Taking Her Ball And Going Home

Risky. Calculating. Selfish. And yes... CHILDISH.

These are the unflattering characteristics I'm witnessing in a candidate I once believed would make a great first female president. Gladly, she won't be our first. That historic moment will be awaiting another woman who shall get to the highest office in the land on her own merits.

I have never ever seen a democratic presidential candidate running for the highest office in the land exhibit the kind of behavior that Hillary Clinton has. When someone explained that she needed some "time" to retire from her campaign in a way of her own "choosing", I thought... this is someone who everyone said was strong enough to be commander in chief. She had balls of steel as one of her supporters alluded. Hillary Clinton, the candidate who talked tough and voted tough and threw back shots like she was just one of the boys needed to be treated with "KID" gloves? This is a woman who screams sexism then talks like a racist and she needs to be handled very carefully? She throws a tantrum it seems whenever she can't get her way. She starts out as the inevitable candidate with a boatload of money and a gargantuan machine and she ends her campaign in the back seat, in debt and a depleted army largely because of the mistakes she made and now she wants to blame Obama because he won like David over Goliath in large measure playing the cleanest game politics has ever seen?

She felt a sense of entitlement and the fact that someone would actually run against her and win shaded her with a fuming child-like vengeance. That's right... she is being vengeful toward a candidate she didn't beat. The many faces of Hillary Clinton have arisen during her long fought campaign. She was warm and fuzzy toward Obama one moment in a debate and ranting at her opponent in the next breath about mailers. She has changed the goal posts of victory so many times that the goalposts are outside of the arena. And many in the media, political circles let her do it when she screamed loud enough. Was it about delegates or super delegates? Delegates! No, ummm super delegates... um maybe. I'll figure it out for you. Michigan and Florida don't count! The media climbs on board with her insistence. Now that she's lost, Michigan and Florida do count. Yes! Of course they do. Delegate count? No! It's the Popular vote. Every time she wanted her baby bottle she got it. If she was full on formula and screamed loud enough for more, she got it, it seems without question, without hesitation.

Now that she has lost, instead of doing the right thing - suspending her campaign, conceding, endorsing the presumptive nominee - on the day Obama reached the victory number, what does she do? She throws a shit fit! She doesn't suspend her campaign but instead tells the world that she hasn't made a decision. She throws her thumb in her mouth and toddles off the stage. And like parents scolding a child, congressional Democrats (20) and senators who supported her told her that she made a grave mistake throwing that tantrum on what should have been Obama's proudest moment.

Clinton is a grown up, People! But you wouldn't know it. The decisions she made were grown up decisions. You wouldn't know it though. Everyone knows that when you change the rules in the middle of the game then that's called cheating. She is of the age where she should have known better on many different fronts. From her IWR vote, and her web of lies regarding Bosnia and NAFTA to the mismanagement of her campaign and her hijacking and using her supporters for political gain, I find it quite breath-taking that Super Delegates and supporters alike have enabled her to behave like this.

If people can't see that holding her supporters in an attempt to gain access to the white house, in affect trying to tell the presumptive nominee how to run things then you are as delusional as she is. When you've lost the nomination you don't get your way with his office. That's common sense. People... stop enabling and coddling a grown-up who doesn't know any better. It's time for tough love. We've already seen Democrats coddle one president. Once in our lifetime is enough. We don't need to exhibit this kind of dysfunctional behavior with a candidate who has lost not only the election through her own faults but who has lost her way to adult-hood.

It seems the only candidate who made all of the grown up decisions in this historic race for the white house was, indeed, Barack Obama.

America's next president.

SOURCE

Hose Bag Bitch

Hillary Clinton had 15 representatives on the 30-member Rules Committee and every single one of Clinton's representatives supported this Rules Committee decision, which passed unanimously; Democratic parties in 48 states followed the rule, but Michigan and Florida chose not to. Subsequently, no Democratic candidate campaigned in either state and no Democratic candidate, except Hillary Clinton was even on the ballot in Michigan.

