So the corporate world know republicans haven't much of a chance even considering the rigging so they support another warmonger in the form of Clinton. WWW3 here we come.

To outside the loop,

Is Hillary the best Democrats can do? No. Dennis Kucinich is better. John Edwards is better. Barack Obama is better. But Hillary MAY be what can be elected in the primary spectacle, with voters making the determination. Yet to be seen. Barack may upset her in an early state somewhere--because Oprah, in the strange land of American politics, is a force not yet measured, maybe a small non-force, maybe a big deal.

I believe we liberals must first elect a candidate that is not an avowed conservative Republican, then pound our agenda and our wishes through the blogs and elsewhere. One thing I do believe about Hillary is that she listens. That's why New Yorkers accepted her.

to lobo gris,

I write here for three reasons. (1) Therapy for the frustration of where our country went since Reagan (2) To see if I can articulate thoughts that even make sense to me (3) Hope that others will pick up the liberal spark, like contagion, and write better posts than mine--posts tended towards election hope, rather than tended toward examination of conspiracy theories, revolution, hopeless third parties or departing the United States (themes we see here that DON'T, in my opinion, portend any progress for citizens.)

Daniel Ellsberg said, "the coup has already occurred", and if the Praetorian Guard is donating money to the next Caesar, should we expect him/her to reverse current policy by giving back the country to the people? Also, as someone else pointed out, would we be building a massively-expensive embassy in Baghdad just to let the next president pull the plug.? The game has been rigged so that big money/ big guns will win no matter what name wins the dog-and-pony show.

I hope I don't come off sounding like a tin foil hat conspiracy nut, but yesterday I had this epiphany about Hillary and the election. Please tell me that I am just hallucinating, please. Otherwise, our country is beyond hope. To wit:

In recent polls and of course the MSM is salivating over this, any Republican candidate beats Hillary by 5-10%. However, when paired up with Edwards or Obama, the Republicans are beat by a bigger margin. So unless the Dems want to purposely shoot themselves in the foot in 2008, why the hell are they running a hated and divisive candidate. So here are my tinfoil hat theories and follow up questions. Feel free to answer/discuss.

I have come to the conclusion that Hillary is being paid off to run and win the Dem nomination, so that she can lose in the 2008 general election to a Republican who will continue Bush policies and the cash flow more than say Hillary would. Who is paying her - well, it should not be hard to follow the money and special interests. It really makes no difference to the defense guys to give her the cash for the campaign if they know that she will lose the general election anyhow.

Questions:
1. Why is the Democratic Natl Committee e.g. Howard Dean, fielding this losing candidate? Are they also being paid off or are they or their families being threatened by Blackwater like thugs.
2. Are Edwards and Obama shell candidates playing along with this game or are they genuinely sincere. I actually watched Edwards yesterday with Charles Rose (man is he an obnoxious interviewer) and if Dennis Kucinich wasnt running, he would get my vote. But now I am even reluctant to vote for Dennis in the primary, because I do not want Hillary to win the primary. We are in Wisconsin so we will see how everything shakes out by Feb 19th. This may all be moot anyhow, since the voting process in many states is rigged and despite our best intentions Hillary may STEAL the nomination.

I guess the best we can do is get a massive voter turnout for the primaries and crush Hillary's chances. None of these Republicans (Ron Paul excepted) have a chance against John Edwards or even Barack Obama or Dennis Kucinich.
For that matter, Kerry was not the best candidate either. Why are the Dems putting up these people or a better question is who is paying them to front these people?

Sorry for the disjointed rumblings.

freia said:

"have come to the conclusion that Hillary is being paid off to run and win the Dem nomination, so that she can lose in the 2008 general election to a Republican who will continue Bush policies and the cash flow more than say Hillary would. Who is paying her - well, it should not be hard to follow the money and special interests."

Rupert Murdoch comes to mind.

Well, it was always pretty obvious, but its nice to have facts to back up the case.

Defence contractors give dough to Democrats, Democrats support continuing the wars indefinitely into the future and the Democrats also support new wars.

