CNN Joins The Smear Hillary Campaign
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Oct 09, 2007 8:36am(guest blogged by Bill W.)
Download | play 
Download | play
This is perhaps the most shameless hit piece I've seen on CNN since...well, I can't seem to remember ever seeing such a thing on CNN.
Apparently the news is that Sandy Berger, a favorite topic of Republican smear merchants, is NOT part of the HRC campaign. Did I just miss the disclaimer 'this ad paid for by 'swiftboat vets for smearjobs'? I really thought MSNBC was bad yesterday when they let a pundit call Hillary "shrill and fishwife-y," but this wasn't just some bobblehead talking, it was apparently supposed to be an actual honest-to-God news story.
How exactly?
I'm sorry, but everyone and anyone not officially connected to any campaign can offer advice and that isn't a scandal.
From what I gather, CNN apparently got the story hitpiece from the Examiner, a publication whose "right-wing slant" has been well-documented. Beyond their questionable sourcing, if, as CNN reports, that Berger has "no official role" in Hillary's campaign, then CNN knew before they even began shooting that Examiner story was tripe.
What's more, Blitzer then segues into a story that VP Cheney's daughter is now a co-chair to Fred Thompson's campaign. Well, ok, that MIGHT be newsworthy on a slow day, I suppose. At least she is 'officially connected' to the campaign. But if you're going to run with that, wouldn't it have been MUCH more newsworthy to at least mention that another Thompson co-chair is former Sen George Felix 'Macaca' Allen? I'm just askin'.
Login or Register to post comments.
Ditch the corporate media, turn to the blogs.
I guess it's all about the ratings. This kind of shit works for FOX so CNN seems to be giving it a shot. I'm more pissed off about the debates yesterday when no one would refer to Senator Clinton but instead chose to just call her Hillary. She deserves their respect.
ZOMG! I negative report about THE HRC?!?!!? Start making your signs, we need to protest. Don't they know OUR Hillary is OFF-LIMITS!?!?!?!!
/snark
HRC is not going to end the war, and anyone who believes what she says is about the same as a left wing version of a bush voter.
What is their fascination with Berger?
The Bush administration leaks the name of a CIA to punish her husband. Then one of their insiders is indicted for lying to a grand jury about it and has to be pardoned so he doesn't go to jail. Yesterday news reports said they leaked to FOX News a classified report gathered for them about bin Laden. I think they should clean their own doorstep off before they criticize anyone else.
W H O C A R E S ?
Please catch up, C & L. It's already been reported that Macaca and Cheney's spawn will not be a part of the train wreck better known as Fred Thompson's campaign.
It was reported in WaPo yesterday.
"This is perhaps the most shameless hit piece I’ve seen on CNN since…well, I can’t seem to remember ever seeing such a thing on CNN."
Tell me you're kidding..the heavy rotation on the "Dean scream?" The lying Gupta about Moore's film? CNN is always pulling this sh*t, they're just less blatant about it than FOX, but make no mistake, they are just as bad or worse.
GOOD I hope it helps bring her DOWN
ANY DEM but Hillary!!!
SHE PANDERS ALL THE TIME....
Let us not forget that it has been reported that 'Mendacious Mary' Matalin has also joined not so fiery Fred campaign.
Why should we be surprised that Conservative News Network ran a hit piece on Hillary?
I mean, really?
hanshiro @ 7:
=================
I dunno about CNN being worse than FOX, but they are definitely worthless as a source of propaganda-free unslanted news. CNN is rife with political cunning and plotting, but it is a bit cleverer about the way it tries to spin; they have to try harder to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of all the moderates and liberals who STILL trust them. Maybe they are worse in the sense that they've been much more successful at "playing news" than Fox News Channel and people trust them more. We shouldn't trust any main-stream media these days, period, seeing as how they're all bought and paid for by right-leaning corporations.
OMG you took of my comment...
I SECOND THE WHO CARES
it's going to be a looooong year.
"Hilary Clinton has inextricable ties to her husband's administration..."
:D
Really?
LOL
xoites defends Constitution @ 14:
Perhaps...(sarcasm alert) because SHE'S HIS WIFE??? (end sarcasm)
Suggestion: With this kind of story, you might include a link to take action (e.g., a link to send an email to the producers).
I count myself as part of the 50% of C&L readers who still have a memory. Hillary has been adopted by international CORPORATE interests. What is wrong with people that they cannot see beyond a candidates team jersey? She's a Dem only in label. Supports the Iraq occupation and has smiling corporate lobbyists lined up down the hall to write checks. Don't you all think it's time to support a candidate who has the PEOPLE's interests in mind?
..... Young Turk Cenk Ugyur absolutely TORE APART Jim Clancy CNN reporter who was talking with General suckup err Petraeus about how brave the men and women are fighting for us over there are and how Al Qaeda was battling us all over the country and how Clancy was being wholly uncritical and totally unbalanced (government shill). Oh we are so through the looking glass, of course having gotten rid of my TEEVEE a month ago I find myself less annoyed at the banal stories that I had to view in the past.
