 |
 |
||
|
|
|
 Clinton Walks That Fine Pink LinePosted on Oct 3, 2007BOSTON—Here in New England, we have an unofficial fifth season. It’s known as Foliage Season, the color-coded time of year when those not otherwise preoccupied with the Red Sox indulge in the benign spectator sport of leaf-peeping. I am not surprised that presidential politics also has its unofficial season. This is the High Risk Season, a danger zone for front-runners when the media attention is not on the inevitability of falling leaves but the possibility of falling stars. All summer the story line was Hillary Clinton’s steady-as-you-go campaign. After one debate or another, she was described as “commanding,” “knowledgeable,” “experienced.” Now even Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are pleading their case for the Republican nomination on the claim that they alone can beat Hillary. This image of a candidate who’s passed the presidential readiness test wooed more voters to her side. She’s now leading the Democratic field by 33 points. But this hasn’t endeared her to political reporters. The one reliable media bias, we know, is not pro-liberal or pro-conservative, pro-Democrat or pro-Republican. It is pro-knockdown-drag-out campaign. Lights, camera, action, please. Sweetheart, get me rewrite, or at least something to write about. Thus we now enter the season when the journalistic pack, including those who rail against pack journalism, howls in anxiety at the prospect of a front-runner loping to the finish line. The colors are changing and the headlines are, too. They now read: “Can Clinton Be Stopped?” “Can Clinton’s ‘Inevitability’ Be Erased?” “How to Stop Hillary.” And “Clinton Leads Now, but Race Isn’t Over.” Advertisement We are heirs and heiresses to a century of speculation on whether Americans would ever vote for a woman. I have a Wonder Woman poster from 1943 imagining the first woman president ... 1,000 years in the future. When Hillary Clinton first entered the race, the story line had a pink border. Those same headlines asked and asked and asked: “Is the Country Ready for a Woman President?” The buzz about the former first lady was about being the first woman. It’s pretty stunning that in less than a year, the question has morphed from whether a woman is “electable” to whether she’s “stoppable.” It’s even more remarkable that Hillary is now seen less as the woman candidate than the establishment candidate. I began noticing the de-gendering—forgive the word—of Hillary Clinton last March. About then, the right wing’s favorite “radical feminist socialist” was becoming the left wing’s “politics as usual.” Now, as the High Risk Season opens, she’s framed less for making history than for perpetuating a dynasty. After a millennium as political outsiders, how is it possible that the serious female contender is cast—and even castigated—as the insider? As Hillary would say, “Hello?” Remember that Clinton has not escaped the pink microscope. Who can forget the V-neck that launched a thousand treatises on the meaning of cleavage? Now cleavage coverage has been followed by cackle coverage, those endless deconstructions of her laugh. The stakes and styles are still different for women. The late Elizabeth Janeway once predicted that the first woman president would be a Republican. She’d defuse her sex by conservatism. Hillary is no Republican, nor is she Margaret Thatcher. But women walk a fine line to erase a gender line. So this is where Clinton is ... walking that line. While Barack Obama gets praise for making history, she gets points for experience. When John Edwards outflanks her on the left, this “polarizing figure” settles deeper into the comforting center. It’s the best place for a woman in the general election. But at the same time the media are clamoring for action—Can Hillary Be Stopped?—many Democratic primary voters are just plain clamoring. So there’s some danger in typecasting the first woman as the old guard. This is an emblem of our era. We’ve gone straight from pre-feminism to post-feminism without stopping along the way to experience the real thing. A woman in politics was once automatically seen as a change agent, but too much of an outsider to entrust with the Oval Office. We’ve still never had a woman president. But now, the case against Hillary is that she’s too much of an insider? Hillary Clinton: politics as usual. Or maybe life as usual. First you struggle to get into the establishment and then you get dismissed as too establishment. There’s got to be a touch of irony in this seasonal affective disorder. If, that is, any woman still dares to cackle. Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at)globe.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Afghanistan’s Sham Army
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
By www.nazilieskill.us, October 12, 2007 at 9:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Another point. The greatest weakness of the left lies in its endless moralizing and gullibility. Our citizenship was chiseled away a long time ago, if we ever really had any. The human race is divided into crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards. It has always been so, so long as the overwhelming majority of the population has no smarts. When everything is jacked from the media to the banks, there is nothing else available but taking to the streets - which I have been doing for over four years now. Meanwhile the liberals have kept themselves academically informed and indignant about the idiocy of the American public. BUT THEY HAVE DONE PRACTICALLY NOTHING EXCEPT PETITION THE CROOKS AND PLAY PARTY POLITICS - WHEN EVERYTHING IS JACKED. Sometimes you have to be wildly impractical to get anything done at all. Almost everyone in town knows about me (thanks to cell phones) and a lot of afflicted people are happy to know they are not alone.
Report thisBy John Hanks, October 12, 2007 at 9:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The whole election process exists to collect money and give it to the media, which makes the first and last picks through spin and racketeering. Gore lost because he was sandbagged by the press. The Republicans got away with almost everything for years because the press covered for them. The “two” party system is just a pandering wet blanket on politics. The Funda-nazis were an internal third party, just like the neo-cons were an internal third party. In fact, we are stuck with factions - not parties. I will probably vote for Hillary because she will be the only one left standing after this long charade is over. And, she will support whatever military adventure Israel wants.
Report thisBy cann4ing, October 11, 2007 at 11:23 pm #
So let me get this straight, John Hanks. Because the media “froze out” Kucinich and tells you the contest is between Giuliani and Hillary, you are going to vote for Hillary? What, are you so plugged into the propaganda network that you have to be told by the media who to vote for?
Hello! This is the primary. You are a citizen. It is your civic responsibility to learn where each candidate stands on issues that truly matter to you. Regardless of what the media tells you, the only poll that counts is the one in which you cast your vote. Citizenship mandates that “you” decide who you should vote for. If you permit the media to make the choice for you, if you allow the media to tell you that you must chose candidate A or B and ignore C, D, E & F, you abandon citizenship and become nothing more than a consumer.
Why, if, as you say, “Hillary will keep us in a Zionist war forever,” would you vote for that woman when you have a candidate like Kucinich who would restore sanity?
I’m sorry John. While I have always found your posts on Truthdig to be sincere, this one makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever—except to reflect the confused thinking which helps to explain why polls show that so many Americans appear ready to permit the media to force another general election Hobson’s choice between two lesser evils rather than a true choice that allows the vast majority of the electorate—the middle and working classes—to vote on a candidate (Kucinich) who truly represents their interests.
Report thisBy John Hanks, October 10, 2007 at 11:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The media decides who we get to vote for, after they have accepted their tribute. The media is the real primary process and I think they have picked Hillary versus Giulliani. The media has frozen Kuccinich and Edwards out. So, I will probably end up voting for Hillary knowing she will be almost as crooked as Giulianni and she will keep us in the Zionist war forever.
It is far more important to afflict the comfortable with roadside signs so people can see and think about all the scams. This country started without an election and it can start over again the same way.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 10, 2007 at 7:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
105918 by John Hanks on 10/09 at 10:20 pm
“We must identify them and then drive them out, just like the Funda-Nazis did with the few moderate Republicans who were left.
