Hillary Clinton: Right-Wing Darling?
WASHINGTON — Since when is Hillary Clinton the pin-up gal of conservative pundits?
After Clinton delivered a foreign-policy cold-cock to Barack Obama’s head during a Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday:
- Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, a neo-conservative weekly, wrote that she delivered her answer to the now-famous “would-you-meet-with-despots” question “firmly and coolly.”
- Rich Lowry of National Review, a conservative weekly, gushed like a schoolboy with a new crush: “She excels . . . Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she’s ready to be president.”
- David Brooks, the conservative columnist at The New York Times, wrote that Clinton “seems to offer the perfect combination of experience and change” and said she’s changing perceptions in a way that may persuade voters to give her a second look.
- Charles Krauthammer, the conservative columnist of The Washington Post, summed up the Clinton-Obama smackdown: “The grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie.”
All this from members of a crowd that’s spent the better part of two decades demonizing Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Is the conservative chattering class just hedging its bets, wary that Clinton might win the White House and banish them all?
Or is it a set-up: The vast right-wing conspiracy pumping up the polarizing candidate they really want to face in the general election?
Naturally, no one in politics wants to talk about that with their names attached, lest they alienate people whose favor they need. But here’s what some political strategists said when given anonymity:
“Absolutely,” said one Democrat, citing Clinton’s high unfavorable ratings (42 percent in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, twice Obama’s 21 percent). “Look at Fox News. They play her up all the time. Image-wise, they think she’s the one Democrat they can beat right now.”
“A plausible theory,” said a Republican strategist with a top-tier GOP candidate. “Hillary Clinton is our best shot to win the White House. That’s pretty much consensus by Republican insiders. It’s a really crappy environment for us right now. What she does, and what Obama doesn’t do yet, is single-handedly solve our base problems. Because of who she is.”
Others laugh off the “set up Hillary” theory.
“The vast conspiracy is not that well organized,” said John Hinderaker, co-founder of Power Line, a popular conservative blog. “We couldn’t pull that off if we tried.”
Conservative admiration for Clinton - on the foreign-policy debate question specifically and the way she’s running her campaign generally - is real, said Hinderaker, who added that he thought she’d be a tougher opponent for Republicans than the less-experienced Obama or the smooth former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
Could the plaudits of the right hurt Clinton with the left-ish voters who dominate the Democratic primaries? That’s clearly what Obama thinks, as he mocks Clinton’s position as “Bush-Cheney lite.”
The question, briefly, was whether a new president should meet with anti-American leaders without pre-conditions in his or her first year in office.
Obama said sure. Hillary said not without preliminary diplomacy to avoid getting used in a propaganda trap. They’ve been sniping at each other about it ever since. She said he’s naive. He said her position of not talking to bad guys sounds like Bush, and of course he’d do some preliminary diplomacy, too.
This 60-second sound bite’s not much of a way to choose a president, to be sure, but it’s the closest the two Democratic frontrunners have come so far to taking each other on frontally, so politicos are feasting on it.
The Clinton camp believes it won the weeklong spat. Her supporters aren’t concerned about liberals being upset by conservatives’ praise for Clinton, pointing out that many - though not all - on the left also say that Clinton’s debate answer was better than Obama’s.
Edwards, running to the populist left of both Clinton and Obama, said at the debate that he agreed with Clinton. And in The Nation, a liberal weekly, David Corn wrote that, “this moment illustrated perhaps the top peril for the Obama campaign: with this post-9/11 presidential contest, to a large degree, a question of who should be the next commander in chief, any misstep related to foreign policy is a big deal for a candidate who has little experience in national security matters.”
If Clinton can get the National Review and The Nation to agree that she won a debate, maybe diplomacy is her strength.
Copyright © 2007 McClatchy Newspapers
Will No One! Tell Clinton/Bush –We Are Not Goliath Anymore. David Against The Universe Wants! A Scintilla Of Humility
When the well respected journalist Christopher Hitchens said “…his legacy is the expiration of American liberalism,” and “…his machine, if successful, will become the model of pseudo-democracy for the coming century,” he was talking about Bill Clinton in his book, “No One Left To Lie To.”
Looking at their “legacy,” the Clinton’s latest grandstand/strategy, to finance a museum dedicated to –what!?— Woodstock!? has gotta!! be a joke. I mean– do military generals hold benefits for Pacifists?
Their jihad was never against republicans, it was/has always been against the democratic SYSTEM. From the NAFTA follies to terminating the free press–looks like their “contributions” DID! a heck of a job. With reckless deregulation & institutional integrity severely compromised –then, enter GWB. Buh-Bye Democracy. The 90’s, except for ad-infinitum Monica, was the most conservative administration in modern history & the most opaque. The Clintons reliance on the Media-”Aristocracy” to keep the public ignorant is the cornerstone(angle) in triangulation. They’ve enjoyed a free pass for a decade and a half. We need some authentic! opposition to Clinton/Bush– from banks, the market and insurance companies to the battlefield–Enough is Enough.
Looks like she’s got things all sewed up. Ironically, it may take a republican Schwartzenegger or Paul to save us from this democrat.