Dimples @ 17:
Oh, i support Kucinich, but i am in total disagreement with smear campaigns. Pointing them out is a very good idea if you ask me. We can defeat Hilary with facts not wierd crap like this CNN hit piece.
The Examiner isn't based in Wichita, it's from Colorado. Anyway, the media has determined that Clinton will easily win against any Republican opponent so they are trying to do to her what they did to Howard Dean. If they can prop up Obama or Edwards in the polls then they feel they have a better chance of losing to a Republican candidate.
It's the illusion of democracy that the media leaves us with. How considerate that they are continually lax on reporting details about Iraq and Iran but happily go into every detail with the Clintons or some blond tart that sings or poses for Playboy.
The Reslugs are scared shitless of Hillary's brains and their lack of balls and brains.
xoites defends Constitution @ 14:
All the more reason to nominate anyone but Hillary. The attacks are mild now compared to what they will be if she is nominated. The repugs want her to be the one they run against.
..... It is possible to defend Hillary and also have no intention of voting for her. It's like saying George Bush has been a wildly successful President, it is juss the .03% of the population he has been wildly successful for (the monied and corporate interests) and everyone else that has fallen off the cliff/ It still makes the wildly successful comment true....
as long as they keep up their unfounded smears against hillary, all it does is push people like me to have a closer look at her and possibly change my vote to hillary. for so many reasons though, aren't the repubs actually pushing hillary because they feel she is the most apt to lose of all the front running dem candidates? it's hard to gauge exactly where they're coming from at this point. have they already conceded that she will be the candidate therefore with respect to that, they have already begun their smear campaign. i would surmise that that is the case. hillary plays it as close to the middle as possible. do not alienate either side. stay that middle course and if she has to "bed" with the likes of elmer fudd lieberman in the process, i guess in her mind the end justifies the means. truble is you do alienate those who would support in the most vocal way. that's why at this point, i'm sticking with kucinich.
Sen. Clinton claims that she's prepared for these attacks, so let's see. Regardless, the media is going to push out these hit pieces against whomever carries a (D) symbol so this shouldn't be any surprise. However, with Sen. Clinton, it's a heck of a lot easier. Those who claim "who cares" should be careful with the dismissal as these attack pieces exist because they work and this shit should have been expected.
Ron @ 22:
I won't go that far. I think it is all the more reason to nominate Kucinich. The media is trying to set up Hilary for the big fall. They have been doing their homework on her and have lists of things to say and do. Kucinich baffles them so they merely ignore him.
I want Senator Clinton to lose fair and square. I can't be the only one who thinks "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" is a seriously problem--Bush Junior being the most insidious, of course.
no longer a proud american @ 24:
No, no, no. You don't get it. They have been pushing her because they think she will bring the Republicans out to the polls in droves.
xoites defends Constitution @ 26:
Doing their homework? They will bring up everything they have for the last 30 years.
CNN is trying to get street cred with the freepers with Sandy Berger segments and the continued employment of Glenn Beck
I, for one among many, am so glad to see Mrs. Clinton's past and present associations finally get brought under the critical microscopes. It is high time.
Letting her slide into the Dem helm, only to get killed next Spring and Summer will be a disaster for this country, and for the world.
She can't win. I repeat, she can't win. Being in denial of this fact will give us four more disastrous years of GOP "I got mine, so fuck you" politics.
Mrs. Clinton will never make it past Christmas as the leader, now that the inevitable critiques of her have started to come out of the wood-work.
Ask yourself: Why have the Republicans been so quiet on her? They want her to be the nominee, because, as Rove said, she is "fatally flawed." So, they are dying to have her be the nominee.
Let's get her out of the way as soon as possible so someone who can win can have the opportunity to start getting an image built before it is too late.
Mrs. Clinton cannot win. She has too much baggage and her "negatives" too high to pull it off.
If you support Mrs. Clinton, no disrespect intended, but you must read Maureen Dowd this morning in the NYTimes for a reality check.
FYI... the chimp is going to speak this morning about the NSA deal.
I gave up on CNN a long long time ago.
And as for Cheney's daughter - I will never understand gay republicans. Some kind of weird self flaggilation maybe?
Well its out in the open now. The single greatest weekness of Hilary Clinton is the ready made machine to attack her. All Dems and Liberals should know that the right wing is just now getting started. The "Arkanas Project", and "The Sift Boat Vets for Truth", will soon be joined by the "New York Project". Why talk about 'issues' when you can smear?
