Bernie Sanders On Hillary:“I DO QUESTION Her Judgement.” And So Should We.

[Segami]

It was Hillary Clinton's flawed judgement that APPROVED & ALLOWED slime ball smear agent David Brock to represent her campaign. Why would Hillary Clinton surround herself and allow to be represented by this disgusting rodent? Lets remind Democrats about low-life David Brock's past and how Hillary finds him quite acceptable working within her campaign. No problem, right? Well, lets see......remember,....it's about her 'judgement'.

THE REAL DAVID BROCK. YECCH.

Thursday, January 20, 1994

:First, David Brock wrote a devastating profile of Anita Hill, the law professor who testified against Clarence Thomas. Then he took on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Calling a hatchet man like Brock a legitimate journalist is like reading Crime and Punishment and deciding that Raskolnikov really carried that ax around with him under his coat because he was an undercover policeman. Brock's now-famous article, titled "The Real Anita Hill," appeared in the far-right American Spectator magazine in March 1992. Conservatives reacted to it with such great glee that Brock followed it up with a best-selling book of the same title.

Brock is hardly a reincarnation of Woodward and Bernstein. His technique consisted of journeying into Hill's past and coming up with all the far-out anecdotes of a sexual nature he could collect. Brock admits there are some elements of satire in his work. Satire? It is a technique widely used in the supermarket-tabloid field, but it has never been used as a tool in the journalism of the far right.

This month, Brock added a new notch to his belt by adopting his technique to Arkansas for four months, he says, to discover the backgrounds of President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Until now, Brock had been pretty much ignored by the mainstream press. His sleazy attack on Hill was so astonishing and titillating that would-be critics backed off rather than engage Brock in a frontal debate. They wrote him off as a salacious weirdo and let it go at that. Here is a sample of the prose Brock served up against Hill, the woman who came close to preventing Justice Thomas from being confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Hill's behavior struck more than one of her colleagues not as feminism, but as plain sexism in reverse," Brock wrote.

"Her flirtatiousness, her provocative manner of dress, was not sweet or sexy, it was sort of angry, almost a weapon." Having thus set up Hill as an angry, black woman, Brock then proceeded to relate this account of an incident that supposedly occurred while she was teaching law at Oral Roberts University. He wrote:

"The most bizarre incident is alleged to have happened in the school year of 1983-84 at Oral Roberts, according to an affidavit dated October 13, 1991, and filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which Lawrence Shiles, a lawyer in Tulsa, recounted the following:

"Shortly after class had begun, Professor Hill gave us a written assignment which I completed and duly turned in. When this assignment was passed out to the class after having been marked by the professor, sitting next to me were fellow students Jeffrey Londoff and Mark Stewart. Upon opening the assignments and reviewing our grades and comments made by Anita Hill, I found ten to 12 short, black pubic hairs in the pages of my assignment. I glanced over at Jeff Londoff's assignment and saw similar pubic hairs in his assignment, also.

"At that time, I made the statement to Londoff that either she had a low opinion of our works or she had graded our assignment in the bathroom. Mark Stewart overheard the conversation and said that he had similar pubic hairs in his assignment, also.'"
Brock concludes this astonishing passage this way:
"So Hill may be a bit nutty and a bit slutty. . . ."

This month, writing again in the American Spectator, Brock devoted his attention not only to President Clinton's sex life but also to what he perceived as an ongoing sexual dalliance between first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and the late Vincent Foster. Foster was a partner of Mrs. Clinton's in a Little Rock law firm. This is the same Foster whose suicide after becoming a presidential aide has never stopped haunting the White House. Foster, the Clintons' personal lawyer, handled the papers for Whitewater Development, which is now the focal point of a special prosecutor's attention.

Brock quotes state troopers assigned to protect Clinton as seeing Mrs. Clinton being embraced numerous times by Foster and also of seeing her engage in "open-mouthed kissing" with him. The troopers also cite instances in which the two would go off and spend long hours together, either at the governor's mansion or at a cabin owned by the law firm in which both were partners. The attacks on Clinton were met head-on. Those on Mrs. Clinton were, I think, considered so distasteful that it was better not to even confront them.