The Clinton campaign now contends that these wholly undemocratic elections -- even the Stalinist one-candidate election in Michigan -- must count or democracy itself will be imperiled.

Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's representatives on the Rules Committee who voted for the rule barring counting the Michigan and Florida votes, and Hillary's chief negotiator of this issue, was asked recently on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows, "You voted for the Rules Committee decision, but now you are complaining about it. What has changed?" Ickes replied,

"What has changed is that now we are behind."

So, there it is -- there is not an ounce of principle in the Clinton position.

(snip)

Ignoring all rules established for the Democratic primaries, which all Democratic candidates, except Hillary Clinton, followed, the Clintons now also contend that the elaborate system of caucuses and primary votes which have been used for this and prior presidential elections should be ignored in favor of reliance only on popular vote counts.

In other words, 48 states have been actively engaged in following established rules, but now, at the end of the process, the Clintons propose to jettison the rules and substitute their own new interpretation. Not only is the threshold proposal absurd on its face, the Clintons don't even count the popular vote fairly: They include votes in the Michigan primary, where Hillary was the only candidate on the Democratic ballot and Obama got zero votes, and exclude hundreds of thousands of caucus votes in the caucus states. If all votes are counted, Obama wins by every metric, including popular vote, and he currently is 180+ votes ahead in the delegate count.

(snip)

Hillary and Bill are not acting like leaders, they are acting like self-absorbed adolescents, thinking that if they whine loudly enough people will accommodate them. This is not leadership, this is petulance. They will go down in this race, but not without their own sense of righteousness and value intact. This conveniently avoids the unpleasant prospect of actually taking responsibility for why they lost. Introspection does not come easy to the Clintons, but during the next four years, let's hope they try some.

SOURCE

This Is What Your Vote For Hillary Will Get

A Republicunt In A Democrat Hat

Okay, good and honest Hillary supporters, men and women, let's have a little history lesson for some context.

Back in 1984, our then President, Ronald Reagan, no doubt in the early stages of Alzheimer's, made a little joke while testing a mike. Not thinking anyone beyond the studio would ever hear, he said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

When the quote got out, Reagan's lead over Walter Mondale slipped (very temporarily) by seven points. The Left was justifiably in an uproar over it. And Reagan was making a joke - a bad one, one that no doubt revealed his actual mindset, but, still and all, a joke.

For the third time now, Hillary Clinton, your candidate, has non-jokingly threatened to destroy Iran if that nation launches a nuclear strike on Israel. At the debate last week, she said Iran would face "massive retaliation." On Olbermann this week, she reiterated that and added, as if to clarify, that Iran's "use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States."

Today, she took it even further, into territory that, c'mon, admit it, Clinton supporters, if a Republican had said it, you'd be going fucking crazy about the fearmongering and paranoiac fantasizing.

Said Clinton on Good Morning America, "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Yes, she claims to be saying it only to offer deterrence. But, really, isn't that understood about the United States?

That if we wanted to, we could "totally obliterate" most of the Earth?

So, by saying it, Clinton accomplishes something of a pandering trifecta: she lets the Israel-humpers know she's willing to wreck shit for them, she lets the pro-military people know she ain't scared of shit, and she lets gun owners know she's willing to fire the largest gun of all.

A Bitter Pill

Apparently on the campaign trail Obama made a mistake in telling the truth.

Imagine, saying that Americans are "bitter" about the economy.

And that stupid cunt Hillary is calling him an elitist about it along with her republicunt colleagues.

Strip down what Obama was saying: He addressed the trouble his campaign of hope and change was having in "places where people feel most cynical about government."

While he has tried to speak concretely about the conditions of peoples' lives, his campaign continues to have trouble making inroads among white working class voters, and "old economy" voters whose idea of change isn't hope but rather losing a job or a pension. Yet he is narrowing the margins.

In Muncie, Indiana Saturday morning, Obama was counterpunching, as he should be-- explaining and expanding on his remarks:

The problem is our politics doesn't let the American people get heard. People know that it's not easy solving some of these problems but they want to feel like at least someone is fighting for them.

