? Or get out, if its his house or kick him out it its your house?

If you do stick with him cause he is a big kahoona and could destroy you if challenged why would you not “talk” to some one who at least is not a hypocrite in his relations with you but both of you can benefit from starting a dialogue?

Doing the above as a matter of diplomacy in no way guarantees
that the person[s] you talk to will not engage in devious acts. But so can you too.

Unless of course you are still naive as you were when hubby seemd to be always at a certain desk in a house you both lived in for a number of years.

Report this

By John Borowski, July 27, 2007 at 6:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anybody who has weekly visitations from Santa Claus or god is a looney, tooney in my book. It is tragic that psychologists and psychiatrists cannot arrive at this same conclusion.

Report this

By John Borowski, July 26, 2007 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

One of the finest books I have ever read is by Susan McDougal. The book is entitled The Woman Who Wouldn’t Talk. It describes the pressure put on her to testify falsely against the Clintons in the Whitewater scandal. When she refused, she was sent to jail. This type of book usually is not on my top ten list, but I couldn’t put the book down it was so interesting and at the same time heartbreaking. I am in awe of this woman’s courage.
Hillary Clinton wrote the other book high on my favorite list. This book tells about her life from childhood to adulthood. It relates interesting facts and some humorous tales she encounters in life. When she was a little girl, her brother had a construction project digging a hole in the back yard as a shortcut to China. Each morning he was on the job. When his mother would put a chopstick or a fortune cookiein his hole before he woke up you could see the dirt fly when he discovered the Chinese artifacts.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, July 26, 2007 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

#89467 by Jonas South on 7/25 at 12:58 pm: “...Twice we failed the world and elected a leader who came close to bringing it to ruin. This time around, we North Americans must put on our collective thinking caps and put aside presidential selling points such as ‘smart’, ‘credentialed’, ‘well educated’, and even ‘has a great spouse’, etc. This time, please let us look for integrity, experience, and vision .....In my humble estimation, Hillary fails on all three scores….”

Yes, start thinking, Jonas. Without Hillary, what have the Democrats or the uSA got? There is no-one else competent on the list and Obama is still a relative boy. Apart from that, color will go as far as vice-president but no farther. She is white and will therefore win. Sorry to be blunt.

Frankly, neither political party has the best people for the job - and that is more or less the same in all democracies. For a start, they are all the pawns of their campaign fund suppliers. Secondly, they are mostly all lawyers. Finally, the position just doesn’t pay well enough to attract the best any more.

Report this

By blafo, July 26, 2007 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

Jonas,
Thank you for your comments. I honestly had forgotten about the Hillary stock scandal. I will look the more urgently into Obama’s positions and thinking. The difference between a Hillary and a Barak is that you more or less know what your getting, GOOD and BAD, with Hillary whereas Barak is still somewhat of a mystery.
Bottom line though is this: In contrast to what Bush/Cheney have done, i.e., literally kill masses of human beings (including American Military Personnel) so that Bush’s oil pals and Cheney’s Haliburton wealth bestowers could fatten their fucking wallets, Hillary Clinton looks like the second coming of Joan of Arc. What we really should consider is how likely it is that any new Republican candidate is going to be any less attached to Rove/Cheney puppet strings than the Bush Doll.