I will probably end up voting for Ms. Clinton as a form of damage control”
Usually I find that what you say makes sense… I don’t always agree, but making sense IS a strong point.
Taking more of the same medicine, even if it has a different label will produce the same results ‘
Hill the business shill and GWB are two sides of the same coin, and we will never be rid of them if we continue to by the line that one, or the other is “damage control.
Report thisBy rage, October 10, 2007 at 3:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“I will probably end up voting for Ms. Clinton as a form of damage control, but I have no doubt that she will pursue the same course as Bush.” by John Hanks on 10/09 at 10:20 pm
That’s a cop-out. Besides, there is an answer to Shillary.
One doesn’t control a flood by ladling off glasses of water at a time. You shut down the source. Voting for Shillary is a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable military industrial corporate takeover of America a spoonful at a time. Voting for Kucinich will mark our shutting down the status quo to implement some sweeping changes.
Kucinich 2008! It ain’t that hard, bruh!
Report thisBy John Hanks, October 10, 2007 at 2:20 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Funda-Nazis were effective in turning the Republican party, without forming a “Christian” party. Liberals and progressives must organize themselves within the Democratic party so that they can’t be taken for granted.
I’m afraid that we are going to be stuck with the filthy Democratic enablers again. We must identify them and then drive them out, just like the Funda-Nazis did with the few moderate Republicans who were left.
I will probably end up voting for Ms. Clinton as a form of damage control, but I have no doubt that she will pursue the same course as Bush.
Report thisBy cann4ing, October 10, 2007 at 12:39 am #
CY, a really good book demonstrating how the Clintons betrayed American labor by joining with Reagan/Bush in ramming NAFTA & the WTO down our throats is Jeff Faux, “The Global Class War.”
Report thisBy cann4ing, October 9, 2007 at 8:36 pm #
GB, the points you make are all solid. Unfortunately, they have about a much chance of registering with Doug Chalmers as they would with a turnip.
I would direct your attention to comment #105184 by reclusiveprogressive: “This debate between Mr. Canning and Mr. Chalmers is hillarious. Mr. Canning articulates very specific, legitimate points about what sets Kucinich apart from the pack of monotone corporate hyenas and what makes Hill the Number One Shill such an awful choice, and Mr. Chalmers responds with incoherent generalizations and non sequitors. It’s like watching a chimpanzee trying to shout down the zoologist.”
Unfortunately, given the nature of the American propaganda network, aka, the corporate media and the fact that the majority of Americans rely upon that media as their primary source of information, it is difficult for zoologists to be heard above the din of the chimps’ noise machines.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 9, 2007 at 4:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Doug says: “Hillary has at least been open-minded enough to change with the times”
Change from what to what?
From a Walmart board member to a India Caucus co-chair, and an H1-b visa advocate?
You will have to explain how this “change” effects me as a working man.
Report thisBy GB, October 9, 2007 at 3:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The question isn’t are we ready for a woman president more it is a question of are we going to continue to accept a president in ‘08 who will continue the rise of corporate rule, destruction of labor rights and fair trade, loss of bill of rights and privacy, 4 more years of human life loss and US treasury waste in “I wreck”, private militias, and the destruction of disent and real truthful debate?
Report thisI’m sorry, but Hillary is totally bought and sold by the military industrial complex who run mainstream media and other high floating corporate entities.
Corporations know that Americans are getting sick of Bush and his Republican sycophants in Congress so they are pushing the Democratic candidate that will continue their agenda and telling you that Clinton is the front runner. If you beleive the corporate media, you can only blame yourself 4 years from now for falling for this.
By Douglas Chalmers, October 9, 2007 at 2:41 pm #
105776 by Conservative Yankee on 10/09 at 8:07 am: “...Need more? I’ve got Gygabites of this stuff….”
No doubt, CY. As it is, you’re living in the past. Hillary has at least been open-minded enough to change with the times and to improve, progress and move on!
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 9, 2007 at 12:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Don’t take my word. see for yourself… If you educate yourselves about Clintonian hypocrisy, you probably will find another “favorite” candidate.
Hill-the-shill on the India Caucus:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf
Hill-the-shill on Walmart’s board of Directors
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html
Hill-the-shill on H-1b Visas:
http://www.zazona.com/NewsArchive/2007-07-08 Clinton reaffirms support for expanded H-1B programs.htm
Hill-The-hypocritical-shill on Health care “reform”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-the-hos_b_24871.html
Need more? I’ve got Gygabites of this stuff.
Report thisBy Myronh, October 9, 2007 at 10:59 am #
Rage - Please provide some of your sources of information that provide proof of Hillary’s evil intent. I have been impressed with her intelligence and ability to speak fluently, all of which is in stark contrast to CWB. I may have been fooled by her apparent abilities. Any credible information dicrediting my perception of her will be helpful.
Report thisBy rage, October 8, 2007 at 11:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Too bad about the middle class, eh. Old universities like Harvard talk superficially about Veritas - Truth - but do little to support it in fact. Truth is the essential core value which has vanished from this land and its a winner-takes-all game currently being won by the good ol boys behind the scenes. They take their holidays in other countries and they have their mansions. Frankly, my dear, they dont give a damn!!!” by Douglas Chalmers on 10/06 at 12:47 pm
So, in your zeal to see some revolting Pink Wave reach its sinister zenith, you’d get behind Shillary who represents this same absence of veritas, huh? Frankly, Hillary doesn’t give any more of a damn than these good ‘ol boys. She’s as bought and bossed as the elitist good ol’ boys she claims to deplore. She’s another presumptuously entitled self-proclaimed winner who has arrogantly dared to take it all, whether she has earned it, deserves it, or not. She wants it! For her, that’s all that matters.
That Shillary whipped Dame Edna Guilliani in some half-brained Disney Channel So Raven Simone poll does not automatically translate into her winning her party’s nomination. She’s going to have to win in the real Primary Elections against real Democratic competitors who are all more qualified than this rarely tested pricey PR product in whose favor a very calculating covert popularity blitz has been pretty successfully deployed. Let’s be honest here, Hillary the Democratic Candidate for President, who is running so well on the Pink End of the Democratic Ticket, is largely a combined PR-Infotainment statistical generation poorly contrived from wagging a political dog. She’s no more the next President of the United States of real America than Chris Rock or Robin Williams.
The Primary Election results will tell the real story. All the deceit from wagging the political dog and statistically manipulating polled data resultant from misleading questions is the smoke and mirrors of a distracting ruse. In the end, the unemployed union members, folks working two plus jobs to reach the poverty line, people who have lost their jobs to Hillary’s effort to keep H1B and free trade alive, folks made homeless by these predatory mortgage brokers, parents of sick children with no health care, families of military personnel in Iraq fighting the ill-conceived war she supported, and every progressive one else who has come to realize just how little of a damn Shillary actually gives will determine her fate. The real deciders are the ravished middle class about whose plight you have expressed such mocking empathy. The majority of that demographic don’t want Shillary. They rightly neither respect nor trust her.