Isn’t it obvious that the republicans are pushing Hillary because they know she’ll energize their base? Democrats have the best chance to win in 08 with Edwards or Obama. Clinton’s bought and paid for by the DLC and monied interest, but the republicans still want to beat her—look what they did to Bill…
Ok. No IMPEACHMENT. No repeal of The Bush Crime Family’s destruction of the Constitution. The troops are stayng in Iraq FOREVER. Nothing the American people say or do is allowed to have any impact on the policies or actions of the Empire. So what do we do now?
I know,
Lets have a political horse race and then put some half-naked little girls on tv, they can have staged cat-fights with each other and then parade down a runway giving their all. Then we can watch grown men kick the shit out of each other for an hour and then we can eat a 3 pound pizza and just go back to sleep.
Did you just hear the sound of the train of State going over the cliff? Bubye.
Piece.
I quit taking The Nation when it still had Christopher Hitchens because he had begun his rant on protecting “our oil under their sand.” In Corn’s assessment of the “post 9/11″ world, he sums up the post 9/11 Nation. It has become a rag with pretenses to populism that often spouts a terrifyingly right-wing foreign policy line. We have let one moment in history define EVERYTHING and it is time to come to our senses. Yes, terrorism is very scary business and, no, none of would like to be the victim of it, but we are, at this moment, the victims of terrorism. The victims of the fear it generates. We are allowing ourselves to be led around by the nose with this single image of death and destruction. Do a quick google search and compare the number of times that we have been victims of deadly terrorist attacks to our imperial forerunner. Great Britain. First, we should learn in that result that nation’s reap what they sow, but we should also learn that our harvest is like an ear of corn compared to Britain’s agribusiness size haul. Our reaction has been the equivalent of each of us carrying life boats in our daily lives becasue we fear another flood like the one that got Noah’s contemporaries.
Hilary Clinton’s genius in foreign policy is to continue the arrogance that leads to hatred and terrorism. Her tough stance is grandstanding and nothing more. To pretend that Venezuela is our enemy because Chavez puts people before oil companies, or that Castro is the great Satan we have been led to believe he was ever since Kennedy when his greatest crime was, again, throwing out CORPORATE AMERICA (a revolution we could learn from right now–which is exactly WHY our leaders hate Castro), it is truly absurd.
Enough hatred. Enough fear. Enough murder in the name of democracy and freedom.
www.unknown-arts.org/politics
Hillary Clinton: Right-Wing Darling!!!
Nice assessment, Matt Stearns. I think using boxing or brawling slanq was an appropriate decision for this political debates. Much like a boxing match, 40-60 seconds can be all that is needed to secure a TKO. Perhaps it was a KO -especially after watching Obama’s “punch drunk” camp backtrack and try and re-qualify the original intent. Now all the different political camps with political capital to gain are running with this break -much like in a fight- and are yelling from the sidelines to make “jeers” and proclamations, but mostly platitudes. It was but one jostle between the two.
So what’s with the RW glamorizing Clinton? My Take,
By siding with Clinton, the RW could get a majority on the left to see her as an arch-rival needing to be purged. Say the single purpose of the RW pundits is to see Clinton knocked off in the primaries by Obama. I think RW fears Clinton and figures they could lose, but they are sure they could win against Obama.
—-
One other issue. What’s up with the politics of Obama? Obama came out just last week in (pierretristam commented on it here at CD) Foreign Affairs calling the GWOT the new Cold War. Chomsky’s recently published article at ZNET came out demonstrating the US Cold War policy against Iran (Iran syn. w/Terrorism w/US populace) is Bush’s (but also US in general) overall goal. It’s like a fifty year plan, okay? Why Obama forwards a message that he too is in alignment with the larger broadcast is something to investigate. Perhaps the push for “cold war” style is so ingrained in DC one wouldn’t have a chance in hell (DC) to make it to the presidency unless the candidate makes a deal. Wesley Clark once mentioned how hard it would be to run for president without shacking up with AIPAC (my analogy of Clark’s original point). In respect to this larger policy alignment, I don’t see Obama separate from Clinton and DLC.
——–
Inconsequential editorial point:
Cold Cock implies a hard, knock out hit to the head. Wouldn’t “cold-cock to the head” be redundant?
The reason why the right is cozying up to Hillary is that even if they lose to her in 2008, they still win. It won’t be as good for them as having a Republican in power, but they did fairly well for themselves the last time a Clinton was in power.
Go Green: www.gp.org
VAGreen,
Sure, I tend to take that one for granted -that Clinton and the RW are cozy- and that GOP would be much more comfortable with Hillary than any of the other (D) candidates. What I was looking at was what might be a larger fantasy among the right: Clinton losing to Obama. Rather than having to put up with Clinton, they believe they could just sweep the elections and keep the WH — or at least that’s what my tea leaves read….
I don’t think there is any “one reason” -Just hopeful outcomes from warring sides.
Is there a good cream we should use?