For example, something like a strike on Iran is a gold mine for these contractors. The Air Force and the Navy will fire off all sorts of very expensive 'smart' weapons and cruise missiles. Then the orders will go out from the DoD to these contractors to replace those smart weapons and cruise missiles in the aresenals.

$$ Chi-Ching $$ into the pockets of the defense contractors. Very big numbers of millions of dollars of purchase orders from the DoD in exchange for a few hundred thousand dollars given to candidates, and the lives of probably thousands of Iranians, and further destroying the reputation of America around the world and thus making the rest of us all less safe as that breeds more terrorism. Then, more terrorism leads to more missile strikes and around the wheel we go again.

Look what you get when you vote Democrat. PLEASE STOP!

Folks, the Democrats under the Clintons and the DLC have always been just a Plan B to the same interests that support the Republicans.

These 'Democrats' defend the Republicans and support the same agenda. They will always argue against any impeachment or legal action against criminal Republicans in the name of 'not being divisive'. Look not only at Pelosi and Reid PROTECTING Bush and Cheney from impeachment, but also look at how the first Clinton Administration let the crimes of the Reagan\Bush Daddy years go by under the category of let bygones be bygones.

Look how there is generally a record through all these stretches of Democratic power where the key initiatives of the previous Republican administrations go unchallenged after the Democrats take power. A few tweaks around the edges, like these current Dems raising the min wage (bundled with more tax breaks for business), but no major assault to roll back what's been done.

And, then the track record of the first Clinton years is that they then start to pass the parts of the Republican agenda that the Republicans couldn't even pass when they had power. NAFTA, WTO, Welfare Reform, federal death penalties, the precedents for launching illegal wars, the first anti-terror bills, all came from this role of the Clintons and the Democrats.

We'll see the same and worse from a Hillary administration.

It's the old game where the Republicans gain power, do whatever they want, and then when the people start to get too pissed at them, we elect the Democrats, who are slightly better, not as up front about it, but do the exact same thing. Then when they piss off their progressive base, another Republican gets elected and the cycle starts over again.
If Hillary gets elected, we will see that we definetely have royal families in this country.
Reagan(Bush), Reagan (Bush), Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? Rediculous.

GEOFF: My first comment was related to archetypal energy, the mantra "Mars rules," more than men specifically. I have made the argument often in this forum that mankind has lost its intended balance. Like any "vehicle" it requires at minimum TWO counter-balancing oars to navigate properly. Up until very recently, the feminine side of the Divine equation was belittled, denied, denigrated, devalued, and virtually left in a decomissioned state. Even though women like M. Thatcher, and Hilary have risen to power LATELY they embody principles of patriarchy. In a former column I explained there are at least 6 archetypal masculine and 6 archetypal feminine deities that animate the wheel of time. Cast into mythological personae they are TIMELESS IMPRINTS. The Athena female IS the daughter of powerful men, identifies with their mores, vision and modus operandi. SHE is the type that likes to see violence and war, but this is NOT a holistic or healthy feminine archetype. The masculine equivalent is MARS. AS our planet veers towards a violent maelstrom fueled by war profiteers and the makers of increasingly heinous weapon systems, it is worth our scrutiny to examine why these propensities for hatred and division have come to the forefront of our experience, are embodied not only in secular leaders, but those that lead HUGE "religious" congregations. The entire paradigm is HATE based, and devoid of LOVE which takes me to the VENUS deficit. THIS is the crux of what I mostly wished to share, so do not despair, I am not blaming "all men." That is NOT it at all... see J. Alfred Proofrock!

Siouxrose, I frankly don't see how mythological archetypal feminine and masculine deities in the wheel of time are going to help us out of this mess. No offense intended, but how is this quasi religion going to move us forward and resolve our dire political situation?