All of these charges, however, were lent some credibility because the Los Angeles Times and CNN reacted to the tales of the unhappy Arkansas troopers at the same time. One of the first reactions I saw to Brock's attack came from columnist Anthony Lewis on the op-ed page of the New York Times.

He referred to Brock as "chief manure spreader for the extreme right. . . . There is much to criticize in this administration . . . but only someone driven by hate would make the president's most intimate life the test. As the record of great figures in history shows, the correlation between a politician's sexual fidelity and his or her contribution to mankind is zero."

Robert Scheer, a highly respected former investigative reporter for the Los Angeles Times, wrote on that newspaper's op-ed page: "There is no legitimate journalistic excuse for this preoccupation with the previous peccadilloes, real or imagined, of the president. The issue keeps coming up because it titillates the audience. . . ." It was not until New York Times columnist Frank Rich attacked Brock that things turned white-hot. I had seen the smarmy Brock fending off critics during television appearances on C-SPAN and on CrossFire, during which he referred to President Clinton, cavalierly, as "a bizarre guy."

On television, the impression Brock gives us is that of a sanctimonious, self-satisfied young man on a dubious holy mission. The irony is that Brock seems hell-bent on ferreting out not so much evildoing as low-down common sleaze. To see the prissy Brock interviewed is to want to reach into the television screen, grab him around the neck with two hands and strangle him before Rush Limbaugh or Robert Novak can come to his aid. Brock, now 31, is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley. He moved to Washington, D.C., and found jobs, successively, at the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times and at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank.

This is, coincidentally, the career path followed by one of Brock's great admirers on the local scene, William P. Cheshire, the Arizona Republic's editorial columnist. Rich, formerly the New York Times' drama critic, has only recently shifted his attention to politics, and now appears twice a week on the Times' op-ed page. I was interested in the Rich approach, because he had taken the trouble to go back and read Brock's previous article on Anita Hill to see what that might reveal.

Rich wrote:

"His motives are at least as twisted as his facts. It's women, not liberals, who really get him going. The slightest sighting of female sexuality whips him into a frenzy of misogynist zeal."
Rich further pointed to Brock's quoting the Little Rock state troopers as saying that Mrs. Clinton spoke of her "desire to have more frequent sex with her husband."

Speaking of Brock's "rage at women," Rich pointed out the author's admiration for the state troopers, who he described as "tall and trim, with an upright demeanor and closely cropped hair of a military officer." Rich cited this one passage from Brock's 11,000-word attack on the Clintons in the American Spectator:

"She would phone the mansion from her law office and order troopers to fetch feminine napkins from her bedroom and deliver them to her at her firm." Rich asked: "Why does Mr. Brock care? Would he have told this story if Mrs. Clinton were fetching aspirin?"

He concluded by saying of Brock, "His animus is so transparent that there will be no need for anyone to write a book in search of the real David Brock." Nothing in Washington, D.C., journalism ever ends. The Rich column caught the eye of Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's media critic. Kurtz contacted Brock for his reaction to the attack by Rich in the Times.

cont'

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-real-david-brock-yecch-6425764

[Segami]

1. David Brock fits quite well within Hillary's campaign.....

So much for judgement. Will Brock become part of Hillary Clinton's WhiteHouse smear machinery IF she were elected president?

[XemaSab]

2. I remember Mark Penn from 2008

If these are the people you have around you as a candidate, what kind of people will you have around you after you're in office?

[Segami]

3. Oh yes,...Mark Penn..

Penn Strategy Memo, March 19, 2007: More than anything else, this memo captures the full essence of Mark Penn's campaign strategy--its brilliance and its breathtaking attacks. Penn identified with impressive specificity the very coalition of women and blue-collar workers that Clinton ended up winning a year later. But he also called Obama "unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun," and wrote, "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Penn proposed targeting Obama's "lack of American roots."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/08/penn-strategy-memo-march-19-2008/37952/

[Segami]

8. The WhiteHouse will be littered with these scum.......oh, thank you Hillary!

[Segami]

4. Frank Rich writes about Brock...

"His motives are at least as twisted as his facts. It's women, not liberals, who really get him going. The slightest sighting of female sexuality whips him into a frenzy of misogynist zeal."