Kucinich in 2008! For Veritas!
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, October 7, 2007 at 5:20 pm #
#105234 by John Hanks on 10/06 at 4:05 pm: “...For what it’s worth, Bush feels free to advise Hillary on political and foreign policy matters. They both represent Israel and America’s Zionist interests….”
It actually indicates that the Neocons are no longer in control and everyone else has accepted that there will be a Democrats president and that she will be a woman. You guys have simply misinterpreted what has already been a shift in power to yours and everybody’s benefit as far as getting back on the road to progress is concerned:-
“...Gates is to appoint John Hamre, a former official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, to chair the Defense Policy Board once led by Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative advocate of the invasion of Iraq. The board’s job will be to prepare for the transition to a new administration in 2008, according to a Pentagon spokesman…...
Hamre, who was Bill Clinton’s deputy defence secretary in the 1990s, has been highly critical of the conduct of the war on terror. In The Washington Post last year he wrote: “The policies that led to Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, secret renditions and warrantless wiretaps have undermined America’s towering moral authority….”
Report thisBy don knutsen, October 7, 2007 at 1:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
If she is really that far ahead in the polls, I’m sorry if I suffer no small amount of scepticism when it comes to the media statements, then it points out something else..that apparently the same voters who want this war to end, last I heard a majority of democrats, are letting the media once again dictate to them that this candidate…the most hawkish of the bunch so far on the dem. side, who appears to be on the wrong side regarding a potential military conflict with Iran..is the one they would vote for ? The only reason the better candidates aren’t getting attention is the positioning of corp. money / media into Hillary’s basket , upfront lobbying , more of the same. These same folks / corp.s that have been in charge in the background for alot longer then we’d like to admit know that Hillary like her husband before will be much more pliable to their needs then say a Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, or even Edwards would be. They are smart enough to realize that bush/cheny has left such a stench over the republican party for most..even the religous right is considering a 3rd party possibility..The only reason I could vote for HIllary is the obvious ,that leaving the GOP in the white house, as the religous bone-headed & corrupt foundation it has become, would be a continuation of our nation’s decline both morally in the eyes of the world and economically, which has been accelerated by the current criminals occupying the white house.
Report thisBy cyclops, October 7, 2007 at 7:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Money and talks and every thing else walks. If your financial status is adequate you can buy a share in the american dream. You can even become president of the american states although it has always been a token position. The true presidents of this country are the families that control the wealth. So it makes no difference outside of history who becomes president because the world, country and local bullshit and control will continue. I think those of no influencial wealth know this.
Report thisBy John Hanks, October 6, 2007 at 8:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
For what it’s worth, Bush feels free to advise Hillary on political and foreign policy matters. They both represent Israel and America’s Zionist interests.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 6, 2007 at 7:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
105211 by Douglas Chalmers on 10/06 at 12:47 pm
“The rust-belt came into being because of a lack of forward planning or investment.”
You are correct about one thing, and one thing only…. You and Hill-the-business-shill India caucus member, advocate of unlimited H-1b visas, and former Walmart board member, are soul mates, and you should vote for her.
Anyone who can sum up the problems which caused the “rust belt” (a term coined by Newt Gingrich) in one sentence should be writing speeches for the business shill!
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, October 6, 2007 at 4:47 pm #
#105194 by Conservative Yankee on 10/06 at 10:59 am: “...Answer me this; What do we have in return for what we gave up? ......and what did we get in return?
A military build up in China
A loss of our traditional trading partners
A vastly diminished manufacturing sector
and a rapidly vanishing “middle-class….”
Ha ha, poor CY. You didn’t “give up” anything, you “lost it”, sucker. The only ace left is 300 million population (mouthes to feed) and a still fairly strong economy.
But, there is no “military build up in China” - its a fantasy to scare you just like the illusory “war on terror”. They have their problems too and one of them is 1.3 billion mouthes to feed so “employment” in the army is as good an excuse there as in the US. The other one, in case you haven’t noticed, is that they have borders with some 14 neighboring countries including Russia and India as well as Japan (the old enemy) and Taiwan (the renegade province) off the coast.
There is no such thing as “traditional trading partners” if you can’t keep up, CY. The rust-belt came into being because of a lack of forward planning or investment. The investors and manufacturers eventually voted with their feet and went to Asia (mainly China). Now you have clothes you can afford and more economical vehicles on the roads. But you still want to complain.
When the $US falls to some more survivable level, investment will slowly return to the US and new factories will be built and manufacturing will grow again. By then, the USA will have learned something fundamental about a level playing field and the effects of globalization. Funding a large military around the world will have to come to an end along wihth the attached egotism.
Too bad about the middle class, eh. Old universities like Harvard talk superficially about “Veritas” - Truth - but do little to support it in fact. Truth is the essential core value which has vanished from this land and its a winner-takes-all game currently being won by the good ol’ boys behind the scenes. They take their holidays in other countries and they have their mansions. Frankly, my dear, they don’t give a damn!!!
That they will mostly end up like old civil war Southern mansions and estates “gone with the wind” is another thing. Change is coming. They cannot see this - or don’t want to. Its up to ordinary people now. The “pink wave” is the only new movement going anywhere positive. So far, you haven’t come up with anything any better in the least, uhh.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 6, 2007 at 2:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
105172 by Douglas Chalmers on 10/06 at 8:52 am
“The face of the economic and financial world is changing. Youd better run to catch up.”
You sound like my junior high school football coach.
There are other options, and as the country with 3 of the four aces, I’m not sure we need “globalization.
The massive shift in wealth from US to them has been a product of the Bush/Clinton/Bush white house. We have given our fourth ace away, and what did we get in return?
A military build up in China
A loss of our traditional trading partners
A vastly diminished manufacturing sector
and a rapidly vanishing “middle-class.”
One more time in my life I’d like to park my brand new fully American made Chrysler in front of a Worcester dining car restaurant where the waitress says “Hi hon, what’ll you have?” and I can talk to the other patrons in English… A US made Seeburg Jukebox would be nice, and maybe some Hank Williams or Patty Page…. and a place to dance.
Answer me this; What do we have in return for what we gave up?
Report thisBy cann4ing, October 6, 2007 at 2:15 pm #
Thanks reclusiveprogressive. I can’t ever remember receiving a compliment that was quite so hillarious.
Report thisBy reclusiveprogressive, October 6, 2007 at 2:07 pm #
This debate between Mr. Canning and Mr. Chalmers is hilarious. Mr. Canning articulates very specific, legitimate points about what sets Kucinich apart from the pack of monotone corporate hyenas and what makes Hill the Number One Shill such an awful choice, and Mr. Chalmers responds with incoherent generalizations and non sequiturs. It’s like watching a chimpanzee trying to shout down the zoologist.