I wonder what percentage of CD readers are actually out there working for a candidate? I too am fearful of a Hillary candidacy because she is almost certain to lose to Ghouliani or, shudder, Romney. I'm a Democrat and *I* don't like or trust her! That's why I'm working as an unpaid volunteer for John Edwards. He's actually more progressive than any of the other candidates save for Kucinich, and is electable (sorry Dennis, I love you, but you don't have a chance). I live in NH and I'm hopeful that Edwards will do well in Iowa, and that when people get into the privacy of the voting booths in NH on Jan. 8, they will come to their senses about Hillary and put a mark next to Edwards' name. Obama speaks well, but in spite of his smooth talk, I find him unconvincing. Interestingly, in my phone calls to see if registered voters have chosen a candidate to support, more than 50% are still undecided, less than 45 days before the NH primary. It's like people aren't paying attention! What's wrong with them?!

HILLARY CLINTON IS A PURE EXCUSE FOR A WOMAN. SHE LEANS ON A WOMANIZING MAN WITH NO PRIDE
I AGREE SHE IS A DISASTER ABOUT TO HAPPEN.
IF SHE WINS THE DMC NOMINATION, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER.
I WILL VOTE FOR MITT ROMNEY IF HE RUNS AGAINST HER. IF ANY OTHER REPUB IS RUNNING I WILL VOTE INDEPENDENT. A BAD DEMO IS JUST AS BAD AS A REPUB. THE DANCER

I will not vote for Hillary. The very last immaginable denture has fallen from the "lesser of two evils" excuse. In a very real way she and Bendovercrats are MORE EVIL because they prevent the development of a real opposition to the ever rightward fascist drift.

After thirty years of rightward movement by the Bendovercrats the lesser of two evils has become-- in a strategic AND a practical sense-- the Greater of Two Evils Inc. It is our job to stop being the battered spouse and allow these Corporate Vampires to take our votes for granted. Until then, where is the political cost that will induce change?

Daniel David November 30th, 2007 10:36 am

"to lobo gris,

I write here for three reasons."

I honestly don't care why you write here. I only care what you write. Especially when it includes off the wall, unsubstantiated remarks that have nothing to do with the truth. And the plain fact IMO is that you don't care if it's the truth as long as it helps get someone elected with a "D" behind their name.

Such as;

"As for addressing all the posts above, Hillary is a liberal trying to get past corporations and hawks to get elected. She will never be anything but a liberal at heart, and that's why I believe she will not give her corporate contributors the store. They are just buying access, and electing a Republican is not a proper response for us to make just because there are critics of Hillary's contributor list."

Hillary is far from being a liberal. From chairing a Republican womens group at Wellesly to sitting on the boards of several corporations she has proven herself to be what she claims; a liberal at heart maybe but a conservative in her mind. And it's her mind that rules when she votes and that will rule if she is elected president.

Lobo Gris

lobo gris,

Carry on! As your mind, heart, talents, scholarship, attitude and time for argument lead you. Perhaps your water poured on one brand of liberal enthusiam will be useful to help spark others to create and articulate a better style.

As for Mrs. Clinton, I have said on this site many times that I do not believe she is the best choice for President, but you cannot make an argument that you're going to be proud of the Giuliani, Romney or Thompson appointments to the Supreme Court if the Dems lose.

As for answering your arguments, I probably won't bother most of the time. The other readers would probably prefer it that way, leaving them, not me to evaluate whether you made any sense or not.

Daniel David

Daniel David December 1st, 2007 12:17 pm

"As for Mrs. Clinton, I have said on this site many times that I do not believe she is the best choice for President, but you cannot make an argument that you're going to be proud of the Giuliani, Romney or Thompson appointments to the Supreme Court if the Dems lose."

Neither you nor anyone else knows whether the next president will nominate anyone to the Supreme Court. And you once again fail to talk about the Democrats failure to oppose the Roberts or Alito nominations. They were after all supposed to be the opposition party.

"As for answering your arguments, I probably won't bother most of the time."

I honestly don't care if you reply or not and I am perfectly willing to let the readers decide who makes sense and who doesn't.

Lobo Gris

You both make sense to me. You Lobo, most of the time. David? __ Some times. He does get some very good and informative arguments started.