Diatribune - Clinton, Hillary - Comments

Obama's sliding "50, 49, 48,

Jacob Freeze — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:28:07 -0600

Obama's sliding "50, 49, 48, 47, 46... state strategy"

Obama is running a "50 state strategy" except for blocking revotes he would have lost in Michigan and Florida. So let's call it a "48 state strategy" except for West Virginia, where Obama was competitive with... Edwards, who already withdrew. So let's call it a "47 state strategy" except for Kentucky where Obama is about to get crushed again. So let's call it a 46 state strategy, except...

It's weird to hear an Obama supporter talk about how many enemies Hillary Clinton has made, when thousands of nasty little suck-ups all over the internet have been spewing hate at anybody who dares to criticize their Messiah. Some of us won't forgive or forget... and a vote for the Greens has the advantage of being a vote for a party that has been right about almost everything for the last 40 years, unlike the two "major" parties that had no visible environmental program whatsoever.

Obama has a few critics who can also get down and dirty, like me, but the Edwards-Dodd-Richardson mob is very mellow, and any of those three candidates would go into the general election with fewer negatives than Obama.

If there were a wisp of intelligence floating anywhere within 5,000,000 miles of the Democratic Party, they would all be hoping for a locked convention that neither of the two damaged front-runners could win, and then the Democrats could pick a reasonable candidate instead of either of the two bloody monsters that we are stuck with now.

The real problem now is the

friendlytophil — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:11:27 -0600

The real problem now is the MSM's refusal so far--although it may not last much longer--to report on the source for Clinton's $5 million infusion of funds into her own campaign right after Super Tuesday. Long thought by media-watchers to be the reason for the Clintons' reluctance to release their 2007 tax returns, the truth has begun to surface in the indy media, both left and right.

Turns out Sen. Clinton may have gotten the money from one of Bill's charities, and pressured people at the non-profit to cover up the unethical and possibly illegal activity.

Here's a link to the whole ugly tale: http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/04/904758.shtml

it's like a touch of

fake consultant — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:55:57 -0600

it's like a touch of vancouver...in holland.

Ah the bulldog... that

hdaman — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:06:23 -0600

Ah the bulldog... that brings back memories of my youth.

Kerry... I decided to post

Jacob Freeze — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:10 -0600

Kerry...

I decided to post these stats because I made the horrible mistake of watching Tim Russert for about 5 minutes this morning.

"Should Hillary Clinton concede?"
"She should concede, shouldn't she?"
"Isn't Hillary Clinton hurting the Democrats by refusing to concede?"

Blah blah blah.

In the first place, there is no reason to assume an extended campaign hurts the Democrats. Bill Clinton didn't wrap up the nomination until June, and he actually won... not that idiots like Tim Russert can remember back that far.

In the second place, I don't think Obama has a "mandate" just because he amassed a lead in delegates in states like South Carolina, but mainly...

I just hate the conventional "wisdom" of brainless Beltway chatterboxes like Tim Russert.

I'm just going with the

Jacob Freeze — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:46:44 -0600

I'm just going with the figures from usaelectionpolls.com, which actually shows Clinton leading in the popular vote, although it includes numbers from Florida and Michigan.

Not arguing with your

kerry — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:57:43 -0600

Not arguing with your numbers, but if this is the case, how does Obama lead in the popular vote so far?

Well put and I agree that

kerry — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:58:37 -0700

Well put and I agree that Bill is a much more inspirational speaker, but I think where Hillary excels and Bill sometimes gets lost is in the minutia of policy. Bill has grand visions and paints with very broad strokes while Hillary is a master of detail. I think this is why they compliment each other so well and I wonder if Obama, who tends to be more like Bill and less like Hillary, has the eye for detail it takes to get things done in Washington.

It's sort of like an ad for

Jacob Freeze — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:40:10 -0700

It's sort of like an ad for Bitch Perfume.

30 minutes of my life.

Jacob Freeze — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:18:11 -0700

30 minutes of my life.

If Hillary is smart, she'll

Jumptees — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:50:06 -0700

If Hillary is smart, she'll embrace this.

I thought this was so funnny, I created a t-shirt.

Enjoy

They have to do something

alexwierbinski — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:37:54 -0700

They have to do something with all that dirty money, and dirty politics seems to flow naturally from the source, dirty money.

It is hard to perceive

alexwierbinski — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:15:13 -0700

It is hard to perceive clearly when the candidates are hiding behind a madison ave shield carved from vast sums of special interest dollars.

It seems our perceptions are the easiest thing for modern machine campaigns to mainipulate.

I would prefer if they had much less money from the special interests. We would get much more in real analysis of the crisis we are facing, and real plans to deal with this crisis from an ethical position, if the candidates represented people, rather than economic interests and political machines.

Then we could honestly compare the candidates. As it is now, I have not seen a viable candidate during my lifetime that reflect the needs of the voters who contributed, rather than the interests of their corporate bribers.