Report thisBy cann4ing, October 6, 2007 at 1:44 pm #
Doug, a repeal of NAFTA & the WTO, a return to ecologically responsible, bilateral trade agreements that respect worker’s rights, an end to the war in Iraq, drastic cut backs in the tribute we pay to the military-industrial complex and war profiteers like Halliburton and Blackwater, single-payer health care, a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, meaningful media reform which reverses the damage done by the give-away of the public airwaves to corporate America by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and which is a prerequisite to meaningful campaign finance reform would all be “on-the-table” in a Kucinich presidency. None of these will be “on-the-table” during a Clinton presidency.
You don’t believe these things are feasible because you have swallowed the line spoon fed to you by the propaganda network, aka corporate media. So long as Americans, like yourself, vote for someone based solely on whom the media tells you “can” win as opposed to where candidates stand on substantive issues that truly matter, we will continue to experience what Noam Chomsky aptly refers to as a “democracy deficit”—the gap between where the vast majority of voters stand on those issues and the policies of their so-called “representatives” in government. Until we close that deficit, the bad government we get will be the bad government we deserve.
Several weeks ago, I reviewed the results of an intriguing blind Democratic poll that was posted on the Kucinich web site. The poll was conducted so that candidate positions were set forth, but their names were withheld. One candidate received a whopping 58%—Dennis Kucinich. Obama was a distant second. There is your “democracy deficit.”
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, October 6, 2007 at 12:52 pm #
#105168 by Ernest Canning on 10/06 at 8:18 am: “...Chalmers ignores Mr. Kucinich’s call for a repeal of NAFTA & the WTO and the fact that Mr. Kucinich calls for a single-payer healthcare system…”
Believe it or not, Ernesto, but there is a “pink highway” out there already. Its not about who is who’s ‘her’ but what you will get in the end. Lobbying and campaign funding by corporationbs still hasn’t gone a way and there is much to deal with - when a government that is brave enough is eventually (if ever) elected.
As much as I agree about the problems and issues of the US health care system, repeal of or withdrawing from NAFTA & the WTO is a fantasy. When the $US falls to where it belongs, the “bottom-feeders” will be right there along with it. The US must soon - very soon - face up to its costs of foreign wars and foreign debt.
It will be breaking for most (not the GOP’s good ol’ boys, uh) and you will find out what the reasons were that made the “big wheel” era gave way to the “new deal” in the 1930’s. We have had “greed is good” and the “war on terror” but now everyone must pay the piper for those tunes. There is still the impact of global warming and climate change to be borne as well.
The result is that the USA may well be stuck with a common market with Canda, Mexico and the rest all the way to Panama. Where do you think the uS gets its cheap labor from now anyway? The WTO and the IMF will eventually be surpassed by the SCO (Shanghai group) so what the hell, eh. The face of the economic and financial world is changing. You’d better run to catch up.
Report thisBy cann4ing, October 6, 2007 at 12:18 pm #
Doug Chalmers’ lastest post typifies the empty platitude driven support for the Clintons. She’s her “own person”—whatever in the Hell that means.
Mr. Chalmers ignores the fact that it was the Clintons who betrayed American labor by joining with Reagan/Bush in ramming NAFTA & the WTO through on the fast track—devices that permitted America’s economic elite to then betray the entire nation by outsourcing our manufacturing base in an endless search for the $2/day laborer while the remnants of American labor are increasingly Wal-Mart-ized. He ignores the fact that Hillary is a former member of the Wal-Mart Board of Directors; that, thanks to NAFTA & the WTO, Wal-Mart, which did not have a single store outside the US in 1991, became the world’s largest corporation and a threat to middle-class aspirations of workers everywhere. He ignores the fact that Hillary is the second largest recipient of health care insurance lobby dollars—second only to George W. Bush and that her so-called “universal coverage” plan is but a subsidy scheme for the healthcare insurance industry. He ignores Hillary’s vote to authorize Bush to take us to war in Iraq, her statement that if she is elected, combat forces will still be in Iraq in 2013 and that she recently voted for Kyle-Lieberman—a vote that opens the door to an attack on Iran.
Mr. Chalmers also ignores the substantive positions of Dennis Kucinich—his detailed plan for ending the war in Iraq, withdrawing all troops and contractors, replacing them with international, Arabic-speaking peacekeepers under the aegis of the UN, returning Iraq’s economy and its oil to its rightful owners—the Iraqi people. Chalmers ignores Mr. Kucinich’s call for a repeal of NAFTA & the WTO and the fact that Mr. Kucinich calls for a single-payer healthcare system which eliminates for-profit insurers and HMOs which are responsible for 31% of the healthcare costs in this country, regulation of the out-of-control pharmaceutical industry which charges Americans four times what it charges Canadians for the same prescription medications.
Rather than come up with a cogent argument as to how a vote for Hillary will better serve our interests than a vote for Kucinich, Mr. Chalmers tells us that what he really holds against the Ohio Congressman is that Mr. Kucinich was “bagging” on Hillary, which he suggests caused his “credentials to slip.”
Tell me, Mr. Chalmers, would Mr. Kucinich’s “credentials” have risen if he chose to ignore the fact that Hillary represents the ruling elite? Would you have prefered a Dennis Kucinich if he were prepared to betray American labor, just like your heroes, the Clintons? How does comparing where these candidates stand on issues that truly matter make one a “cannabalistic bottom feeder?”
Report thisBy rage, October 6, 2007 at 12:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Im sorry to disappoint the Kucinich fans but one little ol shark in amongst all those crocodiles and other cannibalistic bottom-feeders is not going to last. You are allowing your own NAIVETY to lead you by the nose into a blind trap.”
by Douglas Chalmers on 10/06 at 4:55 am
What we’re doing is not allowing cowards like you, frightened by the odds of the fight, to force feed voters some jackass wearing an ill-fitting elephant skin. We are well aware of the craven cannibalistic bottom feeders, snakes, locusts, and every other bane of the political universe. We’re also well acquainted with symbiotic scavengers. Yes, those lowly blood suckers of the circle of political life naturally suited to be at the bottom of the food chain by virtue of their cynical codependency on the mutant corporate industrial predators on whom these leaches symbiotically prey to simply exist. Our having to worry about where this elitist military industrial corporate symbiosis is going to finally take the Nation is more the sinister blind trap. We are fairly familiar with the ways of the shark, but not all the consequences of elitist symbiosis have been documented yet. The few results in have not brightened our future. Think of any trade policy acronym that ends with -AFTA, and all the corporate sponsored bills conceived to attempt to privatize the next breath we take. We would rather elect a shark with a double row of sharp teeth than some suspiciously nondescript symbiotic chameleon who desperately remakes herself regularly using propagandist infotainment embellishments because she has no relevant political definitions beyond a mediocre Senate tenure and the renown for being conveniently married to a former President.
Kucinich in 2008!
A Shark with Teeth and a Predatory Record for Seeking Impeachment!
An Active Independent with the Insightful Intelligence and Needful Courage to NOT be Bamboozled by the Chimperor into Supporting the ILLEGAL UNNECESSARY INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF A SOVEREIGN NATION THAT WAS NO THREAT TO US!
KUCINICH 2008!
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 6, 2007 at 10:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Like the Mike Dukakis debacle, Hill-the-business-shill’s negatives are softened by unschooled, friendly Democrat rivals.