Report this

By John Borowski, July 26, 2007 at 7:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What would happen if I declared that henceforth all the US money and the printing presses that print it would belong to me? Correct, you scored a three pointer. They would put me in jail and throw the key away. The only way I could get away with it is if the country was a colony of mine. Back in the early twentieth century, a group of wealthy British and European folks came to an island off the coast of Georgia to hunt ducks. Don’t fret animal lovers; I am sure the duck hunters didn’t know which end of their weapon shoots. In order for the indigenous people to get jobs, they replace all servants that knew them those that didn’t know them. On duck hunting breaks, they decided that all the printing presses and all of the US money would belong to them. Most of congress was at home for the holidays decorating the Christmas tree. This gave the Republican right the opportunity to ram through a bill that allowed the duck hunters the right to henceforth and forever to own our money. Let us say that that I and not the duck hunters were given the right to own our money. Within a year, I would be well on my way to having the US as my colony. General Motors would come to me and say good friend can you spare six billion smackers (Only the old timers know what a smacker is). We need the dough to purchase plastic, steel, glass, and parts for our new model coming out next year. I would tell GM the money is yours on condition that I am given half of your business. The following year I would play the halfsy game again etc. In a short period, I would own most businesses that are worth owning. This way the US would be an economic colony of mine. If the businesses or the farmers balked at my proposition, the word would get to Wall Street that they were denied a loan and their stock would drop like whale partings. At the conclusion of the duck hunting, the royals wanted to explore the design of this fiat money. One of the less perspicacious ones wanted to put the British and European kings’ and queens’ pictures on the bills. This name was vetoed down and a folksier name was put on the bills. The name they choose was Federal Reserve even though is was not Federal or Reserve.

Report this

By Jonas South, July 25, 2007 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

Twice we failed the world and elected a leader who came close to bringing it to ruin. This time around, we North Americans must put on our collective thinking caps and put aside presidential selling points such as ‘smart’, ‘credentialed’, ‘well educated’, and even ‘has a great spouse’, etc. This time, please let us look for integrity, experience, and vision.

In my humble estimation, Hillary fails on all three scores. She accepted a 10,000% ‘return on her investment’ from a man who had business pending before her then-governor husband. Her executive experience consists of shepherding a spectacular failure to introduce universal health care. Her vision is to raise money and influence from those, such as Fox News’ owner, who encouraged her to support foreign misadvantures such as Irag and Iran.

Dishonest, inexperience, and lacking the vision to pull us out of our current mess, these are the attributes of our current President. Do we want another President to follow him who fits the bill?

Report this

By blafo, July 25, 2007 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Generally, I think Hillary is an ass kicking lady who should be president. My main reservations are her anti-welfare stance (that is, going along with the dismantling of the safety net without an alternative in place that maintains in practice the Democratic ideal of our society caring for its poor and disenfranchised) and her being pro-capital punishment (which has been so thoroughly de-bunked in its application, implementation, and uselessness as a deterrent, not to mention that it casts the USA in the eyes of all other first world nations as socially backward, if not barbaric).
Notwithstanding, this country is long past due for a woman president. It’s also past due for a president of color, and Barak Obama could still win me over in the primary if he takes strong enough public positions on these and other social issues that the Democratic party used to champion but has allowed its narrowiminded conservative counterpart to effectively usurp.

Report this

By John Borowski, July 25, 2007 at 6:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is more FBI in the Commie party than there are commies. So too, there are more extreme right infesting web pages oriented towards the left than there are leftists. One way to find out who they are is to analyze what they are saying. Their tactic is always the same. They will throw poop on the targeted person’s good name and avoid the issues entirely because they know they have no argument. A few months back I wanted to see how many religious were in the Atheist web page. I suggested that all Atheists should get down on their knees and pray for a god. The fulminations from someone on that web page left my eyes and ears burning for a month much to my amusement. The right wing lackeys work twenty-four hours a day in their boiler rooms looking at Hillary Clinton with a magnifying glass. If there is anything, no matter how trivial they will use it to dump on Hillary’s good name. Since they control the British media most of what you see or hear is motivated by the game plan to make Hillary a monster. If you will notice, the major attacks are directed toward Hillary Clinton because the extreme right feels she stands the best chance of winning the election. How she can win an election is beyond me since it is not possible to win an election in a dictatorship. I was introduced to the computer when we first climbed down from the DOS tree. Because the memory and disk space was so miniscule, DOS demanded frugality. No spaces, more than eight letters long and a great deal of other constraints was insisted on. Even today, DOS dictates how you load things. With today’s modern computer if I want clipboard, the computer will inform me there is no such thing in this computer. If I use DOS language and tell the computer I want it to run clipbrd, it will give me clipboard. Because of this fact and myriad of others, I feel that if we were extravagant, a file would be as long as a freight train and take an hour to scroll down to the bottom. Some of these files have almost two hundred comments.