It's interesting. Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare up because I said something that everybody knows is true which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter.

They are angry.

They are Fed Up American's!

They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through.

So I said well you know when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.

And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about how things are changing.

That's a natural response.

But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to.

What we need is a government that is actually paying attention. A government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream.

At a time when 81% of the country thinks we're heading in the wrong direction (aren't these people bitter?) , isn't it pretty clear that our economy has not performed well for most people for at least a generation, and is now heading into what everyone sentient would agree are likely to be some very tough times.

Recovery from this recession is also likely to be even slower than the essentially jobless recovery from the last. The traditional means of jump-starting the economy -- dropping interest rates, or boosting consumer spending -- have been substantially exhausted, and their pell-mell unregulated pursuit is a large part of what got us into our current mess.

The political discontent is obvious--and Obama is trying to speak to that.

Americans are fed up with government's failure to do anything much for them, or that they're proud of being part of. " Here's how it is," he said in his April 6 remarks. " In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania people have been beaten down for so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it." Here's where the Right's generation-long attack on government has done real damage to citizen confidence in government. We see it all around us everyday. But. surely the other critical source of citizen doubt is that government has in fact done little recently to measurably improve their lives and give them a sense of national purpose. After all, Bill Clinton, long considered the master politician of his age, was basically in the business of lowering expectations of government even faster than they were disappointed. Obama is trying to amp up expectations which the Right and Clintonism have tamped down.

The right wing is clearly desperate. ready to seize on anything to change the subject and hide how out of touch they are with an America in financial pain. But how cynical of the Clinton campaign to claim Obama was condescending to the people of Pennsylvania.

She perhaps is the most desperate.

The kitchen sink is quickly emptying.

The Vice President

It may or may not be a bit premature to look at possible running mates for the democratic candidates for president, but I've compiled a list of the possible choices facing Obama and Clinton.

Barack Obama:

Delaware Senator Joe Biden

Pro: He has a long record on national security and foreign policy and is a member of a key demographic group—Catholics. His attacks on Rudy Giuliani proved he can be an affable attack dog, a rare skill.

Con: Gaffe-prone and perhaps too fond of the klieg lights. He’s not accustomed to being anybody's
number two. Besides, he already has a good job.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

Pro: He carries Cabinet-level and national security experience. As the governor of a battleground state and a member of key demographic group—Hispanics—Richardson brings much to the ticket. Then there is his important recent endorsement, delivered at a crucial time.

Con: Prone to sloppy speech. At times, he’s been a weak debater. And questions about his '04 "vetting" remain.

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg

Pro: Executive and private sector experience. As a former Republican, he might make the ticket appear more ideologically balanced. Best of all, he brings infinite resources.

Con: Very liberal on social issues. Paired with Obama, he creates the Archie Bunker nightmare ticket: African-American and Jew. Obama doesn't need
the money.

Former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer

Pro: A former six-term House member, he served on the 9/11 Commission. Pro-life.

Con: Pro-life.

Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn

Pro: He has a solid national security record and a reputation as a moderate who can work across the aisle. Also, he’s a Southerner with gravitas.

Con: He's 70 and disliked by gay rights groups.

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

Pro: He is comfortable talking about faith and has youth and energy on his side. An early Obama backer from a battleground state.

Con: Looks even younger than he is. No national security experience.

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano

Pro: Executive experience and a proven statewide winner. A Westerner from McCain's home state, she could boost the ticket there.

Con: No national security experience.

Retired General Colin Powell

Pro: National security credentials.

Con: Backed and promoted Iraq war.

Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner

Pro: Private sector and executive experience in a key state. Shares Obama's message of change and has won votes in rural areas.

Con: Currently running for Senate. No national security experience.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb

Pro: A decorated war veteran and former Republican from a key state, he looks perfect on paper.

Con: Blunt and unpredictable, he might be a reluctant campaigner.

Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle

Pro: A key Obama advisor from the start of his campaign, he is a veteran Washington insider who knows how to win in a red state environment.