Personally I am sick to death of Bush Clinton Bush CLinton...... I dont ever want another Clinton or Bush in the White House in any position. I don't think they should be allowed to serve on anything anymore. And they can take their band of > merry men< with them when they leave DC town
If Hillary's determined and knowledgeable she's remote, if she responds to harsh questioins she's bitchy, and if she raises her skirt and spreads them on a public pool hall table she's frigid.
Mel @ 27:
.............. you're not the only one and save for a Nick Kristof editorial a few months back in the times no one EVER discusses this. I can't think of another country in modern times that has a string like this. Was Imelda Marcos ever in charge of the Phillipines (B Aquino/Marcos/C Aquino)? That comes closest and I don't think Imelda ever had a whiff of official power
The Political Junkie @ 6:
Got a link? I did find this in WaPo yesterday:
George Allen's Back And Touting Thompson
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/09/george_allen_is_back...
And this is still on Fred's website:
Were you confused by the news that they pulled both Cheney and Allen out of the post-debate spin-room?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/08/402183.aspx
I haven't seen any news that Fred dumped him.
Maureen Dowd
Correction and more info. The chimp will speak about the FISA reform bill and he'll do so at about ten minutes after eleven (eastern time)
That's Bush-Clinton-Bush-Rodham.
She might have married a president, but give Hillary her due. Her career is impressive on its own.
I'm still voting Obama in the primaries, but I'd have no problem voting for Hillary.
Since when does anybody expect anything resembling journalism from the Clownact Noise Network?
At the same time, I find it impossible to summon much sympathy for HRC or any other Neocon-Lite® Corporatist who misrepresents themselves to the public as a liberal/progressive servant of the people.
We still have a over a year to go. I am already so sick of this crap.
The republicans are so out of touch with the people. McCain says its fair for the rich to pay 15% taxes and the poor pay 30%. The smears and fake outrage stories like Obama and his missing lapel pin. Hilary has a crooked donor and its all over the news like flies on shit but they ignore the repugs getting money from child molesters.
CNN did run a piece yesterday (at least twice) about bush lying. They showed the clip of him saying because of the success of the surge there would be a brigade coming home for Xmas. Then they showed how they were already coming home and not being replaced because some other country is not sending in their troops. They haven't had enough rest. This was known before bush made his claim. They also said that there will still be more troops on the ground next summer than before the surge. They don't usually call bush out on his lies.
Not that WE didn't know he was lying, but it was interesting that CNN actually said it.
Yeah, I have to agree with almost everyone here leaving comments. Who made her the next King already? I don't care. Let everyone say all the bad shit they want about her, because frankly, the Rethugs are chomping at the bits like Pit Bulls in Michael Vicks palatial estate to tear her a new one and stick us with 4 to 8 years of a new ass fucker republican president. I don't WANT her to be the nominee.
>Personally I am sick to death of Bush Clinton Bush CLinton…… I dont ever want another Clinton or Bush in the White House in any position. I don’t think they should be allowed to serve on anything anymore. And they can take their band of > merry men< with them when they leave DC town
There is already a term limit ...
Why cant 'winning' POTUS be like a crappy sweepstakes with regulations that "Contest not open to Employees, former employees or their immediate families?"
OT
Kiefer Sutherland could get 48 days in jail. Al qaeda is going to hit us when he can't protect us.
What do expect from these corporate pigs, but this sort of grunting and flatulence?
Pay the corporate media no mind, and vote for the candidate you think will be best for change.
I hate to tell you but, no matter what Dem gets the nomination, he or she is going to be the lesser of two evils. I would prefer Kucinich, but he won't win crap. Hillary will probably be the nominee and, as team-Clinton are fighters not pansies like Kerry and, yes, Gore (and I do like Gore a LOT), they won't let themselves be Swift-boated. Further, I hate to sound paranoid, but I wouldn't be surprised if more has been decided behind the scenes already about this election than you think.
Verla Mae @ 48:
And that would be Kucinich. :)
Neither of the people I want to vote for are running. I want to vote for Gore and I want to cast a vote for Russ Feingold. :(
JustThisGuyYaKnow @ 49:
Hell, its all been decided. You have decided Kucinich can't win and I have decided to put that theory to the test.
Ali @ 33:
This is a different Cheney daughter.
I wonder if the right is as worried about our soldiers and innocent Iraqis being killed every day as they are about Sandy Berger's activities? I'm guessing they aren't.
xoites defends Constitution @ 39:
Here's a better link that won't make people have to register/sign in first.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10dowd.html?ex=1349668800&en=e...
via the blog friendly NYT link generator ;)
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink
For years we have all known the msm to be bush enablers, liars, misinformation carriers and telepromptor readers. There has been no journalism to speak of. So what surprises me is how many are ready to buy into it now. Hilary will win. Kucinich can't win. With all you know, why are you letting them tell you who you are voting for?
I don't mind it. She won't make a good candidate and I wouldn't vote for her as a democrat. She's basically a republican and a lot of her heatlh care ideas aren't that great.