We seem to be suffering a terrible outbreak of sound bites, -courtesy of that malignant strain, ‘Mosquiti Politicii’
Hillary is, essentially, a Republican. Go over to counterpunch.org and see that Alexander Cockburn has written about her long career working for Republican candidates, politicians and causes.
What will change if Hillary is elected? Only the clothing of the White House occupant.
“What I was looking at was what might be a larger fantasy among the right: Clinton losing to Obama. Rather than having to put up with Clinton, they believe they could just sweep the elections and keep the WH — or at least that’s what my tea leaves read….
I don’t think there is any “one reason” -Just hopeful outcomes from warring sides.”
Robprice,
That’s definitely possible. When Gray Davis was running for re-election in 2002, he ran commercials attacking Riordan, who he perceived to be his strongest Republican opponent. He wanted Simon to win the primary. It worked in the general election, until the Terminator took him down the next year.
Uh, of the two so-called frontrunners, both supported by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, one is a woman and the other is black. Neither one of them has any chance of being elected, hence all the Repug support.
Hillary Clinton: Right-Wing Ding-A-Ling!
First, Hugo Chavez is not a “despot”. He is the democratically elected president of Venezuela and Castro happens to be a despot of a tiny country with a better health care system than the U.S.
I am not a big fan of Obama because of his close ties to big corporations, but at least has the balls to put diplomacy w/ people like Chavez–who supplies ~ 20% of U.S. oil imports–on the table instead of being a obstinate boob like Hillary (no pun intended), or W or Slick Willy or any of the other idiots who have opted for U.S. military hegemony over straightforward diplomacy. Oh, did I mention the fact that Chavez has implemented a low-cost oil program for poor folks in the U.S. Something Boy Blunder and his oil cronies would never even consider as that would cut into the billions in profit the oil companies have made under the Bush Regime.
This article was bang on! Hillary is a paid off double talker, and if she wins the nomination, this country will do nothing but continue to go down the tubes. Make no bones about it, Hillary has been paid off before, and she will get paid off again. Watch Sicko if you haven’t already. She does not deserve our vote. End of story! That is why she is the right wing darling, because they will indeed beat her.
The right wing want her alright, not because they can beat her but because she is on the right side anyway. It’s like way back when the CEO of Coca Cola mused aloud about wether to run Eisenhower as a democrat or a republican. SOS!
Is Hillary against diplomacy with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait then? A theocratic monarchy enjoys dictatorial powers, dictatorships under different names.
Politics and politicians are no longer relevant. There will be no election in 08.
non_sequitur@q.com
Her husband completed the RayGun agenda, Constitution slicing terrorism legislation, corporate written Telecommunications Act, Welfare Deform, dumping Kyoto, NAFTA……it’s supposed to shock anybody that this b**ch…. this WalMart whore….is a conservative
Please can we call attention to the malarky that a new President has to have the ability to protect the United States and handle terrorism. This is simply not true. We have had a president and administatration that is the most incompetent and has bungled everything. Any idiot can do better than these ideological imcompetents.
There is no big terrorist threat great enough to warant the actions and planned actions to subvert the U.S. Constitution, civel liberties and the rights of U.S. and world citizens. If there is such a threat then we need to cancel all this shopping and real TV and get everyone of us involved. Otherwise, it is just a smokescreen to allow a few in power to steal and rob the rest of the world bling.
Unfortunately there is not a front running candidate in the Democratic Party and virtually all the republican candidates are laughable if it were not the case that people will actually vote for them.
Bush will try for a third term on the basis of continuing war and terrorism- Iran and the United States will be targeted by these zealot crazies that think they know what is right and that God is leading them.
If Hillary wasnted to help the democratic party, she would withdraw.
Hillary has proudly mentioned her conservative-Republican past-upbringing. She’s a Democrat in name only. Obama supported Joe Lieberman in his run for senator; Lieberman was his mentor. What does that tell you about them?
There is only the right and the extreme right-wing in American leadership. It will be a cold day in Hell when I vote for warmongers Clinton or Obama.
I believe the gambling term is “hedging your bets.” I think that’s what the right is doing. They would, of course, prefer a Republican but with HER as the Dem nominee they will win either way.
That reminds me of Paul Simon’s line “anyway you look at it you lose.”
That’s what we lefties have been doing for a long time now. Losing. Either way. We get democratic nominees that disappoint us when they lose and disappoint us even more when they win! (eg Carter and Clinton)
Enough. I am sick unto nausea with half my taxes going to war while my grandkids don’t have health insurance.
I am sick of representatives who talk peace and vote war.
I am sick of politicians who poll and focus before they take a stand.
I am sick of seeing labor and women and minorities abandoned to the mercies of right wing judges who get no opposition in their confirmation hearings.
I am sick of Trade Agreements that destroy whole American communitiies so we can buy crap from “Red” China where workplace discipline is enforced by the guns of a Police State.
I am sick of Millions of Dollars of my taxes going to support and subsidize big business, big pharma and big agriculture.
I am sick of seeing the most criminal, corrupt and dangerous administraion in our history allowed to continue because Impeachment is “off the table”.
I am sick of a party that would tolerate the likes of Crazy Joe Lieberman.