Con: He is a veteran Washington insider who is now a lobbyist. Not cut out to be an attack dog.

New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Pro: Smart, tough, vetted. Could bring her own alienated supporters back to Obama and unite the party.

Con: As divisive a pol as exists in American politics. There is bad blood between the candidates, in no small part because she has suggested Obama is unready to lead.


Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland

Pro: A popular figure in a key state, he helped deliver Ohio for Clinton. His Christian ministerial background could bridge God gap for Democrats.

Con: No national security experience.

Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack

Pro: A Midwesterner with a compelling personal story.

Con: Not an electric speaker. Might not be able to deliver Iowa.

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh

Pro: VP from central casting. He can point to executive and foreign policy experience.

Con: Indiana’s not a swing state. He’s a bit bland, not to mention inexperienced as an attack dog.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama

Pro: Could bring young and African-American backers, who are angry at Clinton, back into the fold. Popular with independents.

Con: They've said nasty things about each other. Any path to the nomination runs right through him.

Florida Senator Bill Nelson

Pro: A folksy moderate from a key electoral battleground.

Con: Not well-known outside his home state, which isn't well-regarded nationally after recent election debacles.

Retired General Wes Clark

Pro: Military experience. A tireless campaigner for Clinton who is familiar with the rigors of the presidential campaign trail.

Con: Ran a rocky 2004 campaign.

Hey, here's something rather interesting. Another possible choice for Hillary's VP could be Bill Clinton. There is no laws that I know that would prevent this from happening. Better yet, Obama and Bill as the democratic tag team.

Yeah right.

Clinton's Sour Grapes

"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.

But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

UPDATE:

Turning toward the much more classy Richardson, look at how he addressed being called "Judas" by Clintonista James Carville. (WaPo):

My recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation -- particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.

While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.

Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack -- driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president.

I repeatedly urged Democrats to stop attacking each other personally and even offered a DNC resolution calling for a positive campaign based on the issues. I was evenhanded in my efforts. In fact, my intervention in a debate during a particularly heated exchange was seen by numerous commentators as an attempt to defend Sen. Clinton against the barbs of Sens. Obama and John Edwards.

As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.

More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.

This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.

Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton's wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?

And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.

As for Mr. Carville's assertions that I did not return President Clinton's calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

Originally posted here.

Bring Back The Debtor's Prison

Not only is she a PROVEN LIAR, she is also a DEADBEAT!

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer, highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton’s inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors.

Hillary And HER Religion

Has anyone found it rather odd as to why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright?

When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill.

READ THE ENTIRE MOTHER JONES ARTICLE HERE - CLICK HERE - VERY INFORMATIVE

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka the Family.

Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells" -- their term -- and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, writer Jeff Sharlet joined the Family's home for young men, foreswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners -- alone.

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes -- knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian.

In the 1940s, the Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:

During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration, the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.

At the heart of the Family's American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. They get to use the Family's spacious estate on the Potomac, the Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by the Family's young women's group. And, at the Family's frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already-powerful.

Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Sen. George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including new age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal Rabbi Michael Lerner. But it was the Family association that stuck.

Sharlet generously attributes Clinton's involvement to the underappreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define the Family's theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as the Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power -- cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." "We work with power where we can," Doug Coe has said, and "build new power where we can't."

Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity Unity Church of Christ. Now it's up to Clinton to explain -- or, better yet, renounce -- her longstanding connection with the fascist-leaning Family.

Hillary Is Full Of SCHIP

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue. Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start."

Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of
Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch SCHIP was indeed adopted, in a second attempt,
that same year. Several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

So does Billary deserve credit for SCHIP?

"I don't recall any signs of Mrs. Clinton's engagement," McDonough said. "I'm sure she
was behind the scenes, engaged in lobbying, but it is demonstrably not the case" that she was driving the effort, he said. Kennedy sought out Hatch, and the two worked on the bill together, offering it as an amendment to a budget resolution. But President Clinton - much to the surprise and anger of Kennedy - lobbied Democratic lawmakers to oppose the Hatch-Kennedy amendment the SCHIP program was approved later in the year, a feat Sperling said would not have been possible without the White House negotiating with GOP leaders. And lawmakers in both parties acknowledge that administration support was needed and appreciated. But they said the effort was largely driven by Hatch, Kennedy, and others in Congress.