Unfortunately for all of us, right and left, the same is true for the Republican front runner.
AND their begatives…both of them… are astronomical.
When asked “would another candidate (unnamed) be preferable, 67% of independents said “Yes” against Clinton, and 69% against Gulliani.
One GREAT thing about this election….there’ll be buckets of blood…..after the primaries!
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, October 6, 2007 at 8:55 am #
#105063 by William Ries on 10/05 at 6:55 pm: “... This woman befriends the rich, the elitist corporate rats, lining their deep pockets exporting jobs while the working class struggles and desintegrates. So quit feeding the media frenzy with bullcrap editorials about “the first woman” .....America needs Dennis K., a shark with teeth….”
I’m sorry to disappoint the Kucinich fans but one little ol’shark in amongst all those corcodiles and other cannabalistic bottom-feeders is not going to last. You are allowing your own NAIVETY to lead you by the nose into a blind trap.
In fact, ever since Kucinich started personally bagging Hillary - on a Truthdig interview! a few months ago - his credentials have started to slip.
Niether is criticizing Bill Clinton any kind of genuine complaint against Hillary. She has more to complain of about him than any of us. After all, she had to wear the scandal of Bill fucking Monica under the dining room table.
No, Hillary has re-made herself as her own person and has dedicated herself to her career as a presidential candidate. And, she has had some political experience of her own over the past several years to justify that.
What went before gave her the opportunity of a front-row seat view of the corrupt world of political patronage and cronyism. She knows where not to put her foot when manouvering . At least, you can appreciate that instead of blindly shouting your half-thought-through opinions, all of you.
Report thisBy cann4ing, October 6, 2007 at 12:53 am #
Barbara D, if you go to the Kucinich web site, I am sure they can get you that bumper sticker.
Report thisBy William Ries, October 5, 2007 at 10:55 pm #
Alas, Ellen, the real America despises Hillary. This woman befriends the rich, the elitist corporate rats, lining their deep pockets exporting jobs while the working class struggles and desintegrates. So quit feeding the media frenzy with bullcrap editorials about “the first woman”.
America needs Dennis K., a shark with teeth.
Report thisBy rage, October 5, 2007 at 6:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“When Hillary Clinton first entered the race, the story line had a pink border. Those same headlines asked and asked and asked: Is the Country Ready for a Woman President? The buzz about the former first lady was about being the first woman.”
America is more than ready for a woman President. America just doesn’t want this woman to the first woman President. Ditto, Condi. America doesn’t want either of these women.
Before the Dems began the practice of repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot, America was pretty worked up about Nancy Pelosi’s chances. But, then she took impeachment off the table to quiet that down.
Back in the 80s when Geraldine Ferraro ran with Mondale with her slip hanging, we were even excited about a Veep with a showing slip. More folks were probably excited about Gerri for Veep than Mondale for President.
I wish Ann Richards, former Democratic Governor from Texas, had lived longer and considered running. Or Representative Barbara Lee. Or even Olympia Snow.
I grew up when Shirley Chilsolm ran when America really wasn’t into anyone but curmudgeonly old white Republican men winning, granting us Nixon. When compared to Shirley, Shillary pales miserably. Shirley’s record on human and civil rights alone makes most of these candidates’ resume appear sorely lacking. It makes me wonder all the more out loud what Hillary has really contributed to make us better. She’s done a lot of resume building, but what has Hillary really done? Her experience of being first lady of a state, then the nation, before six mediocre years in the Senate for one of the easiest States to rep, thanks to very liberal residency laws, is all the political experience that she boasts. And, that’s riddled with crap that’s about to come back to bite her, like Whitewater and supporting the Iraq occupation.
Most of her ardent supporters are so because of name recognition. Were she just Hillary Rodham from her native congressional district in Illinois, she’d have single digit poll numbers. Supporters presume that they’ll get from her what they enjoyed with Bill. One buddy of mine who supports her figures it’s Big Dog’s way back to the Oval Office. The truth is the guy can’t be re-elected. And, Hillary is the vaguely defined other Clinton who really hasn’t developed much of a platform while tethered at the purse strings to folks like News Corp and Blackwater.
“Weve gone straight from pre-feminism to post-feminism without stopping along the way to experience the real thing.”
Whatever.
I would never use America’s scepticism for Hillary Rodham Clinton as evidence of our missing out on feminism. There are still women in contemporary politics who will eventually successfully make it to the Presidency. So, we’re definitely experiencing real feminism. However, no culture shifts from idiocy to brillance over night. I would contend that our current strides are clearly indicative of America’s feminist growth from infancy to the next level of confidence where culturally we’re acknowledging that women are equally competent to lead the nation. America is taking her time to progress potively in a forward motion patiently and intelligently. Eight years of Chimperor McFlightsuit has taught us a lot.
Report thisBy Barbara D., October 5, 2007 at 5:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Dennis Kucinich is MY candidate, & always will be but I have been unable to wring a bumper sticker supporting him from my local Dem Headquarters…the stickers from the last time he ran are still on my ‘73 Volvo, which I am selling.
So after much hand-wringing I put a Barack sticker on the bumper of my replacement car. I like him, I really do, & will vote for him in a heartbeat (if D.K. isn’t available)...Someone in the neighborhood had put the B.Obama sticker inside my car so I finally got it on my bumper. I also rather like Hillary, but decided Obama is the one for me. ( D.K. would be one hellofa President, in my opinion. He’s the only one that makes absolute sense to me! But alas, the press gives him NO coverage…he’s too tiny or something!)
Report thisBy NYT 9237723, October 5, 2007 at 5:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The only people who are talking sense are Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Kucinich. The US won’t be able to afford 4 or 8 more years of either Hilary or Rudy. We effectively bankrupt. Our currency is tanking in the world market, and we’re biggest debtor nation in the world.
The US has been on a war footing ever since the end of WWII. Until the US truly demobilizes, and puts its tax money into physical infrastructure and education, we’re heading for a fall.
Eisenhower was right. The military-industrial complex is a cancer on this country. Until it’s dismantled, congress will continue to give presidents the right to fight economically- (read oil-) based wars and to kill thousands of Americans and “enemy” troops and non-coms.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 5, 2007 at 2:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
104905 by Douglas Chalmers on 10/05 at 7:49 am
“The trouble is that most of you guys are SEXIST!!! You dont appreciate what you have with Hillary Clinton.”
What we have? Boy that’s a good one!
Had the privilege of voting for Margaret Chase Smith when she was the first and only woman in the Senate.
Vote for Olympia Snow when she runs. and will support Maine’s junior female Senator Susan Collins this fall.
All these female senators (from Maine, a blue state) are Republican.
I’ve no problem voting for a woman… Is Hill-the-business-shill really a woman, or did the Democrats whip her up in a high-school auto shop.
Report thisBy www.nazilieskill.us, October 5, 2007 at 12:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am not a sexist or a racist. I hate everybody, especially when they run in packs. The human race is made up of nothing but crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards.