She's the ultimate two faced talking head and little more. I'd say most of these smears are coming from the left to keep her from running away from ohio.
Whine all you want, but it's a mistake on the part of the Clinton camp. Berger should have been told to never talk to them again in any capacity. Why hand your opponents such a gift?
If every one who is voting for Mrs. Clinton as the lesser of two evils, rather than Kucinich because THEY have decided Kucinich "can't win", Kucinich would win in such a large landslide. Please stop allowing yourself to be manipulated by the tee vee.
pissed off patricia @ 2:
I am not going to vote for Clinton, but I do try to be consistent and respectful when I comment and refer to her as Clinton when I am referring to Obama and Edwards and so on. But I recall, POP, that having her known by first name only was part of the campaign strategy from the beginning. I'm going to watch out for some of her banners, signs, and bumper stickers and see what they call her.
Rooom @ 56:
Yeah. It's much worse than bringing in the entire Iran Contra Scandal team (minus Ollie North) into your administration. The press really went mild on that one!
Dimples @ 57:
Your vote wil not count if you don't vote for the person you want. If you vote against the person because you don't think that person can win, they certainly can't win.
Look, this isn't a "Right-Wing Media" assault. Its a corporate media ratings push. Brittany, Lindsey Lohan, Hllary...Its a fodder for their canon.
The real point is that this is how its going to be with her as POTUS. Do we really want four years (or more) of this National Enquirer type "journalism"???
Hillary's bitchyness, Hillary's sex life, Hillary's clothes?
Edwards...Please.
The Ratpublican Bastard Party has been treating Hilary's candidacy as a foregone conclusion for over 2 years now because they know that her nomination will bring out the hard core crazies on election day. They've been smearing her since '91, they don't even have to retrain their brain dead minions, they'll just rerun all the old stuff and they'll never know the difference.
Now I don't hate the Clintons, but they really disappointed me. I wish they would have put their fund raising skills to work on one of the other candidates. Personally, I would love to see a Democratic President nominate her for the Supreme Court, and Gore made Secretary of the Interior because that would really drive the right totally batsh*t crazy.
"shrill," "Fishwifey" "cackle", seems like they are all looking for the Howard Dean moment, the thing that will sink her campaign. Kind of a spaghetti smear campaign, throw all wer can manufacture at her and run with what sticks!
They suck.
"CHARLIE MANSON HAS NO OFFICIAL ROLE IN G.O.P"
John @ 62:
That is not a drive. That is a short walk.
jakethesnake @ 3:
Sen. Clinton has been the #1 target of every channel, news & noise, for a long time. She's never been ''off limits'' unless you don't watch TV. Even the daytime bubbleheads drag her into every political piece to slam her. Or they make up something to totally discredit all the polls she's leading in. If anyone but Sen. Clinton was leading, the poll results would be declared ''valid & wonderful.'' Then they'd bring it all back to how it proves Sen. Clinton really is as hated as they've been instructing everyone.
It's the other candidates who are off-limits. None of them gets more than puff-piece treatment which usually leads into more bashing of the frontrunner. Countless reminders that frontrunner Gov. Dean crashed & burned years ago so look for it to happen to Sen. Clinton too, especially if she godforbid ever laughs again (cue laugh footage). Look at how they all declared that Thompson did well in Tweety's debate because he made a funny joke. He ''went head to head with Rudy'' & looked real tall doing it. Wow. Did he say anything substantial? Apparently not, compared to how tall he is & his ability to pull off a standard one-liner. Which reminds them how Sen. Clinton botched a joke (cue stock footage of the Clintons) just like Sen. Kerry did (cue more old stock footage) & remember how he lost etc.
Fox Noise has been pushing this bogus piece about Sandy Berger for days now. It was a constant topic in their crawl & on their ''news'' reports/talkinghead shows in the days after their roll-out. Extensive ''examination'' of SB's history, most of it wrong. Yes, he's a disgraced criminal but could they please at least get his rap sheet right? Anyone who knows even a bit about the ''source'' & Fox Noise knew what it was right off the bat. Nevertheless, they repeatedly said it wasn't confirmed, even their ''source'' said he couldn't confirm it but it sure sounded true to him. Any bells going off yet as to what this was? Still, they kept shrieking hourly demands that Sen. Clinton respond to them ASAP or else it has to be true. Now CNN, once again, has regurgitated Fox's vomit to fill their empty hours of ''news.'' Nobody ever goes after Sen. Clinton because she's ''hands off?'' Thanks for the laugh.
revko @ 64:
I thought he was the head of the RNC.
Ron @ 67:
No, he just advises the White House on Detainee Interogation Tactics.
crappy
neocon
news
cetylovx @ 25:
They haven't so far. Maybe they should pick a different target for a change & see if they work.
xoites defends Constitution @ 68:
We could start a rumor. Straw man, "Some people say."