NOT Bill or Hillary Clinton. PERIOD.

Many members of Congress said they believe Hillary Clinton has a deep and sincere commitment to children's health issues. She has sponsored numerous bills and amendments dealing with a plethora of healthcare matters.

But privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming over what they see as Clinton's exaggeration of her role in developing SCHIP, including her campaign ads claiming she "helped create" the program.

http://www.boston. com/news/ nation/articles/ 2008/03/14/ clinton_role_ in health_program_ disputed/

Who Is Really Getting Fucked?

Why do political wives allow themselves to be put through the humiliating “stand by your man” routine, wherein you literally stand by your man while he admits to fucking a mistress, another man, or a prostitute to the press?

I suppose standing silently with pain written all over your face while your husband tells the press about his extra-marital dalliances is the first step on the long road to wifely submission. Being a political wife is their career, and so standing by your man is basically just shoving through a major issue at your job, with the hopes that things will continue as normal soon.

The high power, professional wife with a life of her own has become the standard.

Silda Wall Spitzer fits into this mold, with her history of being a handsomely paid Wall Street attorney. Same story with Hillary Clinton clutching Bill’s hand in 1992 to wave away his infidelities. These are women you can imagine just packing their things and walking straight into a brand new life without him.

I can respect that.

Silda Spitzer was following roughly the same script used by the spouse of Louisiana Sen. David Vitter after his name was found on a madam’s list last year; by the wife of Idaho Sen. Larry Craig after he was arrested for disorderly conduct for allegedly trying to pick up an undercover police officer in an airport bathroom last year; and by the wife of New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey who stood by when he announced he had a gay lover who also was a state employee.

And, perhaps most famously, Silda Spitzer followed the model used in 1992 by Hillary Clinton in a joint “60 Minutes” interview with her husband, Bill, then a presidential candidate. Responding to allegations that Bill Clinton had had an extramarital affair, Hillary Clinton created a media template for spousal behavior in times of scandal.

However when Clinton got on TV and addressed an apology to the nation for screwing around with Monica Lewinsky, he did not get his wife to stand there looking sorrowful. There’s a few key differences in that case. For one, the wife in this case was informed long before the press conference, and so she had time to think things over. I think, in a lot of these cases, the wife is in a bit of shock and could be more malleable to other people’s wills.

But more importantly, there’s no doubt in my mind that the Clintons were sculpting the strategy to get Hillary Clinton into a Senate seat and possibly into the White House at that point.

So it was useful to quit playing her up as the submissive wife, and start putting her out there as a strong person, not the sort who stands around looking sad, but STILL allowed herself to be publicly fucking humiliated.

But, as a politicians wife, do you play by a different set of rules?

You’ve accepted that you have to work for him for free on campaigns, you have to play nice to the cameras regardless of your mood, and you have to accept that he’s gone a lot doing all sorts of crazy things. You may even accept that this involves sex with other people. Habits are hard to break, and high stress times are not the time to start breaking them, as we all know. And when a sex scandal hits, all that training at doing what you’re told by advising staff and rolling with the punches probably kicks in.

But as a woman you have been embarrassed, humiliated, put down in the worst way possible. You have had your man cheat on you in the high profile public eye.

How can someone that allows this be seriously considered as a presidential candidate?

So in the end of it all, despite the marital indiscretions, all the apologies, all the excuses - it is the American voter that gets screwed.

Similar to the mistresses no doubt, without the pleasure of orgasm.

Desperate White House Wife

It's become clear over the last week that the more Hillary Clinton becomes desperate, the more she reveals her true republican self.

The fact that this self is unscrupulous is bad enough, but the fact that her whole campaign for the last year has been predicated on positioning, spin, and other varieties of public relations is worse.