I haven't detected much in the way of an ethical responce to our war, economic, health, and educational crisis that we are experiencing from any of the candidates.

But they all offer "a bright shiny future of hopeful change." Sounds like the same old stuff all over again.

I would trust what they said a lot more if they relied on voters for contributions. That's not going to happen in this election. Maybe the next?

Alex

First, the neo-cons have

alexwierbinski — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:29:45 -0700

First, the neo-cons have horrified the conservatives. They have done this by using big government as an aid to big oil, the pharmacutical industry, and corporate agriculture...no, wait...the dems use big gov to subsidize the profits of big ag.

The "conservatives," as you call them, have plunged the country into war, run up the budget, and drowned the country in debt. The conservatives, if you asked them, would blame it on a republican faction, the neo cons. And the dems were right there, feeding on the graft, passing the war funding bills, and tolerating a president who openly breaks domestic and international law.

Pelosi took impeachment off the table in nov of '06, when their victory was certain.

Many conservatives are freaking out about the failed war, the massive debt, and the high crimes of THEIR president, among other issues, as you can see by the inability of the republican factions to come togeter behind any of their candidates.

Bush is not popular in either party, and even the neo cons have backed away.

The lessons of the neo cons reign of terror are many, for both republicans (conservatives?) and democrats (liberals?), as well as us, the citizen voters.

The first lesson is that both parties, and all the factions within them, operate in a mutual political environment of special interest/corporate bribery.

the conservatives are subsidized and funded by their corporate bribers, while the liberals are funded and subsidized by their own corporate bribers. The disturbing fact is that both parties share all the major corporate funding sources.

Note that the last dem congress was tossed out for corruption, and that the current dem congress has accelerated the record pace of earmarks the last republican congress established. I put it like this: the same, more of the same, yet more of the same old shit.

Late stats demonstrate that the "liberals" have now surpassed the "conservatives" as the main recipient of big corporate bucks.

"change?" yeah, sure.

Although they claim to be different on the outside, both parties accept, and vie for the bucks of the corporate interests.

By my recokening, the constitution grants power to the people to select and elect their own candidates and representatives, not the corporations or the special interests.

Today, both party's candidates are the selection of the biggest bribers ("contributors"), and are certainly not put forward on the support of the people.

Neither the conservatives nor the liberals are operating in a democracy, and neither side is willing to promote democratic reform, as it would threaten their share of the duopoly of power.

By my recokening, the constitution grants power to the people to regulate business, not the power for business to regulate people.

Today, both parties have advanced de-regulation and privitization. The FDA and CPSC (consumer product safety...)regulate through voluntary guidlines. Both parties are all about enriching the industrial health industry with our misery.

The clintons, like the bushs, are corporate globalists, all advocate "globalism." No difference there.

Both parties have abandoned their democratic and regulatory responsibilities. Both parties have failed to operate within checks and balances, nor conduct proper oversight. Both parties have failed to protect our individual rights.

My point is that we have a problem that lays deeper in our system than the superficial battle between the parties and their factions.

It's like worrying about an ugly zit when you have cancer.

Our democracy itself has been corrupted. The contributions by corporations and special interests to party coffers is redistributed downward, creating a chain of reliance and dependence on bribery that has broken the politician's dependence on local voters.

Until we fix this structural flaw, our parties and factions will continue to fund their political ambitions with bribes. After the elections we can expect the winning party to pay back their bribers with deregulation, tax breaks, and earmarks at a rate of at least $100 to every dollar of bribes they recieved. No big deal, it's not their money. Both parties are equally dirty.

The neo con coup is what you get when you run a system of political bribery instead of a democracy.

Let's break the link between wealth and power, as our revolutionary forefather intended, and make both parties and all of their factions, honest representatives of their beliefs, rather than paid tools of corporate and special interest wealth.

Committee for democracy.org

And so the erratic reporting

friendlytophil — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:57:13 -0700

And so the erratic reporting continues...the MSM are now saying that Hillary won Florida, even though absolutely no delegates were awarded. By giving Hillary her ten minutes of spotlight on CNN and network newscasts the anchors and commentators are agreeing to participate in the mess in Florida in exactly the way the Clinton camp desired.
Even if we buy into the argument that there was a real election in Florida (and Michigan, which was also stripped of all its delegates for trying to move up their primary), there is a surreal atmosphere that hangs over the way it was done. Who knows how the voters would have voted if they hadn't believed the delegates were moot? Who knows how many stayed home? Who knows what would have happened if the candidates hadn't agreed to stop campaigning in these areas? Even if big numbers of voters did turn out in Florida--which appears to be the case--we've been seeing bigger than big, in fact, record numbers, turning out in all the primaries.
A good argument can be made that Hillary and Bill are trying to rig the process by asking for the Florida and Michigan delegates after the fact. And it's a fact that the two races weren't run the way they would have been without all the mess. Remember, it's about the voters, all the voters, and their perceptions--not the candidates' little agreement.