And Hillary wants to accuse Bernie of sexism when she has a twisted misogynist working for her......unbelievable!

[amborin]

5. the public really needs to hear about this guy

[Segami]

6. We should start showcasing these smear agents in the sunlight.....

I imagine she would rather deflect people's attention away from exposing these rats whom she's hired to represent her campaign.

[Segami]

7. kick

[Octafish]

9. K&R: Consider Frank Giustra.

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton

By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
The New York Times, JAN. 31, 2008

EXCERPT...

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

SNIP...

Mr. Giustra foresaw a bull market in gold and began investing in mines in Argentina, Australia and Mexico. He turned a $20 million shell company into a powerhouse that, after a $2.4 billion merger with Goldcorp Inc., became Canada’s second-largest gold company.

CONTINUED...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

Sounds like what Smirko McCokespoon did with HARKEN and that big offshore deal in Bahrain.

[Marr]

10. The Hillary Campaign's association with Brock makes all their cries of sexism seem

laughably insincere. If I had to pick three of the most egregiously misogynistic chapters I've ever seen in US politics, Brock's attacks on Anita Hill on behalf of Clarence Thomas would definitely be on the list. He's the poster boy for misogynistic smears.

[Orsino]

11. We should question every president's judgment, and every candidate's.

Even the best of them are perfectly capable of epic fuck-ups when not carefully monitored.

Trust shouldn't be our watchword. We need to lobby candidates and presidents, unceasingly.

[ViseGrip]

12. There is only one Bernie Sanders. There was only one FDR. Dont throw this opportuntiy away!

[nolawarlock]

13. I question Bernie's sanity ...

... so it makes he and Hillary even. It makes him nuts. But it makes them even.

[Stuckinthebush]

20. His pope visit is a good indication of poor judgement

Bad idea, Bernard.

[nolawarlock]

22. Hallelloo! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Some here want to ban questioning of candidates and consider questioning "bashing".

Whereas, questioning a potential public servant is part and parcel of democracy.

[nolawarlock]

15. No,

They want to ban appropriate Terms of Service violations such as "vote third party".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Fine with me. I never advise anyone which party to vote for.

I think everyone should vote for the candidate or party of their choice.

[nolawarlock]

18. I agree with you on a personal level

... but function of this website is to elect Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Fine. Sanders is a Democrat.

But, I don't vote for labels.

[nolawarlock]

23. Yes, but all the third party pushing on here is out of scope. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Where's the "pushing"?

What I see is some people, like me, saying how they, as individuals, will vote. What I also see, is a lot of people saying we must vote the way they want or get banned.

[nolawarlock]

26. Uh huh.

Yep. Whatever you say. The sky is purple with green polka-dots. Peace out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Whereas, you saying you'll vote for Hillary isn't "pushing". Right?

Calling for others to vote for her isn't "pushing". Right?

[nolawarlock]

28. I'm pushing for a Democrat.

I realize you are insisting upon twisting my words, but by doing so, you must be assuming a rather baseline stupidity on the part of the audience reading our interactions so way to go insulting your audience.

I don't care they're pushing Bernie. I care that they're pushing him as a future third party candidate on a Democrat site. It's inappropriate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. I'm pushing for democracy.... socialism.

[jwirr]

16. Absolutely from her vote on the Iraq war to her keeping

her own computer in her basement and putting sensitive info on it. It is all about judgement.

[EndElectoral]

21. Brock and Blumenthal - Good god.

[BernieforPres2016]

24. I don't question Hillary's judgment. It's terrible. nt

[actslikeacarrot]

30. Her judgement is fine!

After all, regime change and military action are all the rage in the Democratic Party!

[The Second Stone]

31. I question Sen. Sanders judgment

in his ability to face facts and do math. And when it comes to guns, his corruption is killing American families.