Report this

By ardee, July 25, 2007 at 5:24 am Link to this comment

#89295 by Cecile on 7/24 at 10:47 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

You are all a bunch of freaks!

But you, on the other hand, are a model of politeness and reasonable discourse???????

Report this

By Cecile, July 24, 2007 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You are all a bunch of freaks!

(The Democrats need to get together behind a candidate - not pick the best choices apart - this is the never-ending failing of our party - we analyze and intellectualize it to death - pick the strongest candidate, get on message (as the Republicans have done for years) and stay on message. Quit the petty quibbling - we need to get the fascists out of office!

Report this

By ardee, July 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

#89178 by Emily Anne on 7/24 at 1:46 pm
(5 comments total)

While all you kids are busy trashing Hillary, your country has been taken over by what is tantamount to dictatorship. Wake up!

This is true, but do you honestly believe Hillary Clinton is the answer to that which you have noted?

Running for office these contentious days must perforce be an acceptance of the slings and arrows one will receive. It is fairly easy to ignore the ravings of those like Hardhead, a person sans a clue, one who, if he has a political opinion, has made it very difficult to discern whether he actually thought on it or got it by allowing Rush Limbaugh to shove it up his…..well. But many democrats are questioning seriously the entire string of candidates left to them.

Report this

By Emily Anne, July 24, 2007 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment

While all you kids are busy trashing Hillary, your country has been taken over by what is tantamount to dictatorship. Wake up!

Report this

By John Borowski, July 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My dear Ardee

My paragraphs sit idly apart

From the wind, the rain, and the pain

And bolts the door against my heart

Out wailing in the rain.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, July 24, 2007 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

#88880 by sharon ash on 7/23 at 12:36 pm: “...She is intelligent.  She has the best interest of the people of the United States at heart.  She knows her way around our government.  She has as her husband, one of the best politicians on the planet.  She is a statesperson.  She will attract other intelligent people to serve in her administration…...”

Yes, Sharon, I think Hillary has been able to re-make herself sufficiently from ‘once was Bill’s wife/First Lady at Camelot’ to her own position of a valid presidential candidate. Running as “the most qualified and experienced person” is a real agenda.

There is no doubt that she is the nearest thing to “a statesperson” currently running. Sorry to say that Barack Obama is still a boy and a loudmouth who can’t yet be trusted with his finger on the button. Maybe in another decade or so but for now he is only vice-president material at best.

Its only 2007 yet but the Democrats soon have to make a move to who will actually be their presidential candidate and who will be the number 2 person of the team. there is strength in having a clearly defined team straight through from now on.

They are wasting far too much time in addressing what is really irrelevant stuff about Iraq and could be blind-side by Bush’s next move (if he still can move). How would they address Iraq being carved up by Turkey and Iran while the USA stupidly starts serious Cambodian-style bombing Pakistan?

Report this

By ardee, July 23, 2007 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment

So all you men, just sit down and shut up, thank you very much!

Oh for heaven sakes, sit down and shut up your damn self…what a reverse sexist remark. As if all critique of Mrs. Clinton had to do with her gender….Maybe an obvious fool like Hardhead there but most normal folks here no.

John,
Grow the hell up fool. You posted one run on sentence, I tried to assist you in making your statements clearer and you display the intellect of a middle schooler, and the self control as well.

So how do you two like being treated as you treat?

Report this

By hardnose, July 23, 2007 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

Ms. Ash, spoken like a feminist die hard democrat.  I have no qualms about having a female president. I am, however, vehemently against a lying, thieving, foul mouthed, conceited, two faced low life like Hil-liar-ry Clinton.  Yes, Bill Clinton was a good president, but that is as far as the Clinton family goes.

Report this

By John Borowski, July 23, 2007 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My dear Ardee, I am so sorry to displease you!