"Hillary Clinton has inextricable ties to her husband's administration"? You don't say. Well that changes everything doesn't it? I mean if she had inextricable ties..... What a pantload! Somebody should tell these assclowns that Bill Clinton had a sixty five percent approval rating when he left office. Not 65% of Democrats...65% of everybody. That compares to the near 30% that the chimp has had for a year. That seems to me to translate into about 216% of the approval of the chimp right now.
Boy, the thought of a female president really scares those old republican white boys! What a lowdown bunch of syncophants on CNN. Wolf is a sheep!
Ruthless People @ 1:
While I agree that is good personal advice I think we need to be aware of this stuff. It is just a mini-preview of what the corporate media has in store for Senator Clinton. It should be a factor in the nomination process. Although I suspect any Democratic candiditate will be "swift-boated".
redjb @ 8:
Agree. If “shrill and fishwife-y,” is the worst they can do, they need to go back to their drawing boards, because the rest of the MSM has cannonized her. She will cost us dems the election!
Hillary will become the big distraction. Every Clinton closet will be re-opened and every skeleton will be re-discussed ad nauseum. Never will the war or the business of the day be able to be discussed and resolved. It will be all about that navy dress again. They're lying in wait.
Too much rotting baggage. Eliminate her early or this will continue to go on and on and on.
Is this REALLY news.... So she's seeking advice from someone caught doing something wrong... But isn't our current president was known to be a drunk? So he gets a free pass on being a drunk, but we're talking about someone who did something stupid only giving 'advice'...
Smarmy @ 75:
But...these attacks might have the opposite effect. Truth is they (The Right) want Hillary to be the nominee...Bad.
jakethesnake @ 3:
how true. I sincerely hope that C& L doesnt' become like Media Matters..aka The Hilary Defense Team.
Hilary is a pro-war, pro-death penalty hypocritical ambition machine. (and she's going to win the presidency.) Stop asking us real progressives to feel sorry for her.
[Deleted. Is Sandy Berger running? If he is, wait for a thread about him to bring him up. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
With her voting record and recent statements the right should be embracing her. She has morphed into Corporate America's Plan A.
So you use a smear from a fake story on a fake "advisor' to tell bedtime stories ripped off from a z-rated ABC telemovie?
How can anybody vote for Clinton what is she hideing in her records and documents that she had sealed up in the clinton liberay.Its the same trick bush did and said trust me well now you see what we got. I can not vote for someone hideing there records and knot knowing all about there decisions in life. If not we will land with 4 more years of bush and the war that are troops are being killed as troops, and mexicans geting status and destroying American for votes.
The editors of the National Review live in a fantasy world.
redjb @ 8:
The buzz over Senator Clinton's candidacy is the biggest load of prepackaged bull since the introduction of New Coke. Can we wait for the, you know, voting to start before making her the nominee?
They shouldn't have let the pundit say that? We might not like everything that's said, but wehen you start talking about "letting" jerky people say things, you start sounding like one of them.
As for the Khobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia it was investigated, although frequently the Saudi government blocked the investigators. But it still resulted in arrests of the men involved in Canada with the help of the FBI after the data was cleared by a Federal judge.
Since then 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudis?
So why is Saudi Arabia still our ally?
Why are we still in Iraq?
And where is Osama?
Shouldn't WE THE PEOPLE OF A DISGRUNTLED NATION VOTE before we determine that Shillary is the Democratic Party's forgone conclusion?
And, who really watches CNN for news these days anyway?
pissed off patricia @ 53:
According to the right, there aren't any "innocent Iraqis."
KUCINICH.
MEP @ 81:
She know's she'll have your vote in the end; no way you'd ever vote for a Republican. She's always known that. Now she has to court the deeply dismayed Bush-voters and hope many of them have lousy memories.
Oooohh yeah, all that Bill bagage...
all those "problems in the 90s..."
Like what?
Prosperity and hope?
Yep those were problems...
Most independents voted for Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. They're the ones who swing votes, but they better not be treated as dummies.
See The Big Picture @ 90:
I've never heard Hillary Clinton worried about our soldiers and innocent Iraqis being killed every day either. She wants the war to go on until she is president, and then she will end it. Trust her.
ysbaddaden @ 94:
Unless those same independents voted for Bush in the last two elections. According to many on the left they were and are complete morons.
Actually Gore won the popular vote in 2000, Kerry in 2004, but electioneering shenanigans by the opposition cost them the electoral votes of Florida and Ohio.
However, ignoring the so called "fly-over" states hurt in close contests, and dropping from debates and primaries never helps anyone.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
So who takes the word of a fascist?
Look what happened to Mussolini.
fascism @ 99:
if hillary were a socialist i might could dig it, but she's not. not even close. she's a corporatist, so i'm all for a good hillary smear. smear her good.