In fact, it is not only worse, it is Bushian, and that is the worst.

Even though Clinton won two and a half contests of the four staged on Tuesday, her campaign strategists are fighting among themselves, her campaign is in a turmoil, and, it seems, they can't decide which tack to take. Should they try the lying (about NAFTA, about Obama's religion)? Should they try the cheating (trying to seat delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries)? Should they try the fear-mongering (the red telephone ad)? Should they try the sucking up to Republicans (spelling out similarities between Clinton and cheerleader-for-war McCain)?

No one ever said that the Clintons weren't corrupt. Even they didn't say that. The only questions were:

1) Were they less corrupt than the Republicans and

2) Did they combine at least a modicum of compassion and interest in the public good with their corruption?

Back in the 90s, I felt that, on balance, Bill Clinton was openly compassionate, and that his corruption did not fatally taint his administration. But Hillary Clinton seems to have learned the wrong lesson from her Senatorial success.

The lesson she has learned is that Republicans such as McCain are more her friends than Senators with progressive principles.

As a result, it now appears that Clinton and McCain stand together on one side of a divide, and Barack Obama stands on the other side of that divide. The divide is between the inside-the-beltway ruling class, who can see no reason of any kind that they should give up the power they have accumulated and the avenue to wealth that it represents, and the citizenry of the country, who in every poll insist that the country is headed in the wrong direction. In the last week, Clinton has put herself on McCain's ticket, attacking the change that Obama promises and seems poised to deliver, and promising more more more of the same of what we have had for the last thirty years.

More of the same is exactly what almost everyone does not want, but Clinton tells us everyday in every way that that is exactly what we will get -- what we have had is what she touts as her "experience".

What we see in her campaign is that we will get the same old same old with an added measure of chaos.

May I Have Your Attention

The focus of everyone's attention should be on the cost of the war in Iraq, which is likely to reach $2 trillion, if not more. It has affected the American economy. Hell, it has affected the world economy.

On Thursday, the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, conducted a public examination of the costs of the war. The witnesses included the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (who believes the overall costs of the war — not just the cost to taxpayers — will reach $3 trillion), and Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

Both men talked about large opportunities lost because of the money poured into the war. “For a fraction of the cost of this war,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.”

Mr. Hormats mentioned Social Security and Medicare, saying that both could have been put “on a more sustainable basis.” And he cited the committee’s own calculations from last fall that showed that the money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants, or pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers.

What we’re getting instead is the stuff of nightmares.

Noting this, Matt Yglesias added, “Few people seem to appreciate it, but it’s quite literally true that al-Qaeda’s strategy is to cripple the U.S. economy by dragging us into quagmires abroad. Osama bin Laden himself has said this, and it’s the only strategy that makes sense.

Hillary's Inner Republican

HOUSTON (AP) - A stark new Hillary Rodham Clinton ad portrays her as the leader voters want on the phone when crisis occurs in the middle of the night, “while your children are safely asleep.” Barack Obama retorted that his Democratic rival already had her “red phone moment” and it helped draw the U.S. into a misbegotten war.

The ad, with its visuals of sleeping children, prompted an immediate denunciation Friday from Obama, who said it’s meant to scare people. The Obama campaign rolled out testimonials from national security supporters that the Illinois senator has the temperament and judgment for perilous times.

Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson contended the ad “speaks to what people really know in their hearts” about his candidate’s experience and, by inference, her opponent’s lack of it. “This is a legitimate matter for a presidential campaign,” he said. “We would be derelict if we didn’t raise it.”

The commercial stirred waters heading into the final weekend of the campaign for Ohio and Texas presidential primaries Tuesday that could make or break Clinton’s campaign.[..]

Obama responded that he called it right on the war, “the most important foreign policy decision of our generation, and that’s the kind of judgment I’ll show when I answer that phone in the White House as president of the United States.”

“We’ve had a red phone moment,” he added. “It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer.”

If the phone was ringing in the white house someday at 3 AM I sure hope that someone actually would WAKE UP unlike these sleepy little dunderheads in Billary's desperate ad.

Is she actually thinking that a man that's half black would be too lazy to wake up?

See Hillary, playing the race card can work both ways.

Why don't you take off the donkey mask and reveal the elephant that lives within your soul.

Different Verse, Same As The First

It’s not just the neocons at George Bush events that go after Americans who disagree. Same thing happens at “liberal” Clinton events, as the video here demonstrates.

Once upon a time, under the now moribund First Amendment, we had the right to disagree, so long as we didn’t hurt anybody or prevent them from doing likewise.

No more. Now if you are out of step with the brainwashed and orchestrated zombies, dare to remove yourself from the stampede toward fascism and insanity, you are quickly ushered from the room, lest some impressionable person in the fawning crowd gets the idea all is not right with the picture. Of course, the horizontal and vertical are controlled by eager minions, such as the one that demands the boy helping to hoist up a “Not Another Clinton” banner in blazing, can’t ignore yellow is removed from the scene.

Nothing will be allowed to interrupt the Hillary dog and pony show. If the kids can’t stand up and wave their Hillary placards and play their part as abject bootlickers and sycophants, they will asked to leave — or forced to leave, whatever the case may be.

Here is what the Hillary zombies — and those for McCain — are incapable of understanding: in America, as in the former Soviet Union, our rulers are selected by the elite. In the former Soviet, candidates were selected by local CPSU, Komsomol, and trade union officials under the guidance of the district (raion) party organization. In America, they are selected by the Democrat and Republican political machinery controlled by behind the scenes handlers from the CFR, Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the secretive clique and inner circle of the ruling elite.

In the past, the idiosyncrasies of democracy were tolerated by the elites, albeit ignored by the corporate media, but now things are different as our rulers prepare for the ultimate clampdown.

For now, kids with banners will be asked to leave, even dragged out kicking and screaming — or tased for asking the wrong questions, as University of Florida student Andrew Meyer was for asking Lord Kerry about his Skull and Bones association — but in the future a certain possibility hangs like the Sword of Damocles: political opponents will be disappeared or shot outright, as they were in General Pinochet’s Chile. For those with a bit more luck, they will end up in an American version of Pinochet’s Colonia Dignidad, where dissidents were tortured and killed. In the end, fascism always looks pretty much the same.

For now, the banners will be yanked down by indignant minions, but if history is any gauge things will get gruesome, far more gruesome in the days ahead.

More Criminal Activity From Billary

Hillary Clinton greeted at August 2000 Hollywood gala and fund-raiser by Peter Paul and his wife Andrea (Courtesy Hillcap.org)
The full, five-minute videotape touted as "smoking gun evidence" of two felonies committed by Sen. Hillary Clinton has been released to WND.

As WND reported, the tape was submitted as evidence to a California appeals court yesterday in a civil fraud suit against the New York Democrat and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

WND reported in April the tape indicates Clinton -- despite denials throughout six years of investigation -- was directly involved with business mogul Peter Franklin Paul in producing a lavish Hollywood fundraiser in August 2000 that eventually cost Paul nearly $2 million.

Clinton's participation in the planning of the event would make Paul's substantial contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than her joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit "hard money" contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

Paul's complaint charges President Clinton destroyed his entertainment company to get out of a $17 million deal in which Clinton promised to promote the firm in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for the Hollywood event.

In the tape, Clinton is heard via speakerphone thanking Paul, business partner Stan Lee and other colleagues for their efforts in putting together the fundraiser.

She also describes the role of longtime aide Kelly Craighead as assisting in day-to-day involvement in preparation for the event as her liaison with Paul and his producers.

Craighead, Clinton says, "talks all the time" with Paul, "so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need."

The aide's hands-on role is significant, because the law also implicates a candidate if any of his or her agents are involved in coordinating expenditures with a donor.

In another portion of the tape, Clinton is heard discussing her direct solicitation of a large contribution from the entertainer Cher. Paul's legal team, the U.S. Justice Foundation, argues the value of Cher's performance alone vastly exceeded the FEC limits.

The tape was one of 90 Paul was ordered to turn over to the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York in 2001 as part of the investigation in a related securities case against him. But it has never been used as evidence, despite its relevance to the key question of Sen. Clinton's involvement in the Hollywood fundraiser.

Sen. Clinton has claimed through her spokesman Howard Wolfson that Paul gave no money to her campaign, and her supporters have denied she had any anything to do with coordinating the fund-raiser or soliciting contributions directly from donors.

Clinton's campaign has counted the more than $800,000 of in-kind contributions it reported in a 2006 amended FEC report for the Hollywood Gala as indirect, or "soft money," given to the New York Senate 2000 Committee, a state account that was run jointly by Clinton, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the New York State Democratic Party.

The Clinton Legacy.....

.....seems to be a legacy of death.

When the republicunts keep bringing up Bill's hummer in the oval office, I am AMAZED that ANY of the following doesn't come up.

Can we expect more of the same if Billary gets elected?

1-James McDougal - Clinton 's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

2 -Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown . The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

3- Vince Foster - Former White House counselor and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock 's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

4- Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the air Traffic controller committed suicide.

5- C. Victor Raiser II- Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992

6-Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock , September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor".

7-Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

8-Jerry Parks -Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock . Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

9-James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas

10-James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

11-Kathy Ferguson- Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

12-Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiance of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiance, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiance.

13-Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.

14-Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.

15- Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

16-Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992 . She died in a one car accident.

17-Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

18- Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.

19-Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993 . He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

20-Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996 . Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

21-Charles Meissner -Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

22-Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and brother.

23-Barry Seal -Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas , death was no accident.

24-Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

25-Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

26- Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.

27-Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

28-Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.

29-Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988

30-Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

31-Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.

33-James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural causes".

34-Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

35-Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
36 -Major William S. Barkley Jr.
37-Captain Scott J . Reynolds
38-Sgt. Brian Hanley
39-Sgt. Tim Sabel
40-Major General William Robertson
41-Col. William Densberger
42 -Col. Robert Kelly
43-Spec. Gary Rhodes
44-Steve Willis
45-Robert Williams
46-Conway LeBleu
47-Todd McKeehan

Quite an impressive list don't you think?

If you're voting for Hillary, apparently you're not.

The Fall Guy

The political calendar indicates that in one more year – on Jan. 20, 2009 – the presidency of bush will come to an end.

However, the worst consequences of his disastrous reign, including the Iraq War, may be nowhere near ending.

Today’s presidential frontrunners, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, were early prominent supporters of the Iraq War and appear to have suffered little political damage for lining up behind Bush in 2002 when he was at the peak of his power.

For his part, McCain – who campaigns with neoconservative independent Sen. Joe Lieberman – has no plan to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, indeed talks about keeping U.S. troops there for centuries. Clinton, who was a late convert to an anti-war position, now vows to “start withdrawing” U.S. troops by early spring 2009.

So, it seems a sure bet that a McCain presidency would continue Bush’s Iraq policies indefinitely. And it looks like a gamble whether Clinton would press ahead with her “hope” of bringing “nearly all the troops out by the end of” 2009 – or revert to the neocon-lite position that she embraced from 2002 until the start of the Democratic campaign in 2007.

Might Hillary Clinton be to George W. Bush on Iraq what Richard Nixon was to Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam, a President who continued a war for years while gradually moving to wind it down?

Ironically, the politician taking the most heat on the Iraq War today is Barack Obama, who opposed the war resolution in 2002. In recent days, he has come under harsh criticism from former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Clinton for not consistently joining with the staunchest war opponents in the Senate.

Bill Clinton has called Obama’s anti-war position a “fairy tale,” and Sen. Clinton, who helped make the Iraq War possible, has attacked Obama for not immediately supporting a cutoff of funds for the war when he entered the Senate in 2005, even though that was a position he shared with Clinton.

Amazingly, it looks like – if any politician is going to be held accountable on the Iraq War – it may be Obama, who was an early and vocal opponent.