Report thisBy Louise, October 5, 2007 at 12:12 pm #
“As Hillary Runs for the White House, Consider Bill’s Refusal to Explore Bush I Scandals”
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
“Would President Hillary Clinton sweep Bush White House scandals under the rug like her husband did? A look back at Bill’s refusal to go into geopolitical scandals that had implicated George H.W. Bush in gross abuses of power and arguably criminal acts.”
Read more: http://www.alternet.org/stories/64345/
“Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq,” is required reading on the issue of how an elected Hillary Clinton may treat the eight years of crime and scandal from the second Bush presidency.”
“The excerpt opens with a scene early in the second year of Bill Clinton’s presidency with him explaining to White House guests why he didn’t pursue geopolitical scandals that had implicated George H.W. Bush in gross abuses of power and arguably criminal acts.”
“President Clinton made clear he saw historical truth as less important than his hopes for Republican cooperation on his domestic agenda. But this willingness to sweep major scandals under the rug left the White House back door ajar for a restoration of the Bush Family dynasty a half dozen years later—with disastrous consequences for the American Republic.”
***
Likewise, would history have played out different had Ford not pardoned Nixon? Perhaps had Nixon been tried and served time, those crazy’s who developed under Nixon’s influence might have thought twice before they pursued political careers using deception, violence and covert actions to gain and maintain control.
On second thought, probably not. Critical to sound leadership is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Using a knowledge of the difference to create an illusion to allow free movement to do wrong, does not indicate a conscience. Rather it indicates a complete lack of conscience. Without a conscience, there is no guilt. And without a sense of guilt there is no need to make amends. And when there is no need, beyond hiding the reality of the deceit, there is no limit to the potential evil acts of destruction. We live with that reality today. We have completely AMORAL people making life and death decisions every day.
Shouldn’t we be sick of it by now?
Shouldn’t we want to find a way to put an end to it right now?
Consider this. As we approach the next election some 40 million potential new voters could be eligible to vote. The thing that makes these potential voters unique is the only names they can recall as “president” in their entire lifetime is Bush and Clinton.
Little wonder so many think they’re all crooked. Little wonder they believe no matter what they think or do, it makes no difference. Certainly no surprise that a lot of them probably wont bother to vote! And if they do, name recognition might be the only thing they vote for!
But it’s not to late! Talk to the young people around you. You will be surprised to find out how many questions they have. How sincerely they want to understand. Even the ones surrounded by conservatives, and totally stuck in that rut will listen and ask, if you approach them right.
KUCINICH
Report thishttp://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/09/kucinich-to-force-impeachment-vote-on.html
September 27, 2007
By Mudwollow, October 5, 2007 at 12:04 pm #
Hillary is not a turd because she’s a woman. She’s a turd because there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between her and George Bush. True feminists would be much, much better off supporting Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.
Report thisBy cann4ing, October 5, 2007 at 11:57 am #
Why would any Democrat vote for a candidate (male or female) who says we will still have troops in Iraq in 2013, who voted for Kyle-Lieberman, which will open the door to an invasion of Iran, whose spouse betrayed American labor by joining with Reagan/Bush in ramming NAFTA & the WTO down our throats—devices by which America’s wealthy elites have betrayed this nation by outsourcing our manufacturing base in search of the $2/day laborer as what is left of American labor has been increasingly Wal-Mart-ized? Is gender so important that we ignore that Hillary was a former member of the Wal-Mart board of directors—a company which is the greatest threat to middle class aspirations everywhere? Is gender so important that we ignore that Hillary is the second largest recipient of healthcare insurance lobby money—second only to George Bush? Does it matter to any Democrats that Hillary’s sham “universal health care” proposal amounts to a subsidy scheme for the health care insurance industry?
The fact that Hillary has such a commanding lead is a function of the degree to which the corporate media, acting as a propaganda network, successfully separates candidates from where they stand on issues that truly matter. An interresting blind poll was recently conducted. It listed candidate positions on “issues” but did not list their names. It produced a startling result. One candidate received 58% of the vote—Dennis Kucinich. Barack Obama was a distant second.
Until the American electorate learns to shut off their television sets, to turn to alternative media for information, to ignore name recognition, gender and whom the media tells us are the “viable” candidates; until Americans cease acting as passive consumers and become active citizens, taking the time to learn where candidates truly stand on issues of substance, the government we get will be the government we deserve.
Report thisBy MichaelG7, October 5, 2007 at 11:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
ELLEN Goodman is Big Media. And, as ususal, Big Media misses the story. The story isn’t Hillary’s cackle, it’s what her cackling attempts to obscure. AMY Goodman got it right:
AMY GOODMAN: Sy Hersh, I wanted to switch gears for the last question, and this has to do with it not just being Republicans who are sounding a drumbeat for war. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards—have all declared no options off the table. This is a clip from last weeks Democratic debate. It was the day the Senate approved a controversial resolution calling on the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. At the debate, Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel bitterly criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor.
MIKE GRAVEL: This is fantasy land. We’re talking about ending the war. My god, were just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and Im ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You’re not going to get another shot at this, because whats happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they’re looking for an excuse to do it. And Obama was not even there to vote.
TIM RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to give you a chance to respond.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: [laughter]
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let’s not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think its as simple as that. When youre from New York and from New York City, you take the view of—right now, when youre running a campaign, you follow that line. And theres no other explanation for it, because shes smart enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I—you know, its shocking. Its really surprising and shocking, but there we are. Thats American politics circa 2007.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, October 5, 2007 at 11:49 am #
The trouble is that most of you guys are SEXIST!!! You don’t appreciate what you have with Hillary Clinton. While most of the candidates merely spout “I’m a great guy”, she really puts herself into the job.
Then again, how many of you are really Republicans anway - just whining about losing…!?!?
Report thisBy racer, October 5, 2007 at 11:32 am #
HILLARY JUST ANOTHER CFR MEMBER,IF YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS AND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION,SHE’S YOUR GAL.
Report thisTO LEARN MORE GOOGLE ANY CANDIDATE FROM EITHER PARTY.
(CANDIDATES NAME AND CFR) THIS WORKS FOR ME.
By Conservative Yankee, October 5, 2007 at 7:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
104784 by Myronh on 10/04 at 6:56 pm
“Or what really is your message?”
I can’t speak for others, but my message is no self-serving, corporate, globalist shills bought and paid for with blood money.
That just about includes everyone running.
Come on… Do you really believe any of these folks gives a shit about you?
Report thisBy waxman, October 5, 2007 at 12:07 am #
RUDY’S FIRST WIFE WAS HIS COUSIN ................................................RUDY’S FIRST WIFE WAS HIS COUSIN…................................................RUDY’S FIRST WIFE WAS HIS COUSIN….................................................RUDY’S FIRST WIFE WAS HIS COUSIN….........GET THE MESSAGE REPUKES ?????????
Report thisBy Myronh, October 4, 2007 at 10:56 pm #
I am totally amazzed how fast the US public learns. In the past 2-elections we voted for one of the dumbest presidents in our history. GWB’S election was bought with Corporate money. Bush is as anti-labor/pro-war as it is possible to get. In this short time it appears that most of the previous commenters are now ready to vote for someone who is not accepting lobbyist money and is pro-labor. I expect to see all of you that are now condemming Hilary to openly endorse John Edwards. Or what really is your message?