The endless Hillary bashing on the left is getting tiresome. No, she is isn't the best choice. Everybody already knows that! Please allow me to piss off some Crooksandliars posters...
What happens when Hillary is the nominee (and, come on, she will be the nominee)? Will progressive Hillary haters still actively campaign against her? What happens if she does something brilliant like getting Wesley Clarke to be her running mate?
What are you going to do? Vote for a Republican instead?
Just asking.
I guess the Media really does Matter. www.MediaMatters.org
OT
Is it a coincidence that (gri)malking is acting like a crack crazed dingbat at exactly the same moment (m)ann coulter's got a new book to pimp?
lol -- "inextricably linked...to the problems of the 90s" he sez with a straight face! is there a sentient life form who would not gladly exchange the probs of today (hell, we'll even leave out torturing people!) for the "problems" of the 90s?
"Contract with America" turned out to be an insider deal for Blackwater, Hallliburton, and Custer Battles whereby we give them all our money and "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" while they pick up and move to Dubai while their brown people are building mass prison camps (cause "concentration camps" is just so pre-2K)
learn Chinese if you want your children to someday maybe work in the house...
[deleted--please respect the site owner's wishes re: discussion of 9/11]
rage @ 89:
Wake up - ours is not a democracy, but moneycracy, a bought presidency, a corrupt and unfixable system of gerrymandering and money. To the outside world it is a gross spectacle, but as usual we, Americans, will say ‘who gives a ^&*(proof: chimperor was ‘elected’ twice..).
Hillary is the worst warmonger of them all, maybe right behind HolyJoe LIEberschmuck. She will only advance the war more, and use GWB's legislation to lock us all up.
Repigs are desperately hoping that Hillary will be the Democratic Party’s candidate. Note that Rupert Murdoch, Krauthammer, Kristol, David Brooks and others all have kind words for her candidacy. Rahm Emmanuel/AIPAC man/, and her calculating, power-obsessed, self-absorbed, triangulating expediency may fool enough Democrats to get her nominated and, with public revulsion against the GOP at its peak, even elected.
It is exactly what repigs want: Hillary nomination.
HOW can dems think giving the opposition exactly what they want is a good strategy???
Especially when all indicators say if Edwards (maybe even Obama ) are the nominee we would be looking at a LANDSLIDE in getting most independents and some dissatisfied republicans voting democratic.
With Hillary not only do you chase them off but, alienate half the democratic party who are either going to stay home or even leave the party to protest. me included. (I am also a professional woman).
[deleted--get over yourself. You are not welcome to insult the blog with lies and smears. We are not endorsing any candidate and just because we mention Hillary Clinton does not mean that we're endorsing her. If you persist in your nasty comments against this site, you will be asked to post elsewhere.]
Site Monitor:
Cannot post - can you plse check WHY ? Thanks !
[You can post fine. You're going to moderation first, so a site monitor can review your comment before it's posted on the boards, based on your recent outrageously rude comments toward this site and its contributers. If it takes awhile to get to it, review it and let it out, it's the price you pay for not being able to edit yourself-Sitemonitor]
CappuccettoRosso @ 110:
Why is it that in our digital world, we can still be arrested for digitizing ourselves?
1)What makes anyone think that Clinton will keep the Iraq war going? She will not.
2)I'm simply not buying "bu-but--but the REPUBLICANS WANT Clinton to win" This is crap. The campaign is going along as planned, and Hillary Clinton has as good a shot, or better against any of the numbnut republicans. Mostly because they're still campaigning on issues that were relevant in 2004.
Clinton '08
Oops. Primarily, the Clintons understand the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and how it operates.
This is how Hillary will win; there are many supporters, I'm starting to see bumper stickers everywhere, and I've noticed W bumper stickers disappearing over the past 2 years, and can see some that have been peeled off.
Sneer @ 78:
MEP @ 83:
Well said.
Just focusing on the facts - WHY/HOW Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, etc are not as good as Hillary, or, indeed BETTER ? Hint:GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS count, not the dem nomination !
how does the 30+ years of Bush/Clinton criminal family uninterrupted ruling of our nation represent the Democratic Party values, and what are the advantages of this setup ?? Who's advantages ?!
How different is it from Brit dysfunctional royals - who are not allowed to define the UK policies...
Would she be where she is today if she were not married to Bill?
Unequivocally NO.
It’s WORSE than pathetic that the US first female potential president got there not on her own merits but her husband's coattails. All the years of fight for equal right are wiped OUT !!! It still doesn’t seem to have impinged on Americans !!!
The Democratic power brokers are forcing on the party a candidate who is unqualified and not a proponent of traditional Democratic Party values. Next year, we have a choice between her and some Neanderthal Republican. We cannot vote for a government that we want. We have a foretaste of the future in the present Democratic Congress that we’ve voted in, and which has accomplished nothing.