In summation, I am sick of the Democrats. Sick unto puking of the Democrats.
Between now and the nomination and beyond, if HRC is the Democratic nominee, we should do everything we can to make her political life a living hell. She is the foremost example of what is, has been and will be wrong with the Democratic Party.
We should fight hard those who oppose us and fight harder those who betray us.
Then, maybe, we can create a party (and a movement) that doesn’t betray, marginalize, ignore and take for granted people that should be it’s strogest supporters.
Here you have David Corn in the Nation identifying the core of the problem, stating seemingly without irony, if so well hidden, that the Americans are not supposed to elect a president, but to appoint a commander in chief.
Political debates (if they ever existed in any meaningful sense at that level) have finally been reduced to a pissing contest about who is the greater warmonger. And even the pretense has gone.
And it becomes clear why American presidents are like a cartoon of the evolution of man in the opposite direction. We have reached homo-habilis stage already, the question is when a mouse take over the white house. It also helps explain why christian fundamentalists can’t see it.
The woman smells. But she’s the best chance Repugs have to keep the White House, they simply adore her. Not to mention that if she does win, she’ll be a sober Bush with sagging tits, which is delightful for the neocons. She’ll bomb every country in the Middle East back to the stone age.
Who says the Anti-Christ must be male?
McDee: I second all your motions. Brings to mind Shakespeare, “How could thinking men (women) think so wrongly.” This, by the way, was the reflection on the part of Hamlet when he was greeted by two diplomats (of a sort) returning from an ill-fated war. Hamlet reflected on this travesty as “And men go to their graves like sleep.” When I drive by churches in the deep south that have marquis that state things like “Jesus died for your sins,” I think, wow. They don’t even get it… he resurrected to show that LIFE is continuous. We are not just a body! How minds have remained trapped by old paradigmatic thinking really tells the story for why and how redundant wars recur.
Shows one more time that bipartisan is a complement only in the Corporate Media, because it always means Dems acting like Republicans.
This just in from the wire. Polls indicate that Clinton would lose a general election to both Giuliani and, of all bizarre people, Fred Thompson. No wonder Rupert Murdoch is so cozy with her and guess where his money will be going when she gets the nomination. Dump her now!!
I rarely watch television network news (perhaps 5 minutes per week, and that’s mostly by accident). This morning I noted that they pegged Hillary well out in front, Obama next, Edwards a fairly distant third. Of course, Kucinich wasn’t even on the list.
It’s clear the money equals positive corporate media spin and air-time. Although Kucinich, Nader, etc. would better represent the class interests of ordinary Americans, the propaganda machine filters their sort out. They’re persona non-grata. It’s not that they have negative air-time: they simply don’t exist.
I think purvis may be on to something. The corporations may artificially put Hillary out front knowing that she’s ultimately unelectable — disliked by several voting blocs. And then we’ll have a game plan that’ll work like this:
March-April 2008
Rah, rah, The Democrats are winning! The country is going to turn around for the better [sarcasm]
DP: Hillary+Lieberman (joke’s on us): 54%
RP: Guilanni+Cheney (hahaha): 44%
May-July
The RP ticket gets involved in a minor scandal, their polls (paradoxically) go up.
DP: 50%
RP: 47%
August-Sept
The DP ticket says something stupid and their polls go down (as expected).
DP: 49%
RP: 48%
Oct-Nov
In the end, it’s neck-and-neck (supposedly) and we have a re-hash of ‘00 and ‘04 “irregularity” in Ohio, Florida, New York and/or California. Among other places.
DP: 49%
RP: 49%
Election night: Some more monkeybusiness, but in the end Hilary concedes to Guilani-Cheney. But it won’t matter anyway, because it’s the (perhaps the same) mob either way. The votes can’t be recounted, of course, and we’re stuck with 4-8 more years of the Capulet or Montague mob.
How’s that Mr. Murdoch, did I call it right?
Hillary is the right wing darling (of these media clowns) because that is who they want to face in 2008. The rightwing base absolutely hates Hillary. These media pundits are showing what their “strategery” is…… That is to get Hillary as the Democratic candidate so they can energize their base. THEY ARE AFRAID OF OBAMA.
PERIOD.
Death to both of the parties! Death to corporate America! Death to “centrism”! Death to “free trade”! Death to HMO’s! Death to unregulated “free-market” capitalism!
REBIRTH OF REAL AMERICAN DEMOCRACY - DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM! SAY IT TO YOURSELVES: DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM! DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM! How god damn stupid to Americans have to be to not simply look at the rest of the industrialized world and realize that the most successful countries - judging by how well they treat their people (poor and rich) - do not consider things like health care, education, children’s daycare, special education, and public transportation part of the market system? Why is this so f’ing difficult for us to understand?
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY running for the Presidency right now is willing or will be willing in the near future to discuss the biggest debate of the century, equality of opportunity versus equality of condition. The former is a farce without the latter.