Report this

By sharon ash, July 23, 2007 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

She is intelligent.  She has the best interest of the people of the United States at heart.  She knows her way around our government.  She has as her husband, one of the best politicians on the planet.  She is a statesperson.  She will attract other intelligent people to serve in her administration.  Not everyone likes her, but she deserves everyones respect, as she has earned it. I would never vote for a woman, just to be supporting a woman, but I have great confidence in voting for this woman. But the real bottom line is that the men have got our government and the world totally fu….. up and it is high time to give a woman the chance to see if they can do better.  It would be a tall mountain to climb to do any worse!!!  So all you men, just sit down and shut up, thank you very much!

Report this

By ardee, July 23, 2007 at 5:36 am Link to this comment

ahhh hardnose uses the famed Peewee Herman defense, “Im rubber your glue”...do you also have a popcorn box with no bottom?

Report this

By hardnose, July 22, 2007 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment

ardee, it can’t be true! You must have escaped because they don’t let the criminally insane out.

Report this

By ardee, July 22, 2007 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

#88712 by hardnose on 7/22 at 3:40 pm
(31 comments total)

Hil-liar-ry is of the same cut of cloth as the traitor Jane Fonda.  IF, in fact, the devil is a woman then she, Clinton, IS the devil incarnate.

Uhh hardnose, you have entered the wrong room, group therapy is down the hall. I certainly hope you make progress with your obvious illness.

Report this

By hardnose, July 22, 2007 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

Hil-liar-ry is of the same cut of cloth as the traitor Jane Fonda.  IF, in fact, the devil is a woman then she, Clinton, IS the devil incarnate.

Report this

By Hammo, July 22, 2007 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

Hillary, and her generation, were strongly influenced by the Vietnam War.

Now, though, some people wonder if she is willing to become a “hawk” to prove herself as tough, and to get the financial and political support of people and organizations who want the U.S. to intervene militarily in the Middle East.

To many Americans, the Vietnam War and the invasion and occupation of Iraq seem very similar. To Hillary, it seems that she perceives them differently.

Perspectives on this in the article ...

“Americans felt turning points on Vietnam, Iraq in ‘70, ‘07”

PopulistAmerica.com (Populist Party of America)
July 14, 2007

http://www.populistamerica.com/americans_felt_turning_points_on_vietnam_iraq_in_70_07

Report this

By KYJurisDoctor, July 22, 2007 at 10:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary’s ... “difficult relationship to the truth”! That is hilarious.

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSp[eaks.org

Report this

By ardee, July 22, 2007 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

Defending Hillary…

Nope, not me, but I applaud the article as a mostly fair and accurate assessment.

John Borowski,
Please buy a paragraph or three, I think you might have had something important to say, but I was not going to wade through all that singe spaced eternity, sorry.

P.T.,
I do not know your age, but if you are even in your late thirties you must have gone through some significant political changes, why not Mrs. Clinton?

If elections were decided on intellect Hillary might have an even better chance at winning the thing. But her track record, like that of her hubby, is simply too wedded to the same corporate interests that are ruining this nation in the name of unbridled capitalism. I wont vote for her, or for any mainstream political hack who says nothing until the polling numbers are in, and then means little of what is said.

Report this

By Richard, July 21, 2007 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So we are the point where we scrutinize what our political candidates did 30 years ago more than their actions in the last 5 years.  If that is the case why did W get a pass on HIS checkered youth?  Hillary looks like Mother Theresa compared to our president (and most of her hypocritical and sanctimonious colleagues in the Senate- Vitter, et al). 

Hillary’s vote in 2003 authorized the use of force with the implied condition that all other means of resolving the “crisis” would be exhausted before warfare was initiated.  It’s like giving a policeman a gun and authorizing him to use it in extreme circumstances where his safety or that of others is clearly at risk.  If he uses it under less mitigating circumstances, HE is the one in trouble, not those who gave him the gun.

There is constant criticism of Hillary’s ambition. It’s perfectly acceptable to be male and have aspirations towards influence and power, but not OK for a woman?  Please. 

If the media had been as diligent 7 years ago in exposing the weaknesses and inadequacies of the current resident of the White House, we would not have lost 3600+ American dead (and tens of thousands of maimed and wounded) in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars which were desperately needed here at home for health care, education, security, and repairs to a crumbling infrastructure.