Report thisBy William Ries, October 4, 2007 at 7:08 pm #
My two cents. Hillary is just what the republikans wanted. They are supportive of her nomination because they know here in the red south that even a blue dog democrat would rather have the likes of Rudy than HRC. She’s anti gun. Anti union. And too damn wishy washy. No one can pin her down on any issue, she just wriggles out of answering, beats around the bush. No pun. Honest. Someone give me one good reason to vote for her. I can think of 50 not to. Hmm?
Report thisBy reclusiveprogressive, October 4, 2007 at 6:00 pm #
Horrible article. What is Goodman smoking? She seems to think that the mere fact of Hillary Clinton’s gender is sufficient to merit her the White House gig. Nevermind that she’s a Republican in sheep’s clothing. And a feminist? Is Goodman kidding? If Hillary’s a feminist, then Bush cares about the health of poor children. Apparently, in Goodman’s rosy world anyone of the female gender qualifies as a feminist. You’d be hard pressed to find a more absurdly sweeping generalization. Has she not bothered to scrutinize Hillary’s corporate-friendly positions on the relevant issues, her horrible judgment in going to war and continuing to fund it?
Wake up, Ms. Goodman! Hillary IS the insider. It’s not just media spin. Try doing some actual research. Look at the contributions she’s gotten from the health insurance industry alone. The woman is all about the status quo.
Dennis Kucinich ‘08!
Report thisBy loveinatub, October 4, 2007 at 3:31 pm #
I don’t understand how one could be happy with Hillary, unless you’re a conservative. With Hillary, you’ll get nothing but incremental action on the great issues of the day. Hillary is a vote for the status-quo.
Report thisBy John Hanks, October 4, 2007 at 3:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Will anyone rid us of these filthy Clinton and Bush opportunists?
Report thisBy RdV, October 4, 2007 at 2:46 pm #
Yeah, I noticed that she was “intelligent” was bouncing off the walls. Obviously a planted suggestion. Wasn’t so intelligent when she voted to give Bush the green light on Iraq and her judgement doesn’t seem to have improved much recently when she gave the go ahead on Iran. I don’t especially respect her past failed experience either and don’t look forward to her continued service to Insurance and Pharmeceutical interests, considering when Feingold was attempting to limit corporate influence in campaigns, her response was, “Russ, live in the real world”.
Report thisBy sharon ash, October 4, 2007 at 1:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary is intelligent and has the experience to get in and immediately tackle the very large stack of problems which our country faces. She is not my first choice as that would be Kucinich, but I am realistic enough to know that my first choice is not electable in mainstream America. However, I can be very happy with Hillary and I think she will do wonders at restoring our image in the world.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 4, 2007 at 12:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
104630 by Zeke on 10/04 at 8:20 am
“However, can you imagine the right-wing wrath and fury that will erupt should she win the nomination? It will make the stuff they threw at Dukakis, Gore and Kerry look like love taps. I see new lows for truth and decorum in our so-called democracy.”
....and that’s a shame, because all anyone has to do to beat Hill-the-business-shill is tell the truth.
...AND I read a story in Newsweek which claimed fiscal conservative Republicans (not this one) were “warming” to the idea of a Hill candidacy.
Report thisWhere can I get one of those stickers?
By hazmaq, October 4, 2007 at 12:47 pm #
I see this as much ado about nothing, really and the New Hampshire poll proves my point.
None of the networks, zippo, dare to touch for more than a few cursory comments the failing war or anything anti-administration or anti-Republican.
They’ve spent hours peering into Jefferson’s refrigerator, and Bill’s boring affairs and Edward’s ‘outrageous’ $400.00 haircut.
Did Rudy’s blatant public infidelity’s EVER get a tenth of what Bill got?? Course not.
NBC, ABC, Fox and CBS already have dropped a handful of more serious Republican stories, like weekly ‘outrageous’ visits to a hooker, or ‘outrageous’ conduct in a bathroom stall or how about the really ‘outrageous’ conduct by several Alaskan politicians stealing taxpayer dollars?
Juicy bits of bullshit rule the newsrooms in America today, Ellen.
I watch bits of Hardball, on MSNBC, (while waiting to watch all of Olbermann). Not once has Chris failed to interject ‘Hillary’ somewhere for the past two years or so.
Why does he do it? Because he dangles her out there as bait for his Republican ‘pundits’ and as a lead up to usually bashing the left for something.
Voters aren’t ready to focus on the main event. We’re just witnessing a media circus, full of trained seals and poodles.
Report thisBy lodipete, October 4, 2007 at 12:30 pm #
I have nothing against Mrs.Clinton’s gender. I’d like to say the same thing about her politics, but I’m not sure what her politics are. I would hope that whoever the democrats put up draws some very sharp distinctions between themselves and the republicans. The Middle East is far from the only thing that the republicans have screwed up.
Report thisBy Zeke, October 4, 2007 at 12:20 pm #
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday. It was “Hillary” with a cross-out, line through it. This is alarmingly early in the race for anti-Hillary bumper stickers. I should point out that I live in metro-Atlanta and it is on the edge of Bible-thumpin’, gun-totin’, dumb-assin’ country. However, can you imagine the right-wing wrath and fury that will erupt should she win the nomination? It will make the stuff they threw at Dukakis, Gore and Kerry look like love taps. I see new lows for truth and decorum in our so-called democracy.
Report thisBy Sondra, October 4, 2007 at 11:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The last thing we need is Hillary in the white house.
Report thisDoes’nt matter how much money she has “come up with”
since when has being president have to do with how much money you raise????
How about they actually do something!like KEEP THIER PROMISES! I think we should ALL LOOK AT Dr. Ron Paul.
Truly.
Hillary Clinton for president. Spare me.
By Marshall K, October 4, 2007 at 10:51 am #
Democrats seem to love symbols: a woman candidate, a black candidate. Ms. Clinton is a huge question mark. What does she really stand for? She sure can raise money which means that corporations like her. She plays hawk, or is it dove? Doesn’t appear she will get us out of Iraq in any hurry. Her health care proposal throws a big bone to insurance companies. One thing for certain, she will be polarizing. Too many people dislike and even hate her for many reasons. Too liberal, uppity woman, too conservative, too much a politician, too whatever. I do think the US could choose a woman for president, but I’m not sure it would be her.
Report thisWatch for Mike Huckabee to make big inroads in the race for the repub nomination. When republicans see that he is more of the real deal for them than the weasels in front he just could get the nomination.
If that happens, I don’t think she would have a chance to get elected against him. I’m not sure she could even beat Rudy, even though he makes my skin crawl.
By RdV, October 4, 2007 at 10:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Shoot, she hasn’t been tested.
Report thisIt is being handed to her.
The fix is in. They don’t challenge her on anything and they could bring her down if they so chose, fast, ala the Dean scream. All they have to do is ridicule her and “cackle” her til the cows come home. Or, they can ignore her.