When the Clintons are handed a bribe, like the cattle futures windfall, AIPAC, big pharma 'contributions', or the contributions from Red Chinese generals, they come through. Otherwise, it’s back to the trailer in Little Rock for them.
MN USA @ 4:
Because he stuffed the papers in his pants! Heh, heh. He has pants. They're top secret! Heh, heh.
How about Bush's ties to Saudi Arabia. Our media is owned.
By the way, if someone wants to vote for somebody other than Hillary because they won't smear them, you need a quick lesson in campaigns. They smear everybody with a D before their names. Can you just imagine the stories about Obama, Kucinich, Edwards, whoever? What, you think that because they're honest (and you think Hillary isn't) they won't get smeared? Ha. Ha. Think of another reason for us to vote for your favorite, because that one's just stupid. Tell you what, if somebody other than Hillary gets the nod, I'll be there hacking at the smear-mongers just like I am now.
If I heard the clip right, the Clinton campaign declined comment when asked directly if Berger advised on campaign strategy and/or speeches. Their defense appeared to be totally based on lack of an "official" relationship. I'm not sure how an "unofficial" adviser is somehow beyond comment. The Saudi Prince Bandar/Bush was not an official adviser to his administration, yet I believe comment on their relationship was entirely appropriate.
If only some dems would start attacking Hillary maybe we could get someone good like Edwards up in the polls. This woman is pulling the wool over your eyes. Wake up. She's not a true progressive. I can only hope she is playing moderate to get elected and will make big changes. Looking at her record in the senate though - and just recently voting for the first step to fight Iran.
Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 104:
I agree 100%, except that it isn't a sure thing that she'll get the nomination. Nothing's certain. But the repetitive assertions of "the Republicans want to run against Hillary," (you don't, and couldn't, know that, especially since Hillary's been beating the GOP front-runner by 10 points for a few months) and "she'll just continue the war," (but she says, "If Bush doesn't get our troops out of Iraq, I will,") and "She's just like Bush," (Really? Like she approves of torture? the privatization of Social Security? She's against Universal Health Care? She's for the debacle in Iraq?) are so untrue they really get hysterically tiresome, and I swear they're driving people into the Hillary camp. Please: boast about your candidate. Tell us why he'll do better. Explain why his policy would be better than Hillary's. Treat your fellow Democrats like they're human beings, and obey the Golden Rule: Thou shalt not trash talk a fellow Democrat. But if you just want to start sounding like the crazies in the '90s who accused the Clintons of everything from drug dealing to murdering Vince Foster, then you're just a bunch of... dare I say it... losers.
Remember when it was Obama/Osama and his supposedly being taught in a madrassa?
Or the single and childless colter questioning the sexuality of married man with children?
MN USA @ 4:
They latch onto Berger with relish.
fiver @ 117:
If he's not the official adviser, that means he's probably not in line to be the head of the NSC or the CIA or State or whatever. That means she's held the man at arm's length because of his past trouble. If you want to tap the phone calls that they may or may not have had, the hell with you. Candidates talk to whoever they want. He was a pretty good NSC chief. He didn't tap phones without a warrant. What do you want? Clinton comes out and says, "He's really smart, and he's been a friend for 30 years, but I don't like Sandy anymore because he has cooties!" There. Happy now?
jim H @ 114:
I seem to have some kind of mental block regarding block quoting.
How dare they smear the Anointed One? Don't they know it is her destiny to rule? (end snark) If she were running a distant third, this wouldn't be happening. She is the "front runner". She's the easiest to target. Nothing more.
budda @ 118:
No, you'd have everyone talking about the Democratic front-runner being evil, and you'd bring down the ticket and the party. If it ever came out that Edwards was behind the sniping and character assassination, that would be the end of his political career. I don't know why Edwards hasn't risen, but he hasn't. I don't know why Obama hasn't run a better campaign, but he hasn't. Don't blame Hillary. Obama had a real shot at going out front. The window might, or might not, have closed now. I don't know why. His speech, and the launch of his campaign, was electrifying. Now he's lackluster. He got us into the showroom, but he can't seem to close the sale.
I think this is a great story and should lead to a greater series. Who else with ethical or legal problems is not affiliated with her campaign. Think about it. CNN could have a daily profile of a series of people who were not affiliated with the campaign. Furthermore, they could take a different angle--just repeat the Berger story each day and ask a different candidate if he was one of his official advisers. If the candidate said no, then just keep on showing the Berger footage anyway, remembering to quote the candidate's disclaimer.
jim H @ 122,
This is a non-issue if the response from HRC was: "No, Berger doesn't advise this campaign on strategy or speeches." We found out that
a war criminalKissinger has been "unofficially" advising Bush on the Iraq War. You think that's not worthy of comment?So somehow I "want to tap the phone calls that they may or may not have had." F*@& you buddy.
BTW: "Treat your fellow Democrats like they’re human beings, and obey the Golden Rule: Thou shalt not trash talk a fellow Democrat." jim H @ 119 (What a tool)
"There. [I'm] happy now." (emphasis added)
Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 104:
I vote independent or I leave that space blank. Don't like that prospect? Then don't support a corporatist shill, neocon lite in the primaries. I'm serious, she and others like her will never get my vote. Period. I am not alone; there are millions like me who are sick to death of the corporatist sellouts and the slide into fascism. We are more than enough to effect the outcome of an election. If you don't like the prospect that HRC could lose the WH because people like me will not give her our vote, you need to throw your support behing a genuine liberal/progressive Democrat. The way I see it, you can call me a traitor or a fool or anything you like, but the monkey is on your back.
Mug @ 95:
Yeah, that largest growth of the American economy during peacetime sure was horrible . Budget surpluses really sucked too. [/sarcasm]
Dems and progressives who won't vote for Hillary, if she gets the nomination, then won't have any credibility for their denouncements when afterwards we're all marching to Iran or where ever.
franklinS @ 108:
So who do y'all call when there's an emergency?
Mayhaps we should go back to the old 411.
redjb @ 8:
Stupid bastard. Pander this.
CappuccettoRosso @ 109:
You need to crack a window, and let in some fresh air. You're obviously overcome by your own copious flatulence.
I was not endorsing Shillary, you pinhead. My point was, though polls support Shillary, the majority of the voters DON'T. That, and CNN shares the same audience Brillo misleads nightly, that same 30% who supports the Chimperor. In short, no one cares about CNN or Shillary.
Now, please take your damned meds, so you can get in that needful nap.
Good thing they didn't say Hillary PAMPERS all the time, or David Vitter would get all excited.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
CNN disengenuously showed an edited clip of the so-called Howard Dean scream, played it hundreds of times in a week and promoted a corporate-wide ridicule of a serious candidate for president. They did all this to destroy someone and "stay the course" in Iraq because war is "good for CNN." (Or so they think.)
This kind of stuff is CNNs MO. One pretend journalist after another pretending to be an unbiased sourse, when they are completely FOX like.
How can you be surprised, unless you rarely watch this channel? Perhaps you need someone to monitor it for a while. You'd be surprised at how very GOP-talking pointed CNN really is.
Sorry for the typos above.
I should add, C and L is one of my favorite blogs, so I mean no disrespect. I do think, though, that the corporate media is far worse than most people even realize. Media watch, reform, and cultivation of alternatives are our only hope. Thanks for being here.
Forget 'fishwifey', she's a killer, along with her despotic husband.
[Deleted. Flame war stops here. No more. Basta-Sitemonitor]
The Carpenter @ 45:
I'd buy that for a dollar!
The more they attack her the stronger they make her.
The Republicans can't keep using the same tatics that cost them both houses of Congress in 2006.
But it is the same old routine. Bash and hate Hillary, stay the course, you're either with us or with the terrorists, etc.
While they're at it, why not let Coulter give a speech at the 2008 Republican convention! And watch as that implodes the party like Pat Buchanan's 1992 speech did.
Sinto @ 144:
Ah...so, the Deuchland Uber Alles speech, verrrry interrrestink!
You know, what a Republican would do? You know, what Bush would do? Make Sandy Berger senior adviser in the campaign. But I fear the Clinton campaign will back down and throw him out completely.
[Deleted. Name calling-Sitemonitor]
Empress Hillary is asking to be the leader of the free World, and she can't handle realitively easy questions by a few reporters? She won't answer questions by Tim Russert. She's afraid to go on Fox and face some difficult questions. She won't do anything without seeing a scrip first. She thinks the Presidency comes with a Crystal Ball ("Had I known then, what I know now..." bs). She changes her position depending on which hack Liberal group she talks to.
A three legged dog with a big penis has more going on, then she does.
loulou @ 36:
Exactly, I guess you can talk till your blue in the face, but I don't think there is anything democratic about supporting clinton. I think there is a knee jerk reaction against any criticism of clinton as if it MUST be coming from some dumb-ass right winger and it's just not true. The clintons are crime partners of the bush family. Why is this fact falling on deaf ears? Why? They do what ever they want and get away with it! Balls! IF you or I did ANYTHING close or approaching it we'd be in the fucking gulag!
Watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0-HkVcMOSw
wndrtch @ 147:
What's with the constant references to penises? Is there anyone on the right that is not a closeted homosexual?
The Examiner is just the Republican's effort to put a less cultish face on their propaganda which has been lead by their main voice, Moon's Washington Times. It is sort of a Moon-free right wing propaganda effort. Even picked up the WT liar Sammon to do some of their propaganda for them.
The sad thing is, it - like all right wing propaganda - is nothing more the child of Moon's billions and deception training. Moon is their leader, their guide, their Savior.
You can read some of the disgusting lies Sammon put out on Gore here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore
Login or Register to post comments.