I want my president to be the smartest PERSON in the room, not just the smartest man.

Report this

By DennisD, July 21, 2007 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary has played both ends against the middle all her life. The only difference now is that she just checks the polls and where her contributions are coming from more frequently before she makes a decision.
“One of the real problems Hillary has had is a difficult relationship to the truth.” Says it all. She’s just another power mad individual with a long list of people to payback and payoff if she gets in.
That’s no real change from what we have now.

Report this

By P. T., July 21, 2007 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

Given her political zigging and zagging, one is left to wonder whether Hillary is a bit flaky or just an opportunist (like Bill).

Like most of our politicians, she seems willing to sign on to imperialist adventures until they fail.

Report this

By John Borowski, July 21, 2007 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My supposition is that we are living under a dictatorship right now, but it is still hiding in the closet. I believe that it will come out of the closet when the extreme right perpetrates still another major terror tactic. This time it will not kill thousands, it will kill tens of thousands. The reason to keep a load in the pants of the American people is they will be more amenable to relinquishing their freedoms. Ploys such as these have been pulled off on the worlds’ people numerous times in the past. The difference then and now is that in the past in the worst-case scenario only soldiers were sacrificed. Today, it is children, young, middle-aged, and old folks being killed in their own country. Although the extreme right are at genius level in cunning, their intelligence is risible. The accusation for deleterious powder in letters mailed to political leaders was attributed to the killems from the Middle East. The original mailings were sent only to liberal Democrats. In my opinion, the killems from the Middle East don’t know the difference between Liberals and right-wingers and even if they did, they would care less. (In their eyes, they are all infidels) The cost to the nation to clean up the mess in the post offices was ineffable. Flooding the subways in NY with most of the police force with machine guns, and attack dogs was also amusing. While they were down there the criminals were running wild upstairs. If there were killems around, they would only have to wait for two days to do their dirty work when the police came up for some air. Another comedy was a black box planted on a Pennsylvania highway during the pm rush hour, which only resulted in a 3-hour cold supper for the workers coming home from work. If it were planted in the am rush hour 3 trillion dollars of bills and such would not be processed because the workers would be parked on the highway. If there is a major attack in this country that kills tens of thousands the crime scene will be in the northern states were the do-good Liberals dominate. My gut feeling would be a nuke generating plant that would benefit the extreme right two ways. It would give the right the excuse to openly form a dictator ship in this country and give a black eye to dirty oil’s chief competitor. Why is this dirty business going on? My opinion is globalization can’t work in its present form. You have ships loaded to the gills with stuff from the slave labor type countries coming to the US and almost empty ships going back to China and India. This puts the Western World countries in a deep financial hole that they will never be able to rectify in order to keep the economic sky from falling down. As I see it, there are only two ways to keep this calamity from happening. One way is to upgrade the workers quality of life and living standards in China and India and other low wage countries. (That will not happen). The only other feasible way is to lower the quality of life and living standards of the Western World workers. When and if this happens, something is going to hit the fan and a country of Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson will be too weak to address it. Only a ruthless dictatorship has the capability to force the populace to heel.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, July 21, 2007 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

Go get’em, girl! You’ll get there, Hillary! Bill had Monica and Barack only has a blow-up doll but you can have the whole Goddamn world to blow up!!!


Also, quote #88427 by socks on 7/20 at 9:03 pm: “...the ideals as compared to her husbands actions as President…and I’m not talking about his affairs ....Bill signed the fast track trading agreement status for the Presidency into being. That opened the door for American idustry and jobs to fly out of the country ....Bill talked us into Globalization, and that is a disaster for working folks….’

No, ‘socks’, you’ve got it all wrong - Bill was paving the way for Hillary (the second coming). Industry and investment went to China and so Bush didn’t dare start a war with them. Now, they run the global economy from BeiJing and Shanghai - but its all US investment! That’s where your money went, ha ha!!!