All she has to do is line up the power players she has access to through her husbands administration and threaten those who don’t, but she has to do their bidding.
That is the trade-off and we are the losers.
And please don’t make this about a woman as if her biological gender is such a revolutionary factor in a female who tries to emulate the stupidest flaws of maschismo to win. A woman who uses her husband to advance herself, a woman who now must cover for her husband’s centrist complicity at the expense of doing what’s right. A woman willing to compromise on woman’s issues for her own personal gain. A woman willing to put up with her husband’s humiliating treatment because she had political ambitions she couldn’t achieve without him.
I am a woman, so don’t pull this crap on me. As far as I am concerned she should have to wear a big “C” for cackle everywhere she goes for her smug laughter at Gravel calling her out on what’s real.
She is a shitty human being. Gender has nothing to do with that fact. The fact that the endorsement comes to this means there ain’t much to support her for politically. It is comparable to rallying around the flag in support of US policy because we are all Americans—or supporting Israel just because you are a Jew. Ain’t no way Clinton gets my support just because she is a woman when I don’t respect her as a person.
By Eric Barth, October 4, 2007 at 10:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Just remember that Hillary Clinton has financial support from Rupert Murdoch and other so-called Conservative backers. FOX News and MSNBC among others have been pushing for her to be the Democrat’s standard bearer for 2008 ever since the last election. Why do you suppose they would want that? To mobilize the Republican base and far Right crazies. Even if she should win the election its no big loss for them in that her policies won’t be threatening corporate control of the Government. Also, they can go after her in a personal way (not really about policy)just the way they did before.
Report thisBy rbrooks, October 4, 2007 at 10:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am weary weary of the “are we ready for a woman president hype.” What a red herring. Why aren’t we examining Hillary’s politics? How is her gender meaningful? What will she do if she is elected? She is signaling her agenda at every turn - she will continue the aggressive military stance and the corporate-friendly domestic and trade policies of the Bush and Clinton presidencies.
Report thisMs. Goodman, can we PLEASE talk about whether we are ready for a progressive president? The “woman” candidate this time around is a corporate hack who is trying to out-macho the predators who got us to this jumping-off place in our history - how can anyone believe that if she is elected she will work for us? Why aren’t we questioning the objectives of the DLC, who continue to oppose and block even the most flaccid effort to challenge Bush? Progressives need to out the DLC membership and oppose them at every opportunity. These people do not work for us: Bill and Hillary, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel - I want to see the list of those “Democratic” pols who work for the corporate/military power structure that keeps them in place.
By Akira_Maritias, October 4, 2007 at 9:09 am #
Not a Hillary fan…not really a politics fan, either. The democrats haven’t even bothered to promise to do shit. While they’re being honest for once, I don’t like that don’t even care to try to fix things.
Gah.
Really not looking forward to voting for the president. I might not vote; just hold my breath and see what happens.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, October 4, 2007 at 8:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The India Caucus
The FALN pardon
The vote on the Iraq war
The vote on Iran
Her “right to work” pedigree
Her membership on Walmart’s Board
Her funding source revenue
Her position on WTO
Her position on Amnesty
Her position on H-1b Visas
The real question should be;
Can a woman con as many people as did GWB
The last time I voted for a R candidate for president was 1980, 27 years ago. If the Dems run Hill-the-business-shill, I will vote for the R candidate no matter which one wins the primary.
Report thisBy weather, October 4, 2007 at 6:24 am #
Will America confront the truth that the election process of calculation/mesurement driven by an Electoral College was manipulated 8 years ago?
This is no longer Kansas, its our own cruel episode of the Twilight Zone.
This is the part in the screenplay where aging yuppies like myself get slapped across the face for not paying attention.
Presidential Dream Ticket:Warren Buffett/Colin Powell, one can’t be bought and the other wants a refund for defective, fraudulent goods.
Report thisBy colleenwhalen, October 4, 2007 at 4:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am a woman and I LOATHE Hillary Clinton. Just because she is a woman, is not enough of a reason to vote for her. Margaret Thatcher is a woman and she was a wretched Prime Minister.
Assuming that all women will vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman - is just as insulting as the assumption that black people will automatically for Barack Obama just because he is black! Black people are intelligent enough to evaluate a Presidential candidate based on their voting record - not JUST gender or race.
What planet is this theory coming from?
Here are the reasons I would not vote for Hillary Clinton - not even for Dogcatcher:
#1 Hillary has accepted more money from
Corporate Mafia transnational pharmaceutical corporations than any other politican in the entire history of America. In exchange for HUGE amounts of money given to her by pharmaceuticals - Hillary pushed through legislation abolising Codex Alimentarius which was created in the early 1960’s. Codex Alimentarius was a wonderful law and established international standards for what constitutes adequate human nutrition. When Hillary was successful in passing Codex Alimentarius recently, it will make it illegal for retail stores and natural food stores to sell vitamins, supplements, herbal medicine. Consumers will be forced to go to their doctor for a PRESCRIPTION for vitamins, supplements, herbal medicine and it can only be filled by a pharmacist at the drug store. HMO health insurance won’t pay for it - and the price for vitamins, supplements and herbal medicine will be raised by 500% since HMO’s and pharmaceutical companies will have a complete monopoly on the sale of vitamins, supplements and herbal medicine. This will destroy the ability for consumers to purchase vitamins, minerals and herbal medicine at affordable prices in retail stores.
#2 Hillary is anti-labor and one of the primary politicians who passed CAFTA and NAFTA legislation. CAFTA and NAFTA are the most egregiously anti-labor
pieces of legisation in the history of America. Millions of good paying, unionized jobs with decent benefit packages and health insurance were lost in America and outsourced to Third World countries, and CAFTA and NAFTA is the main reason why. Whenever you call an 800# Call Center - 90% of the time you won’t be talking to an American - but a worker in the Phillipines, India, Panama or some other country.
#3 Hillary Clinton a “feminist” - Geez-O-Pete!
Whenever Bill Clinton would egregiously sexually harrass female employees who were in a subordinate job to him - if the woman employee tried to come forward to file a legitimate grievance to defend herself against Bill Clintons aggressive sexual advances - Hillary would make every attempt to discredit that woman, destroy her reputation, end that woman’s career and generally make the woman’s life miserable.
#4 The Clintons started out in the 1960’s, ‘70’s and up until around 1994 as pro-labor progressives. Then they morphed into “Corporate Democrats” and “Republicrats” - the Clintons have completely lost their progressive roots and are completely enmeshed with transnational corporate mafia PAC donations.
#5 When Hillary Clinton was packing up her personal belongings upon leaving the White House
Report thisin 2000 - she tried to steal dozens of official White House antiques which BELONG TO THE WHITE HOUSE and are government property. It was well documented by the White House Archivist who has been in charge of archiving and documenting the historic, priceless artwork and furniture which has been in the White House for ages. The White House Archivist was a civil service employee and served under numerous administrations w/ no political agenda
By BlueEagle, October 4, 2007 at 4:44 am #
Be careful of Hillary.
Google “Peter Paul v Hillary Clinton”
Report this