THE BEST THING FOR THIS COUNTRY’S FUTURE WOULD BE TO BOYCOTT THESE ELECTIONS AND ALLOW THE COUNTRY TO BE TAKEN OVER YET AGAIN BY A WANT-TO-BE FASCIST DICTATOR, SO THAT THE MARKETS FINALLY COLLAPSE, HOMES ARE TAKEN AWAY, AND DAILY LIFE IN AMERICA BECOMES SO ODIOUS, SO UNBEARABLE, THAT WE FINALLY GET OFF OUR FAT, LAZY, GREEDY, APOLITICAL, DUMBED-DOWN ASSES AND RISK EVERYTHING TO TAKE IT ALL BACK!
CR Cox:
You’re right about democratic socialism and your last paragraph gets real close to the truth. But…
We are already in a semi-fascist state and we are in deep economic decline without much of a popular uprising - or even pip-squeaking - at all.
Basically, too many people in this country want some kind of dictatorship and would willingly accept concentration camps (we already have 2.3 million people in our prisons and jails)as long as they are filled with ethnic minorities and poor whites, especially in rural areas, who live under the radar.
As long as a large enough minority can be conditioned by the media and our mis-education system to pray at the altar of consumerism, the state of our state (and lives) will decline. And it doesn’t take a really large minority to be the cops, etc., as long as everybody else is so easy to control.
The theory that an increasingly painful, hellish life will lead to some kind of revolutionary change has yet to be proved. I don’t think that it will ever happen.
The only possibility, it seems to me, is that the small minority that is a part of the “reality community” continues to agitate and work for change until some force from the outside brings the people here to our senses as human beings. I can’t say that I see that happening either, but it is the only way that I can see to go.
It would be nice to just flee all this shit, but you can’t really - for family reasons and the fact that if the US empire isn’t destroyed fast enough, or if it doesn’t disintegrate fast enough, it will surely take the rest of the world down with it.
CRCox,
As a socialist, I likewise entertain the “the worse, the better” scenario. The problem is, that unlike other nations, the US people have been brainwashed and conditioned to the point that the very concepts of solidarity, common purpose, and compassion are utterly foreign - Homo capitalisticus selfishititicus - the new self-absorbed man, is a reality.
So, in the US at least, Marx’s dialectic has been effectively disconnected - there is NO organized working class to replace capitalism when it collapses under the weight of it’s contradictions including the global environmental ones that Marx didn’t consider.
So, there is little hope that the revolution will happen if things get bad, the most optimistic scenario would be something resembling a gigantic Colombia; the middling scenario would be full-blown fascism; and, pessimistic scenario would be a descent into historically unprecedented hell - neighbor-robbing-and-murdering neighbor.
Bush/Cheney Lite!
Boy! One of the first honest political statements I’ve heard in this current charade. Someone is finally calling it like many of us see it.
If we want to see four more years of war, lies and giveaways to the wealthy, all we have to do is vote in an Empress to replace the Emperor.
Yuck!
I would support an Edwards/Obama ticket. We want to win in the general election and Hillary may be just too polarizing to get the job done.
The one way to win the presidency and have a shot at a second term is to put up Dennis J Kucinich, and especially if teamed up with someone such as John Lewis or Cindy Sheehan. But if all progressives want is one term Barak Obama will likely win and win with a good margin even over Fred “Hollywood Fake” Thompson. But if we just want to make sure we don’t have a shot at the White House at all, we should back Hilary Rodham Klanton, as she isn’t about to take the presidency. Give me a break.
The key to a second term is not loosing the progressive base after winning the presidency which did Jimmy Carter in. It’s up to us. Let’s stop saying can’t. Can’t never could do anything.
You all are funny! This is a direct attack on the constitution! Support the system of lying to the Americans? What are you all thinking? We need a tea party! You all can sleep with the red coats all you want but us true Americans (who can be discerning readers) realize shoving some ballot forward isn’t going to do a thing! The lesser of two Killers, murderers and social rapists? No offense Obama, I don’t see the real opportunity to fight and win a shit flinging fight and coming out clean! This fight needs to be fought a little better with more “grounded troops”, ie. citizens taking back our beloved land and not just “doing the deed” for the sake of capitalism (like the fat article, people getting fatter like their fat friends). Too bad most americans think the TV supports them in their time of need. We needed terrorism, now it’s our leader. If we can recognize this as a society, we can stop the fear mongering and get back to the truth of the matter, people are suffering in an unsustainable world. Sorry everyone, the bottom dollar says compassion doesn’t pay. When you have feelings, they can get hurt, you feel things, sometimes not so pleasant things. So what type of government do you want? Soilent green? Constant war? You vote as a slave to the system, or you work to make changes. Changes start locally. Vote with all your might locally and forget the federal system until the actual states are willing to work on the peoples agenda inside of the federal system, not the corporate agenda alone. The feds might notice if the presidential elections had 50 total popular votes and no taxes had been paid. Stop believing the spew these actors froth up. I don’t believe a word until I see legislation. They can only arrest so many.
test:
Zionist
test:
Zion$st
Confirmed, it blocks the Z-word!