Report this

By waxman, July 21, 2007 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

TO OMOP AND SOCKS….YOU COULD BE MORE CONTRITE WITH YOUR OPINIONS…......CLINTON BAD..BUSH GOOD….GOD TALKS TO BUSH, SHUNS CLINTON..SEAN HANNITY, RUSH LIMBURGER. AND MARK ‘MOUTHPIECE’ LEVINE ARE SURLY THE THREE WISEMEN., EVERYONE AGREES, O K ?

Report this

By Emily Anne, July 21, 2007 at 8:58 am Link to this comment

We need Hillary.

Report this

By johnny hempseed, July 21, 2007 at 6:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I remember Senator Clintons remarks on reform of the electoral college.In her entire career besides the Iraq vote this disturbs me most. Where is the effort to reform that she promised?
  peace

Report this
socks's avatar

By socks, July 20, 2007 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment

I would like to know about her personal ideology, the ideals as compared to her husbands actions as President…and I’m not talking about his affairs.

Bill signed the fast track trading agreement status for the Presidency into being. That opened the door for American idustry and jobs to fly out of the country.

Bill talked us into Globalization, and that is a disaster for working folks all over the world.

Bill signed away protections we had in the communications industry, so now we have a none competitive, infotainment industry parading around like it is a news service to the people. But in fact it is a propaganda machine for the financial and political elite. Truth and fact are no longer the staple of news agencies. And it seems there is no recourse to correcting the lies that fill our airwaves.

Bill signed welfare reform that took much needed aid to those stricken by poverty and handed it out willie nillie to cash bloated corporations and made no opposition to the lies about welfare queens becoming baby factories to support a luxery life style(tho there were no such women—it was a funny crap story to tell nit-wits that would believe such a thing).

No doubt, both Clintons are astoundingly brilliant, and I believe that is the foundation that they respect each other because of and upon which their marriage has lasted.

Invariably, HRC has gone aganst her better judgement to accomidate hard situations, along the way. Personally, I don’t fault her for that. Most people have to take the lemons and make lemon pie with them at times. She has not been the person in power much of her life, women do accomidate their husbands for good or bad, more often than any of us want to think about.

But what I want to know before I can support her is what the hell does she believe now. Is she the true maveric? A woman fairly bursting to make corrections that help and encourage the weak and needy, knock the socks off the arrogant stuffed shirts, and bring back an economy that breaks down monopolies, and restores the pride in an honest days work being given its due and adequate pay. Does she want to correct some of her husbands failings?

Now that would be a book worth reading. But as it stands now…...............she has given no peep of that woman living inside her skin.

Report this

By James C. Bush, July 20, 2007 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All power to the people”!

Report this

By omop, July 20, 2007 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment

HRC background and present tenure symbolises perfectly the pejorative term “apparatchik”. And as such whether Democrat or Republican and in line with much of what being a politician intimates these days the principle is still ” go with the money”.

Childless during her husband’s first term as Governor and clinging to her maiden name of Rhodam, as plain resident of Arkansas following Bills defeat Ms. HRC becomes with child and removes the maiden name and lo and behold she and husband Bill return to the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock.

Slick Willie continues his jogging interspersed with “dropping by” disparate neighborhood homes. And dropping inuendos as to how Hillary has been with more women than he has. For more tittilations read Bernstein’s book.

  Whats missing in all that is being printed about HRC is the absence of any analysise or questioning of how someone who has spent years in Illinois, Arkansas and DC and never been a resident or living in the State of New York can in a matter of months become a candidate and eventually a Senator from that state.

  As anon has stated a number of times, its not the end of the journey that matters most. Its the ways and means of how one get to the end to the end of the journey.

  As an example what is the difference, besides sex, between the way Putin came to power with how HRC is attempting to get the power?

Naively asked.

Report this

By Mudwollow, July 20, 2007 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

rod um Hillary

Report this

By Erica, July 20, 2007 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hilary has done a lot to fight for political activism in a more institutionalized setting. It would be great to see her working this in more humanitarian aspects such as global poverty. According to the Borgen Project, the United States is the largest spender ($522 ) for military uses. She could make a big difference, just diverting that money elsewhere.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook