Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBen Smith has an intriguing new article chipping away at a mystery website that's been captivating political insiders for months:
On the pink pages of HillaryIs44 named for the hope that Clinton will be the 44th President Barack Obama and John Edwards are "muggers." Obama is guilty of everything from "lying" to "gay bashing." And Hillary can do no wrong. The Clinton campaign says it has nothing to do with the site, and there's no evidence linking them to it.
Political junkies have been buzzing about the site's muscular advocacy for Clinton and pointed attacks on her rivals, including a stream of opposition research and falsehoods. Last week, for example, the site posted a detailed 2,100-word attack on Barack Obama, assailing him for everything from not voting to defend MoveOn.org during the "Betray Us" fracas (true) to "never" being there in the battle for civil rights (false). One part attack ad, one part stump speech, the post repeats the refrain that "Obama is Never There When You Need Him" in bold text:
So who is behind it? Smith offers a few details suggesting the site is run by a knowledgeable political insider, blogging from a "Verizon DSL line in the Washington, D.C. area," with access to The Hotline -- a DC tip-sheet that costs $4,000 a year and is read mostly by "political professionals" in the Beltway. Smith also thinks the blogger is probably a female, or a man who happens to quote from the Nancy Drew books ("read mostly by girls"). But in the end, he's unsure whether it matters:
It's unclear whether the site should be considered a success, in political terms. It is rarely linked or cited by other political blogs, and it hasn't entered the mainstream of the political conversation.
For all its lies, bias and negativity, though, Hillaryis44 is effective. It is discussed by political and media types, offering a harder edge than the campaign's official site. I first heard about it from a cable television host who enthused that it was like "Hillary's war room," echoing Peggy Noonan. (Again, there is no evidence that the campaign is involved, but the site cultivates that kind of insider aura.) It already popped up on Meet the Press. Reporters and bloggers have discussed it for months, and its lively comments section shows it has traction with a regular audience, (more than most anonymous blogs can claim).
Unfortunately, this is the dark side of Internet politics: smears and anonymous attacks. But it's also worth stressing that all signs point to a traditional insider who has decided to upload dirty politics -- not an outsider crashing the gate. And to their credit, most Democratic bloggers, ranging from Clinton supporters to Clinton detractors, have largely rebuffed the effort. The website is almost never cited by other liberal blogs, presumably because the mix of smears and advocacy is rightly considered over the line.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I know who wrote that blog....it was FRANKGRITS!!..Yeah, he's the guy..
Posted by ACook at 12/12/2007 @ 01:12am
The website is almost never cited by other liberal blogs, presumably because the mix of smears and advocacy is rightly considered over the line.
Maybe you should have kept the silent treatment going. The only interesting thing about this article is that if Political junkies have been buzzing about the site's muscular advocacy for Clinton and pointed attacks on her rivals, including a stream of opposition research and falsehoods, then Political junkies waste lots of time that could be spent educating themselves about the issues.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/12/2007 @ 02:18am
Posted by ACOOK 12/12/2007 @ 01:12am
good guess, but nope!
THIS! is the mystery blogger. [youtube.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 02:18am
I think it is CCorbel from the tone of her smears and falsehoods aimed at Obama here on The Nation's blogs.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/12/2007 @ 05:32am
CCORBELL.... do you like Nancy Drew???
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 07:12am
Does the Clinton campaign renounce it?
Didn't thinks so.
This is especially damning:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803
My guess would be that it is connected to Masada2000:
http://www.masada2000.org/
Posted by Lil at 12/12/2007 @ 08:51am
Hillary has lost the young vote because these voters, more than any other, know that she does NOT represent the change that the country needs and really is Bush-Cheney Lite.
~METTEYYA @ 05:45am
Q. If Hillary is Bush Lite, and you yourself are a Buddhist who supports Obama rather than one of the more genuine progressives such as Kucinich or Edwards, how should we refer to you Metteyya?
A. Budd Lite? or perhaps Miller Disingenuous Draft?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 08:55am
Posted by LIL 12/12/2007 @ 08:51am
Are you sure it doesn't have something to do with the Jesuits, RESE?
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 09:16am
Posted by LIL 12/12/2007 @ 08:51am
a champion for human rights!
Indeed, she has supported unconditional U.S. arms transfers and police training to such repressive and autocratic governments as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, and Chad, just to name a few.
she makes soccer moms proud!
Senator Clinton has refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines, which are responsible for killing and maiming thousands of civilians worldwide, a disproportionate percentage of whom have been children.
she donates toys to poor kids around the world!
She was also among a minority of Democratic Senators to side with the Republican majority last year in voting down a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas.
an open ear to the defenders of human rights!
Similarly, when Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other reputable human rights groups issued detailed reports regarding Israeli war crimes during that country's assault on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Senator Clinton insisted they were wrong and that Israel's attacks were legal.
defence means SELF-defence!
Similarly, her claim that invading Iraq constituted a legitimate act of self-defense is particularly disturbing. Even if Saddam Hussein had been developing chemical and biological weapons as Senator Clinton falsely alleged, Iraq would have been just one of 40 countries to have developed such arsenals and Iraq had no delivery systems left that were capable of attacking other countries, much less the United States.
world unity!
Senator Clinton has also been one the Senate's most outspoken critics of the United Nations, even appearing outside the UN headquarters in New York twice during the past four years at right-wing gatherings to denounce the world body.
hillary! humanity's choice!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 09:49am
Nicely done, LIL and FZ.
Here are the links to the Foreign Policy in Focus pages:
Hillary on Iraq
Hillary on INternational Law
By the way, FPIF is a highly recommended regular stop during the course of your daily web wanderings.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 10:00am
Senator Clinton has also been one the Senate's most outspoken critics of the United Nations, even appearing outside the UN headquarters in New York twice during the past four years at right-wing gatherings to denounce the world body.---posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/12/2007 @ 09:49am
Curious on those stories....more info?
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 10:38am
Hillary has lost the young vote because these voters, more than any other, know that she does NOT represent the change that the country needs and really is Bush-Cheney Lite.
~METTEYYA @ 05:45am
Q. If Hillary is Bush Lite, and you yourself are a Buddhist who supports Obama rather than one of the more genuine progressives such as Kucinich or Edwards, how should we refer to you Metteyya?
A. Budd Lite? or perhaps Miller Disingenuous Draft?
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 08:55am
Kool, I don't know how Metteyya would respond to this, but I'll put in my thoughts. Personally, I would love for Kucinich to be president, for many reasons, but one of the big ones would be health care, seeing as his plan is the only one that makes any meaningful changes in the current system. Unfortunately, we all know he won't win (comments like seeing UFOs don't help his electability any, nor do comments about having a nut like Ron Paul as a running mate), so we have to move on to a viable candidate. That leaves Obama, Edwards and Clinton.
Clinton can be taken off the list for obvious reasons: she isn't liberal or progressive.
So we are left with Obama and Edwards. I really like both of these candidates, however I think Obama holds the best promise for change. Sure, I would like to see him be more liberal on some issues, but I also understand that he is constrained by the necessities of electoral politics, and I believe in the strength of his principles and the honesty of his character (definitely can't say either for Clinton).
Edwards, I would support him if it weren't for Obama. I love his populist rhetoric, his emphasis on the poor and all that, but where was that only 3 years ago? I don't know...that worries me. I know people can change their beliefs, but something about the change strikes me as convenient. He is a much better choice than Hillary, in my opinion, but I just couldn't support him for the nomination with someone like Obama around. What I would love to see is Obama taking Edwards as a VP, but who knows how all that will play out. I don't think it is any coincidence that they have been so nice to each other this entire time...Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts on the main players.
Posted by bridoc at 12/12/2007 @ 10:57am
Maskot,
Here is the portion of the "Hillary on International Law" entry --at the FPIF website-- dealing with the UN:
Attacks on UN Institutions
Senator Clinton has also been one the Senate's most outspoken critics of the United Nations, even appearing outside the UN headquarters in New York twice during the past four years at right-wing gatherings to denounce the world body. She has falsely accused the UN of not taking a stand against terrorism, even though terrorism has become largely at the insistence of the United States a major UN focus in recent years.
Senator Clinton's hostility to international law and the UN system is perhaps best illustrated by her opposition to the International Criminal Court. In 2002, Senator Clinton voted in favor of an amendment by right-wing Senator Jesse Helms that prohibits the United States from cooperating in any way with the International Criminal Court, and its prosecution of individuals responsible for serious crimes against humanity, such as those responsible for the genocide in Darfur. In addition, this vindictive law also restricts U.S. foreign aid to countries that support the ICC. Nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act," the bill also authorizes the president of the United States "to use all means necessary and appropriate to free members of United States military and certain other allied persons if they are detained or imprisoned by an international criminal court," including military force.
The International Court of Justice (also known as the World Court, which essentially serves as the judicial arm of the United Nations) has also been a target of Senator Clinton's hostility toward international law. For example, in 2004, the ICJ ruled by a 14-1 vote (with only the U.S. judge dissenting, largely on a technicality) that Israel, like every country, is obliged to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Laws of War, and that the international community as in any other case in which ongoing violations are taking place is obliged to ensure that international humanitarian law is enforced. Affronted that an important U.S. ally would be required to abide by its international legal obligations and that the United States should help ensure such compliance, Senator Clinton strongly condemned the decision.
At issue was the Israeli government's ongoing construction of a separation barrier deep inside the occupied Palestinian West Bank, which the World Court recognized as does the broad consensus of international legal scholarship as a violation of international humanitarian law. The ICJ ruled that Israel, like any country, had the right to build the barrier along its internationally recognized border for self-defense, but did not have the right to build it inside another country as a means of effectively annexing Palestinian land. In an unprecedented congressional action, Senator Clinton immediately introduced a resolution to put the U.S. Senate on record "supporting the construction by Israel of a security fence" and "condemning the decision of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the security fence." In an effort to render the UN impotent in its enforcement of international law, her resolution (which even the then-Republican-controlled Senate failed to pass) attempted to put the Senate on record "urging no further action by the United Nations to delay or prevent the construction of the security fence."
~Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus -12/11/07
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 11:13am
Edwards, I would support him if it weren't for Obama. I love his populist rhetoric, his emphasis on the poor and all that, but where was that only 3 years ago? I don't know...that worries me.
~Bridoc
I appreciate your views, Bridoc. I would humbly submit that you've got things a bit blurry though.
Edwards was a populist candidate in 2004 just as he is a populist candidate now. In 2004, I was a Howard Dean supporter, and I admit that I didn't look too closely at Edwards due to my own perception that he seemed like a "politician" in the typical derogatory sense.
In an interesting turnabout, I have been a huge fan of Barack Obama for years as well, but I've soured on him --or more aptly he has soured me-- with his very neatly couched nods to the Washington establishment since his rise to the Senate.
John Edwards, on the other hand, has impressed me with a sense that he really is genuine not just in his vision --which Obama shares-- but in the conviction with which he has spoken and acted as well.
Both Obama and Edwards have their flaws in the final analysis, but I believe that the much more honest and forthright campaign of Edwards along with his oft-stated central conviction that our government in Washington is broken, leads me to the strong sense that he is the more believable change agent.
Again, I refer viewers to the superb Charlie Rose interview of John Edwards. In particular, listen to his own frank admission of having at times fallen into the business-as-usual trap of Washington. This is must see TV in my opinion. It's too bad our "MSM" doesn't agree.
And finally, progressive muckraking sites that I like such as Counterpunch and ZNet --along with the NY Times' outstanding pundit, Paul Krugman--, have uncovered some significant dirt marring Barack Obama's perceived squeaky clean image.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 11:48am
And another thing.......
Shouldn't we be deeply suspicious of the candidates that the media presents to us as if we were all a bunch of vapid viewers of Entertainment Tonight?
How long does it take for America to awaken to the fact that much of what we see on TV is packaged, commodified crap --and that by buying into it we become, ourselves, commodified?
One need only look at the demise of Howard Dean in '04 to see what a load of shit is pumped into our heads by these cretinous forces. Today, it is John Edwards who is simply being ignored by our so-called mainstream media.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 12:01pm
Kool, we should be suspicious. However, if you go to any MSM site and find the link for "most read" or "most emailed" or "most popular" stories on any given day, you'll see the top 5 deal mostly with pure BS. Britany Spears, Michael Vick, "Golden Compass" critics, etc. That is the mentality the MSM caters to because that is the mentality of the vast majority of the American public.
Americans like packaged, commodified crap. Seen grocery stores lately? Everything is pre-packaged, pre-cooked, microwaveable and disposable. Makes life easy yet unhealthy. People don't have to think for themselves anymore. They can simply turn on the TV and be told what to think. No worries. Don't like what you're being told, turn the channel.
It's hard to get a viable message through that wall.
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/12/2007 @ 12:20pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 11:13am
Never knew that, B_KOOL....thanks.
It makes me MUCH more comfortable with voting for Her Nibs if I have to.
BTW, as far as "In an effort to render the UN impotent in its enforcement of international law..."...the United Nations IS impotent...unless we support it. It's why it's a joke, except with the faithful.
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 12:21pm
My guess is that it's Bubba himself or a web dude in his personal control. Watch for the same site to dig into Huckabee sometime soon, as Dems were crowing about yesterday.
And another thing.......
Shouldn't we be deeply suspicious of the candidates that the media presents to us as if we were all a bunch of vapid viewers of Entertainment Tonight?
How long does it take for America to awaken to the fact that much of what we see on TV is packaged, commodified crap --and that by buying into it we become, ourselves, commodified?
-Couldn't agree more.
Posted by Sliver at 12/12/2007 @ 12:24pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT @ 12:20pm
Outstanding post, Fritz.
Not much to say in reply except to encourage all of us to resist the trap.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 12:27pm
Never knew that, B_KOOL....thanks.
~Maskot @ 12:21 pm
Thanks, Maskot. I believe that's the first time you've ever "thanked" me for anything. But I'm sure you can dig into your files and search for an example to zing me with.
By the way, here's Exhibit A (Maskot's reply to Wolfgang at the last TomDispatch Notion post):
"I consider Larouche to be one the most intelligent, and patriotic Americans alive at this or any other time." -"V" 08/25/2007 @ 01:19am
nuff said? ~MASK @ 09:54am
MASKOT,
I'm guessing that your point here is that certain people should be completely disregarded if they can be shown to have said something considered to be sufficiently "wacky".
I'm also guessing that is why you assiduously file away tender morsels of choice quotes in your mole's den root cellar --so that you can fire them off at the critical moment of rhetorical battle, thus plunging the "enemy" ignominiously under the waves like Capt. Nemo's latest victims.
If that is, indeed, the point of this re-posting of a previous "V" comment, then you are indeed a scoundrel, a coward, and a fool.
Please clarify.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 12:35pm
Oh wait Fritz, I thought of one thing to say in reply to your excellent post.
"The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars, but in ourselves"
~Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 12:39pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 08:55am
BRIDOC pretty much summed up my view on this: Kucinich is considered too weird to be elected, Edwards has an authenticity problem because of his DLC centrist voting record when he was a Senator, and we all know Hillary is Bush-Cheney Lite.
That leaves Obama as the only real choice of those with progressive views like myself, but like BIRDOC, I wish Obama were even more progressive on health care, the environment, and AIPAC. His shortcomings in these areas can be explained by election year politics (most Americans have not been denied care by their HMO, farm states and other Midwestern states are pushing ethanol and "clean" coal rather than solar, wind, and electric vehicles), and AIPAC donors are one of the largest financial backers of Democrats), but my gut is that he will actually govern as one of the most progressive leaders of our time.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/12/2007 @ 12:58pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 12:35pm
Well, several points...
1. No...actually there is nothing of yours that I have kept archived. Take that as compliment...or insult....heheh.
2. "V" is playing the 9/11 Conspiracy theory line...so isn't it a BIT appropos to mention that he's a LaRouche fan, and everybody is free to examine the beliefs of ol' Lyndon...and HIS conspiracy theories.
3. I find that many here (especially HSUBFOOLS, LVLIB, RESE, MARKCANYON) have this impression that they can say THE most outrageous or asinine things, including predictions, and think that when the deadline for same comes to pass...that everybody will have just forgotten (which they will) and they can CONTINUE to make outrageouos and asinine and keep the same "street cred".
HSUB predicted Bush and Cheney impeached by October 2007, in January 2007. And predicted Gore would announce for President by "the 20th or the 30th" of October 2007.
He NOW predicts it in early January ("30 days after he wins the Nobel") and even claimed that THAT prediction was his prediction all along.
With no archive...he might get away with it. As it is, he's shown as not just delusional...but a liar.
RESE predicts the virtual end of the United States by "March-April" of the upcoming year...and further said she would "shut up if it doesn't happen". Think she'd "remember that" if there wasn't a record and precise date and post to reference?
LVLIB talks about his Christian values...yet promotes "Dresdenizing" cities as a means to "win" the War on Terrorism, and wanted to NUKE Chinese "depots" (oddly near cities) as a means of "winning" the Korean War for Doug MacArthur...
think he'd "have trouble recollecting that"....if there was no record?
MARKCANYON ....ENDORSED the Holocaust!!!!!!
(BLOG | Posted 10/05/2007 @ 5:23pm Prison Reformers Finally Set Free by Matthew Blake----Posted by MARKCANYON 10/06/2007 @ 1:15pm)
If I didn't save it, and he learned to keep his youthful mouth shut about his insanity....how many might take him seriously?
Blogs are wonderful things...but the things said on them evaporate in the wind like aviation fuel. And that, along with anonyminity, is what allows the blathering idiots...to keep blathering...and never be held accountable.
"Notepad" and a keen eye for the ridiculous here...doesn't keep them honest (again HSUB, RESE)...but atleast serves as warning to the rest.
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 1:06pm
Edwards has an authenticity problem because of his DLC centrist voting record when he was a Senator
~Metteyya
That's pretty much a drive-by assassination attempt, Mr. Metteyya.
In the end, the cards are going to fall where they may, and we will all see who gets shafted and who doesn't.
I don't like the odds as they stand right now.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 1:13pm
"The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars, but in ourselves"
~Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person
Kool, that is WAY appropriate. I was ranting on a tangent on another thread and more or less thinking out loud on how to fix what I perceive to be a huge problem. Mask, replied something to the effect that the start of the fix has to happen locally. I pondered that for a while trying to figure out what the hell he was talking about. Then it occurred to me. In order to fix things, we have to start at the bottom and work our way up. Can't start at the top and hope for a "trickle down" effect. At least I think that was what Mask was talking about. (If not, that's what I concluded and it still works).
So your quote is very appropriate. If we really want to see change, I don't think we're going to see radical immediate change like Kucinich represents. I've said before that his ideas are good but way too radical to be implemented. My erroneous thought was that I could see a drastic change quickly. That just can't happen. Not an effective and long lasting change anyway. I think we have to start small and work our way up.
So with the pre-packaging deal, I teach my kids to actually think independent thoughts and respect their points of view. Or at least respect the fact that they have their own points of view (no matter how wrong they may be - they are teenagers after all). I don't want them to tow the party line or be sheep mindlessly following a leader. Is that making a change? I'd say so as I've seen the kid's friends start to absorb some of their views, which they've absorbed from my wife and I. It isn't a drastic or immediate change but it is a change nonetheless.
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/12/2007 @ 1:21pm
If I didn't save it, and he learned to keep his youthful mouth shut about his insanity....how many might take him seriously?....
"Notepad" and a keen eye for the ridiculous here...doesn't keep them honest (again HSUB, RESE)...but atleast serves as warning to the rest.
MASK @ 1:06pm
Fair enuf, as it goes I 'spose.
But I believe it's probably more of a fool's errand than a useful tactic.
It doesn't take much time to figure out who speaks fairly reasonably, and in the end we each make that judgment on our own. My personal opinion would be that you let it go, and let it flow.
It's far more likely that the bloggers here are repulsed by your archiving than they are encouraged by it.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 1:30pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT @ 1:21pm
Thanks for those thoughts. :-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 1:37pm
But I believe it's probably more of a fool's errand than a useful tactic.
It doesn't take much time to figure out who speaks fairly reasonably, and in the end we each make that judgment on our own. My personal opinion would be that you let it go, and let it flow.
It's far more likely that the bloggers here are repulsed by your archiving than they are encouraged by it.----Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 1:30pm
1. Again, how many would be allowed to keep coming back time after time, making outrageous statements...and still get the benny of the doubt (perhaps not from us old timers, but newbies)...if nobody knew what they had said in the past?
2. LEWWELGE, kiss butt that he is, is about the only one to take RESE seriously....but others often quote her or say "Okay, I have RESE on Ignore, but she might have a point on this one". If they DIDN'T know that she had predicted "martial law, war with Iran, a draft, and 'openents' sent to Halliburton concentration camps by April 2008"....might that number not be higher?
3. Not so oddly, the ones CAUGHT seem to be the ones most repulsed.
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 1:45pm
It's gotta be James Carville...he's nuts...but he was hilarious on 30 Rock the other night.
On the mention of Obama's gay bashing, isn't there a lot of truth in that one? (Donnie McClurkin) I'm amazed a scream or a haircut can hurt a Dem.'s campaign more than having a "formerly" gay gospel singer who happens to bash gays, tour the country with you..Obama's star isn't as bright as it seemed to be back in 2004.
I like Mr. Hutchinson post from October:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-should-repudia te-an_b_69244.html
Posted by KCMORyan at 12/12/2007 @ 2:00pm
Here's a gem for the day:
"Obama and Hillary on the same ticket would be terrific. With these 2 candidates the country could become a democratic society for 16 years!
In sum, whenever you hear more chatter about the tight Democratic primary race take a breath. Get back in touch with your cynicism. Talk about change is for campaigns; protecting the status quo is for winners. Plutocrats know who they want and what voters can be conned into voting for. Despite primaries the ultimate outcome has already been determined by the faceless fat-cat plutocrats running and ruining our nation. Think Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Business, Big Law and Lobbying Firms, and Big Wall Street Money. They can pump in the money and endorsements to make Clinton the winner and the corporate mainstream media will assist.
Note that rigged-election-master Fidel Castro called the Clinton-Obama ticket "invincible." And, as to a winning Clinton-Obama ticket, smarmy Fox News analyst Dick Morris said "I'm leaving the country if this happens." Hopefully more Fox News liars and idiots would do likewise. Does that possibility justify voting for that first-ever ticket? No. The better moral and patriotic decision is to not participate in the two-party criminal conspiracy we call our political system and not vote for any Democrat or Republican for federal office. Those supporting Clinton's rivals eventually will see this truth."
~ Joel Hirschorn at Counterpunch today in, "The Horserace Fiction".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 2:04pm
BTW, B_KOOL....should really check in on Ms. RESE occasionally...
"Masky you lied i never said April 2008 i said April next year... YOU ARE THE LIAR!"----Posted by RESE 12/12/2007 @ 1:59pm
"And when January comes it will be April next year"----Posted by RESE 12/12/2007 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person (my bolds)
BLOG | Posted 01/25/2007 @ 12:52am Comments for "Edging Impeachment Back Onto the Table" by John Nichols
When, say, March-ish, maybe April 2008 rolls around and it becomes legislatively, much less politically, IMPOSSIBLE to impeach Bush and Cheney and they are inevitably going to finish out their 2nd terms and leave on Inauguration Day January 2009.....what are you going to say about them and why will it matter? ----Posted by MASK 01/26/2007 @ 08:44am
"By then then will have Nuked and invaded Iran. The Draft will be in operation, probably Martial law too and no body will be able to say anthing against them, because all openents will be classified enemy combatants and shipped to work in the New Reich concentration camps" ----Posted by RESE 01/26/2007 @ 1:18pm
I'll shut up if it doesn't happen!----Posted by RESE 05/22/2007 @ 09:58am
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 2:21pm
Posted by KCMORYAN 12/12/2007 @ 2:00pm
KC, as a Hillary supporter, maybe you can help us out.
We have been trying to find a Hillary supporter that can answer a simple question: Why did Hillary OPPOSE the disclosure of the source and recipient of pork-barrel earmarks as discussed in the Village Voice article entitled "Mama Warbucks" (<--Google this)?
CCorbel has been ducking the question, but I think most Democrats want an answer to this because it shows Hillary as being beholden to the same military-industrial-complex that got us into Iraq. We can't have meaningful change from Bush/Cheney with Hillary if she wants us to "keep secret" the influence defense contractors have on her and our government.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/12/2007 @ 2:24pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 2:04pm
That's a low blow, B-Kool!
You know Hillary-Obama ain't happenin', as Hillary is much too calculating for that. IF she gets the nomination, and that is a big "if" at this point, she will put General Wesley Clark on the ticket to reach the South and those who thinks she is not as tough as a man when it comes to war.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/12/2007 @ 2:28pm
Posted by RESE 12/12/2007 @ 3:02pm
April 2008 will pass into May 2008, RESE...and none of what you predict will have come to pass, and you'll STILL be here not "shutting up".
Like with another wacko, I'm willing to wait for you to show your dishonesty...and you will.
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 3:11pm
That's a low blow, B-Kool!
~Metteyya
It's hardly a "low blow". It's partly tongue-in-cheek, but also devastatingly accurate in laying waste to the entire crappy political system we all slave under.
I advocate for Edwards because he's calling it what it is: broken government. Whatever your take on Edwards, he's been far more honest than Barack "I'm not so subtly running as the Honest Abe candidate" Obama.
By the way, here's another fireball scarecrow:
John Pilger put the imperial foreign policy essence of the Obama phenomenon in useful context indeed during a speech in Chicago last June (Pilger 2007):
"As for the Democrats, look at how Barack Obama has become the voice of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the propaganda organs of the old liberal Washington establishment. Obama writes that while he wants the troops home, We must not rule out military force against long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria.' Listen to this from the liberal Obama: At moments of great peril in the past century our leaders ensured that America, by deed and by example, led and lifted the world, that we stood and fought for the freedom sought by billions of people beyond their borders.' That is the nub of the propaganda, the brainwashing if you like, that seeps into the lives of every American, and many of us who are not Americans. From right to left, secular to God-fearing, what so few people know is that in the last half century, United States administrations have overthrown 50 governments--many of them democracies. In the process, thirty countries have been attacked and bombed, with the loss of countless lives."
~Paul Street at ZNet in, "Obama Speaks".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 3:23pm
she will put General Wesley Clark on the ticket to reach the South and those who thinks she is not as tough as a man when it comes to war.
~METTEYYA @ 2:28pm
I almost burned right by that one. Exactly Metteyya, she will want to prove how tough she is when it comes to war.
I, for one, don't need convincing. Frankly, she scares the bejezuz out of me.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 3:27pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 3:27pm
"Warp Drive" Wesley?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 3:50pm
Retry!
~Paul Street at ZNet in, "Obama Speaks".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 3:53pm
Posted by MASK 12/12/2007 @ 3:50pm
everybody picks the "mexican"
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 3:57pm
"Warp Drive" Wesley?!?!?!?
~MASK @ 3:50pm
Funny you should say that, Maskot. At that exact moment --immediately after the 3:27 post-- I was just installing a new memory chip into my computer.
So your cover is now officially blown. You're here to watch everyone.
I'm looking for the hidden camera(s) as we speak.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/12/2007 @ 4:02pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 4:02pm
Oh, first thing that pops into my head with Wes Clark has GOT to be his belief that we'll develop warp drive, from his 2004 campaign.
If he gets Veep....be prepared for GOP ads with him PhotoShop'ed with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy from 1967.
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 4:13pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/12/2007 @ 4:02pm
BTW, clean up that pizza box and those Pepsi cans off your desk....the crumbs and cola are getting into your keyboard!
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 4:14pm
"Warp Drive" Wesley?!?!?!?
Posted by MASK 12/12/2007 @ 3:50pm
Yep. Just like that. Repulsed.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/12/2007 @ 4:31pm
Mask,
While I too would like to have a candiddate that didn't actually think warp-drive was an up and coming technology, I would just be happy to have one who doesn't think our foreign policy should be based on the conflicting fables of invisible men in the sky.
I get your point, but it hardly bears mentioning, next to the mindless imbeciles he would be campaigning with. (Ditto with dennis's UFOs. Daft? Sure. But irrelevant in context of the serious brain damage he competes with.) Seriously, let that one go.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/12/2007 @ 4:53pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/12/2007 @ 4:53pm
Eric, I just think it's funny....
it's the GOP that will think Clark is a godsend!
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 4:59pm
Until I logged on and read this piece, I never knew the web site being discussed even existed. So much for success or effectiveness.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 12/12/2007 @ 5:13pm
MELBER: Smith......unsure whether it matters:
It's unclear whether the site should be considered a success, in political terms. It is rarely linked or cited by other political blogs, and it hasn't entered the mainstream of the political conversation.
For all its lies, bias and negativity, though, Hillaryis44 is effective. It is discussed by political and media types, offering a harder edge than the campaign's official site.
----------------------------------
After reading this piece by MELBER, it's clearly time Smith consider Hillaryis44 to be a success since:
1) the The Nation is now BOTH giving it coverage and a forum for "political conversation"! How many hits a day does thenation.com gets a day? and
2) MELBER said so: "though, Hillaryis44 is effective.", and
Last but most progressively not least, this HAPPY `buck stops here', Islamo-Stalinist said so....case closed! :))
Posted by Happy at 12/12/2007 @ 8:28pm
I don't know what to make of this post. I did not used to be Hillary supporter but seeing the constant barrage of attacks on her, most of them unfounded in reasoning and logic, are forcing me into her corner. Virtually anything Hillary does becomes a subject of headline. The so called progressive website are merciless and these websites have their own hypocracy and do not tolerate dissenting points of views. For instance, Huffingtonpost.com offer a daily dose of anti-Hillary headlines inspired by the anti-Hillary hysteria of its founder, Ariana Huffington. This website is known for censoring comments that dare to criticise the inanity of its bloggers. Bill Clinton was right in one respect...that attacks by these websites are similar in character to those by Swift-Boaters.
Posted by kevin99999 at 12/12/2007 @ 8:36pm
....forcing me into her corner.....
Posted by KEVIN99999 12/12/2007 @ 8:36pm
A sympathy male vote....hope it's not going to be another trend, on top of:
- Near-illiterate (politically) women vote,
- Female retiree "Oh, I wish my daughter is like Hillary" vote
- "I like Bill" vote,
- "Stand-by-your-Man" admirers' vote,
- Blacks who don't believe in black POTUS candidate vote,
- "It's time for a woman POTUS" vote,
- "Two POTUS for the price of one" vote......
Posted by Happy at 12/12/2007 @ 10:09pm
Posted by KEVIN99999 12/12/2007 @ 8:36pm
Paid or un-paid Hillary blogger.
The "I never liked Hillary before, but I like here now because all you progressives attack her!" or the false charge of how "The Nation censors comments that dare to criticise the inanity of its bloggers"
Prove that, KEV.
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 10:30pm
My hunch is C.Corbell as well. Lets smoke em out!!
Hilarious post Frosty. If only we could hack Clinton's website and get your bullet points in there? Come on hackers....Ms. Nasty Politics would certainly deserve it.
Posted by OneVote at 12/12/2007 @ 10:52pm
I did not used to be Hillary supporter but seeing the constant barrage of attacks on her, most of them unfounded in reasoning and logic, are forcing me into her corner.
Kev -- you've got to be joking? Okay everyone...we better stop being critical of the First Lady or we will drive everyone to vote for the worst candidate by a country mile.....whooooops I mean the "best"....that better Kev?
Posted by OneVote at 12/12/2007 @ 10:57pm
Mask,
No defense of hillary or kevinloves9s... but your quoting issues are cropping up again;
"For instance, Huffingtonpost.com offer a daily dose of anti-Hillary headlines inspired by the anti-Hillary hysteria of its founder, Ariana Huffington. This website is known for censoring comments that dare to criticise the inanity of its bloggers."
...does not (necessarily) translate to; "The Nation censors comments that dare to criticise the inanity of its bloggers"
Even if it did, you'd have to ditch the quotes.
(Bad sentence structure kevin - The Pot)
Posted by Malcontent at 12/12/2007 @ 11:08pm
Posted by KEVIN99999 12/12/2007 @ 8:36pm
Kev,
As someone who is in Hillary's corner, maybe you can help us understand her position on earmarks. We have been trying to get a straight answer out of her supporters here, but everyone keeps ducking the question.
Go to the this website [tinyurl.com] AND this one [tinyurl.com] and then answer a simple question: Why is Hillary putting in more pork-barrel earmarks ($160 million dollars) into a defense bill than any other Democrat in history on behalf of defense contractors AND voting for keeping the source and recipient of these earmarks "secret"?
Doesn't this demonstrate that she has been bought by the same military-industrial-complex as Bush and Cheney that got us into Iraq and now wants us to invade Iran?
Posted by Metteyya at 12/12/2007 @ 11:11pm
Hilarious post Frosty. If only we could hack Clinton's website and get your bullet points in there? Come on hackers....Ms. Nasty Politics would certainly deserve it.
Posted by ONEVOTE 12/12/2007 @ 10:52pm
if only it weren't true.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 11:35pm
The first URL in my last post is here
Posted by Metteyya at 12/12/2007 @ 11:40pm
I wish we had more of these dirty bloggers. But not to do these kind of attacks on fellow Dems, but to respond to Reps which are the mud specialists like shown in the last several elections.
People out there use your 'talents' for a better purpose.
Posted by Frank42 at 12/13/2007 @ 01:32am
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/12/2007 @ 11:08pm
Correction noted, Eric. Apologies to KEV, though I do plea his bad grammer as mitigating circumstances.
I still think he's phoney on that "I did not used to be Hillary supporter but seeing the constant barrage of attacks on her, most of them unfounded in reasoning and logic, are forcing me into her corner"....nobody just jumps on somebody's band-wagon because others are attacking them.
He's a Hillary-ite from Day One.
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 09:07am
nobody just jumps on somebody's band-wagon because others are attacking them.
Posted by MASK 12/13/2007 @ 09:07am
if that were true, cheney would be the next president.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 10:20am
if that were true, cheney would be the next president.====Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/13/2007 @ 10:20am
Exactly...that's why I'm sure KEV is a LONG-time Hillary supporter and it wasn't our 'vicious attacks' that 'drove' him to her corner.
He's no different than GRITS or CCOR.
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 11:08am
Here's something everyone of us here needs to bookmark.........(bold mine)
Editorial: Editorial: The pig roast is almost over
The Washington DC Examiner Newspaper , DC Editorial
Dec 13, 2007 2:00 AM (8 hrs ago) by The Washington DC Examiner Newspaper
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - It's not just another day in the nation's capital. At 11:30 a.m., Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., will throw the switch on a new landmark of government, USASpending.gov. Mandated by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), which was co-sponsored by Coburn and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., USASpending.gov is a searchable, Googlelike database that puts most federal spending within a few mouse clicks for every American.....
Today is a milestone because, as President Bush noted when he signed FFATA into law Sept. 26: "We spend a lot of time and a lot of effort collecting your money, and we should show the same amount of effort in reporting how we spend it. Taxpayers have a right to know where that money is going, and you have a right to know whether or not you're getting value for your money." Taxpayers can know because USASpending.gov brings federal spending into the Internet age. It's the place to go, for example, if you're interested in how much the government spent last year on "consultants" or the number of federal contracts given to the company owned by your congressman's biggest contributor.....
Posted by Happy at 12/13/2007 @ 12:07pm
Posted by HAPPY 12/13/2007 @ 12:07pm
Would that include 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars "invisibly" spent on Iraq?
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 12:25pm
Site must not be up yet HAPPY. I got redirected to federalspending.gov and then every tab was "the page you are looking for is unavailable."
This would be a really cool site if it is actually true to it's stated purpose.
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/13/2007 @ 1:10pm
If you want to scare yourself, imagine who would be in Kucinich's cabinet!
Posted by sntauri at 12/13/2007 @ 1:16pm
Posted by MASK 12/13/2007 @ 09:07am
I agree. I just like giving you shit about puntuation.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2007 @ 1:16pm
i love the pic of obama glaring at her...like he just identified the location of the smell of the rot...
warp drive wesly kicks ass. he'd be an even better pick for obama as a number two...
but if edwards suprises us and gets the prize i think obama is the obvious choice for number two...
ah...the undiscovered country, looming on the event horizon ever closer...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/13/2007 @ 1:18pm
Posted by MASK 12/13/2007 @ 12:25pm
ya know,
after having read the LATEST CO-ORDINATED ACTION BY THE U.S.E.U.CDNSWISS RESERVE BANK*,
i feel inspired to make predictions of RESIAN PROPORTIONS.
but i won't. :+}
*the bank that saved christmas.
i'm not quite sure how happy the new year will be, however.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 1:19pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/13/2007 @ 1:10pm
it works in canada*.
WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.
here
if you click on the link, they'll know you've come from THENATIONDOTCOM.
*hi guys!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 1:41pm
I just like giving you shit about puntuation.
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/13/2007 @ 1:16pm
and spelling, too...........
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 1:42pm
I agree. I just like giving you shit about puntuation.
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/13/2007 @ 1:16pm
Give me shit about ....what?!?!?!?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 1:50pm
*the bank that saved christmas.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/13/2007 @ 1:19pm
I LOVE that Christmas special....what with the "Island of Misfit Fiscal Cons" and every time they put the top hat on Ben Bernanke he says "Happy Birthday!" and then Henry Paulson finds Zuzu's petals!
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 1:53pm
Posted by MASK 12/13/2007 @ 1:50pm
puntuation. Your punctuation sucks too.
(I guess I should even (especially?) spell check short, smart ass posts, huh?
Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2007 @ 3:55pm
"it works in canada*".....and now the US!
Welcome to USASpending.gov, Where Americans Can See Where Their Money Goes
Have you ever wanted to find more information on government spending? Have you ever wondered where federal contracting dollars and grant awards go? Or perhaps you would just like to know, as a citizen, what the government is really doing with your money. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) requires a single searchable website, accessible by the public for free that includes for each Federal award:.....
Posted by Happy at 12/13/2007 @ 3:59pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/13/2007 @ 3:55pm
Hey, I used to mis-spell "embarassing"...that was embaressing.
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 4:07pm
Posted by HAPPY 12/13/2007 @ 3:59pm
Again, does it show the 3/4th of a TRILLION in "invisible" spending we've spent on Iraq?
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 4:07pm
Posted by MASK 12/13/2007 @ 1:53pm
naw, that special is subprime.
for a real holidayday fun-a-long,
check out the one about the giant island-size
snow man who comes to life when they put,
"professor hinkle's ol' hydrocarbon hat" on his head.
at the end he melts and falls away into the north atlantic.
it's called "Frostyland, the Ice-Cube".
Gluggaty, glug glug,
Gluggaty, glug glug,
Look at Frosty melt.
Gluggaty, glug glug,
Gluggaty, glug glug,
OH, what a deal we've dealt.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 4:17pm