A while back, in response to Tony Norman’s good piece on the NAACP’s ridiculous burial ceremony of the “N-word” (while showing complete ineffetiveness in fighting actual white racism), I tested the site using every ethnic and racial slur I could think of, it accepted them all, including some very ugly ones referring to Jews! It blocked only “Nig–r”.
go here: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/20/2656/
But now we have a second no-word the - name of a very legitimate political movement!
Dear Commondreams moderator, please stop this nonsense!
Hillary will be bombing countries with no reservations to make herself look “tough” like a man. She’s as dangerous as batshit crazy George Bush is.
Correction - on revisiting this story, one of my post using “nig–r”. enclosed in quotes, was re-instated presumably on moderator review that it didn’t have actual racist content.
but I haven’t checked if any any Z-word posts get reinstated.
The right wing’s affection for Hillary Clinton is readily explained by the fact that corporate America is comfortable with her kind of liberalism. Both she and her husband have been very sympathetic to business interests, and there is no reason to expect that to change should she become president. Hence, in a national presidential contest between Clinton and any Republican, corporatists will have nothing to fear.
“pundits are showing what their “strategery” is…… ”
Maybe the word you are looking for is “stragedy” it is like tragedy..which is what we have in Iraq and the White House right now.
QUOTE:
robgo2 July 29th, 2007 3:18 pm
The right wing’s affection for Hillary Clinton is readily explained by the fact that corporate America is comfortable with her kind of liberalism.
END QUOTE
Her kind of “liberalism?” Her kind is like George W Bush’s or Joe Lieberman’s kind. None of these 3 people have any “liberalism” to them. She isn’t a liberal or a progressive but rather a strong Bush-Enabler and that’s why they like her. Period.
When you have regressive pieces of work like Fred Barnes, Rich Lowry, David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer crawling up in Hillary’s colon, red flags should go up because you know something is wrong with this candidate.
But because Repug pro-war neocon Bush-Enabler Hillary has the gall to still have a “D” behind her name (just like war-profiteer Feinstein), that’s good enough for the Dem koolaid drinkers. They will buy anything if it has a “D” with it.
The GOP (heart) HRC.
Nuff said.
Hedge fund thieves (heart) Obama. Nuff said.
Both hate Ron Paul.
He’s hired.
The right wing’s affection for Hillary has nothing to do with fondness. Look how they treated her for the last 14 years. Suddenly she’s their “darling”? I agree it’s her disapproval ratings that make her so attractive to them. She’s the most beatable. The left wing loathes her almost as much as the right wing. And the country is full of men who wouldn’t vote for a woman, especially one who is busy proving her cojones are bigger than theirs.
As for Obama, 69% of his war chest comes from corporate funds. Fact of life. And he rejects single payer health care financing. He hasn’t come out against NAFTA or for unions. Reducing carbon emissions by 5% in the next 8 years and by 10% in the next 13 years isn’t realistically addressing global heating. And nuking Iran is not off the table. Sorry. Hillary-lite.
John Edwards goes further than any other of the corporate candidates in trying to help ordinary Americans. But he too won’t talk about NAFTA, single payer health care (in fact, wants to force us to buy health insurance), or strengthening unions.
None of them are talking about publicly financed election campaigns, without which we don’t stand a chance of getting elected officials representing us instead of representing corporations. I’m not voting for something I don’t want to get. And if everyone was willing to do that, we could get what we want.
Mainstream American media do more to terrorize people than any other force or factor on the planet. Cut your cable, kill your television, and let your head clear for even a month—You’ll be amazed that you ever PAID to be treated like an imbecile! And Hillary is sucking right up to all of it—Obama too. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO LEARN (WHAT VIETNAM PROVED), THAT FOR EVERY ‘TERRORIST’ YOU KILL YOU PRODUCE FIVE MORE PEOPLE READY TO WORK AGAINST YOU? ARE WE GOING TO KILL ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE NERVE NOT TO ‘LIKE’ US? This country and so-called ‘culture’ make me puke—a herd of CATTLE willing to trample ANYthing between its face and the feedbag.
Frank1569,
Without getting into the details of regressive Repug/Libertarian Ron Paul, the fact is he doesn’t have a chance in hell, thank goodness. From what I know about him I could no more vote for him (assuming there will be an election) than to vote for Margaret Thachter Clinton.
IF Dictators Bush and Cheney decide to leave in 2009 and that’s a big IF, Clinton and some other piece of trash she has as her running mate could likely replace them. She’s the annointed one and has been for some time. Although if they Bush/Cheney do leave the candidates who actually have an “R” behind their name will most likely replace them. If there is an election, all of this is dependent upon votes being counted on easily-hackable e-voting machines (the companies owned by Repugs) and we haven’t had a legitimate election since at least 2000.
frank, I have nothing against Libertarians, except they are willing to throw out the baby with the bath. I want government to do what it can do best. Basic essential services are most efficiently run by the government. Medicare administrative costs are under 3% as opposed to up to 30% by private industry. And if properly funded, it does the job. Congress and this administration have corrupted the entire delivery system of public services due to corporate influence.
Privatizing our educational system, prisons, health care and whatever else has been a complete disaster. Public services for the public good need to be publicly administered. We also need regulatory oversight of private business so it doesn’t run riot over us as it now is doing. Chinese toothpaste anyone?
Ron Paul makes a good Libertarian, but I believe government should be there to help the helpless and he doesn’t.
Ron Paul is a pro-lifer. In general, American Libertarianism is operating from a sort of 18th century landowner’s perspective. Let’s say you lived in one of the old colonies, had a productive farm free-and-clear from the bank, etc. Sure, government is only a nuisance.
But we’re now living in an increasingly landless/propertyless country. It’s not “the market” which is going to bail us out — it’s run amok speculation, decades of foreclosures, and usury that got us here. Government is now, and perhaps always was, merely the “public” expression of private power, a system to legitimize, add legality to, and enforce by violent coercion a series of growing injustices in our society. Get rid of government and you’ve done nothing except change hats.
Government’s real job should be as a public union or check-and-balance against unbridled power of mega-corporations, monopolies, private armies, racketeers, etc. To tax the rich and give to the poor. Of course it’s been co-opted from the get-go… We don’t need to get rid of government — in particular — so much as we need to get a handle on huge concentrations of wealth & power into the hands of the few — in general, and whenever it occurs.
Hillary made the mistake of residing in New York for political reasons. The trouble with that choice is nobody can succeed there politics unless they follow without question the agenda of Israel’s Likud Party. Of course the Republicans others who support this Bush War would love to have her as an opponent thinking the voters will reject her. Sadly,I believe this too and my worst fear is we will never be able to extricate ourselves from the mess Bush and his Neocon advisors enmeshed us into since no nation, even an alleged superpower, can successfully defeat a globally dispersed gang of religious zealots which can draw upon a ready reserve of over a billion plus adherents.steve USN WW2
All of these progressive sites filter the Zeeeee word. Some of you should consider that democracy falls in the middle of communism and fascism. Here we can conclude that Shrub & Co are the fascists and the average citizen wants democracy. Don’t you wonder about what the Clinton’s are into?
When so much hoopla is made over anything that is said in these so called ‘debates’ (that are corporate sponsored)with corporate sponsored candidates I stop listening. It is a charade. When they start having real honest to goodness debates with one on one with the points discussed being submitted by honest to goodness constituents then maybe they will have something honest to say and not preprogramed sound bites. But, that will not happen. When a candidate outside of the ‘chosen few’ says anything that makes sense, whether on the war or the constitution or any other revelent issue thay are blasted to pieces by the press. Again, it is a charade. No matter who wins the primaries, the following campaigns will by the nastiest in history and I for one am all burned out on just the length of this campaigning. And, fifteen months to go.
The best chance the repugs have to win the election is for the dems to nominate a militarist like Clinton and then have a third-party peace candidate take away the antiwar votes. That said, there is no way I’m voting for a militarist. I don’t care who he or she is runnning against.
I’ll vote. If it has to be third party again, so be it.
Tommy as the system is rigged from the get-go vote your conscience bravo! I did for Nader in the past and I am still so proud of that vote. He has yet to let me down.
McDee — YES!!!
Well, who would the sexist, racist, homophobic party want to run against — Clinton/Obama. I think so.
Meanwhile, we have a year and a half to the election!!!!
What in the hell are we doing????
We don’t have time to come to terms with VOTESCAM . . .
but we have plenty of time to waste on campaigning — mainly because the candidates need that much time to sell their bodies and brains to corporate-fascists.
Not that I think any of the Democratic candidates are worthy of our time — but I’ll take Edwards/Kucinich —
because it seems I can’t get NADER and CYNTHIA MCKINNEY.
What should all clearly understand is that if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, we will spend most of our time hearing about Bill Clinton’s “penis” –
test:
“zionazi”
And, as the above test shows, oddly enough, it doesn’t even filter out the real words associated with political flaming. Nor obscenities, nor any other etnnic/racial slur. Just the ones the administrator was familiar with?
“The vast conspiracy is not that well organized,” said John Hinderaker, co-founder of Power Line, a popular conservative blog. “We couldn’t pull that off if we tried.”
Right. Just like they couldn’t hijack the last two presidential elections
Yankee Doodles,
Well really, a clear thinking person wouldn’t believe in all that god nonsense to begin with.
Organised religion is a cancer on the earth. It has caused more harm, death and destruction on this Earth than anything I can think of. Wars have been and are fought in the name of religion. It is nothing but mythology and superstition.
The so-called “Christians” alone have so many holes and contradictions in their beliefs not to leave out the umpteen different interpretations of that bible.
One does not need any religion to be a good, moral person.
The “Religious Right” and other religious nuts are not about to stop believing the hokus-pokus bunk they believe. They will continue to try to impose their twisted/sick views on society.
To me it is obvious why the Republicans like Hillary — she gives them a twofer. She would be the easiest to beat, and at the same time she is the least objectionable Democrat to the corporate elite. The only real difference between her and the Republicans is her position on the so-called “social issues,” but those were just manufactured to get ignorant working class religious and other folks to vote for the more corporate Republicans, so the corporate elite figure if a totally pro-corporate Democrat is elected, “what’s the dif?”
Personally, I am just looking for a candidate who won’t start Armageddon before the Chinese and the corporate fascists bankrupt America and make it ripe for a reorganization. And my odds for starting Armageddon among the likely nominees would be something like: Giuliani 50%, McCain and Hillary 40%, Romney and Thompson 30%, Obama 20%, and Edwards 10% (mainly because of his wife).
erma,
As a leftist, it pains me to say that communism, as well as fascism, has been responsible for millions of deaths as well. It seems the evil is not any one belief system, but the tendency for people to adopt a simplistic unprovable belief system and to try to force it on others, for some perceived benefit, sometimes just for the peace of mind of removing the cognitive dissonance that exists from recognition that others do not hold the belief. Since there are apparently emotional and other psychological benefits of holding a simple belief system, and since large groups of people separated in some way from others can and do hold contradictory simple belief systems, this has always posed great danger for conflict as none of these simple belief systems are demonstrably or clearly superior.
Certainly Bush and Cheney hold some simplistic beliefs about the ultimate good of unfettered capitalism. There is a tremendous amount of evidence contradicting their beliefs, in regard to both domestic and foreign policy results, but they are so heavily invested in them, psychologically, that they know it would be very painful to back off now.
PJD: Be careful using the word “socialist” too. Not because Common Dreams would censure it of course, but because the rat bastards in the White House are definitely not below “looking at” folks who use terms like “socialist”, “communist”, “revolution”, etc. As for me, I hope they are listening to what I say. I hope they listen really closely, because I think it is safe to say I speak for a lot of people like me, and a lot of other folks speak for me too.
Keep on keepin’ people. We will get there eventually. Whatever form “there” takes, dig?
Yeah, I had the experience of the Z word zapping my post more than once.
There is a large, committed and well-organized crusade searching for evidence of “anti-semitism” in every nook and cranny in the defense of a reactionary Rightwing-my-country-right-or-wrong fatherland of Israel. In defense of the lie of a beleagured Israel, they write and call and hound and threaten to boycott and bribe politicians and ruin political careers of any who would step out of line and challenge the goosestepping groupthink. The truth must remained buried or they will screech. That screeching is damn effective, don’t you think? But you know what they say about the boy who cried wolf in crying anti-semitism for criticism of Israel when the ugly spectre of the real thing rears up again. Think it can’t happen again? Who could ever imagine that we would be speculating on the possibility of martial law?
Jews should not allow their allegiance to Israel be exploited by a Neo-con agenda because they could be conceivably scapegoated when the blowback comes.
Very well stated Vern, very well stated.
“Her kind of “liberalism?” Her kind is like George W Bush’s or Joe Lieberman’s kind. None of these 3 people have any “liberalism” to them. She isn’t a liberal or a progressive but rather a strong Bush-Enabler and that’s why they like her. Period.”
That’s the point I was trying to make. Hillary and the whole DLC gang are heavily funded by corporate interests, including Rupert Murdoch. From the corporatists’ point of view, a second Clinton as President is not at all bad and is certainly preferable to Al Gore.
Although I am fervently hoping for Gore to enter the race, I disagree with those who say that Hillary would be a weak candidate. Having seen her performances in some of the “debates,” I would say that she runs circles around all the other Democratic candidates and that she will do the same with any conceivable Republican opponent. Elections are won and lost based on perceptions, not substance, and Hillary looks and sounds awfully good at the podium.
In debates she said she wouldn’t talk with Venezuela.
Gee. Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe in democratically and constitutionally elected governments either,
if they might threaten the interests of those legal constructs of privilege- the corporations.
Gawd. What a joke.
Add it to your list of non-differences in the two
corporate imperial war parties.
non sequitur…
What makes you say so, and where does your info come from? Can you provide references to articles or other info supporting your claim?
thanks!
luketemp, can’t see no sequitur’s post. Was it pulled?
PJD, your first test of the 29th at 2:32pm has turned up. Must have survived a content review.
luketemp, can’t see non sequitur’s post. Was it pulled?
PJD, your first test of the 29th at 2:32pm has turned up. Must have survived a content review.
A win for Hillary will just move us closer to the end of the great experiment.
Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court; Hillary is appointing herself. A sad state of affairs. She will never get my vote - Nader was right. It wouldn’t make any difference.
Lets speak very plainly here. The democratic party has been bought off. The script is in place, everyone welcome your next President the first woman in American history to be elected president Hillary Clinton and her vice president the first black man to hold the office Barrack Obama….so it is written so it shall be.
The illusion of change is in place….just as it was in 2006, odd that changed nothing as well….
but if you say you want a revolution well you know……..
The article was ‘Hillary Clinton: Right Wing
Darling?’…Hillary Clinton is the darling of the Zionist/Neo-con faction who have been
running George Bush, but meeting some resistance lately…Hillary is totally theirs…it is little know that Hillary is/
has been funded by the Bronfman family…it
is better known that she is being funded by
Rupert Murdoch…she has already made her
offering at the AIPAC Temple…of course, the Neocons love her!…this is not a question of ‘right-wing’…it is a question
of knowing who your boss is and, of course,
unadulterated opportunism.