Another Clinton Campaign Fraud

[davidswanson]

It sounds silly, but for a long time it just didn't occur to me what the implications would be. Thus spake a college student who agreed to ask Senator Clinton a planted question. And thus, alas, must I speak as well.

Senator Clinton asked me to impersonate a citizen of the United States, and I was tempted to play along. The assignment she had marked "(citizen)" on the script on her clipboard, read:

"A citizen is a member of an electorate. A citizen's job consists of voting. A citizen may also spend the two years in between elections thinking about how he or she will vote (but not about who will count the votes). In between elections, citizens should not imagine they can influence their representatives. Public demonstrations, lobbying, media activism, media production, and civil disobedience are not proper citizen activities unless professionally organized to target exclusively Republicans. A citizen's loyalty is to his or her Party. For the sake of your Party you must accept such compromises as voting for a candidate who supports a massive military and empire that you oppose, or corporate trade agreements that you oppose, or private health insurance companies that you oppose, or lobbyists whom you oppose, etc. This is more easily done when a candidate expresses all possible positions, because you can then believe the position you prefer and act as though you did not hear the other positions expressed. Ultimately, a citizen should reach the full understanding of issues and positions as tools to aid the higher goal of elections. The greater good of elections outweighs, surprisingly enough, even genocide, and remarkably enough, even the maintenance of a credible electoral system! The importance of electing a president even outweighs the question of whether we will have any presidents in the future or instead have all-powerful dictators. That's an issue for each president to work out once the election is won. Understanding the greater good of the election makes citizens wise enough to engage in necessary minor infractions, such as pretending to be reporters. Those who have perfected this talent will find full employment in the print and broadcast industries, and it is those industries that should tell the citizens whom to vote for."

When I first saw this assignment on Clinton's clipboard, I was so eager to be a part of her campaign that I nodded my head in speechless agreement and peed my pants with excitement. But after several hours I hesitantly raised my hand and asked the Senator a question:

"Senator Clinton, I'm so thrilled to be able to play the part of citizen. I've been practicing for it ever since last semester. But I wonder, and you can tell me if not, but I wonder if it would be just as good if I played it in the way that I had in mind when your goons offered me the free ticket and stuck me in their van. Specifically, could I base my performance on the role I find in the U.S. Constitution, in the writings of our founding fathers, in the teachings of the most useful and beneficial Americans of the past 230 years, and the lessons of democratic successes from around the world? Would that be OK? Can I devote most of my energy to influencing our government in between elections? Can I put a focus, when appropriate, on the one process that the Constitution brings up 6 times and takes the time to explain to us, namely impeachment? Can I force my views in any way possible into the corrupt corporate media monopoly that your husband bequeathed us? Can I go to jail for justice when I believe it will save others from harm? Can I refuse illegal orders and unconstitutional laws? Can I tear down the fences around the free speech zones and the $2,000 campaign dinners and declare the entire land of the free and home of the brave a free speech country? Can I stop giving you and your media friends all my money, and instead invest in creating new media outlets free from corporate interests and advertisers? Can I vote for individuals, rather than for parties? Can I base my vote for an individual on what I think he or she will do of substance if elected? And if my television tells me to vote for one candidate, and makes a joke of a second candidate, but I don't consider the first candidate worthy of cleaning dogshit off the second candidate's shoes, can I go with my heart instead of my television? I'm just asking."

[msongs]

1. when did clinton personally ask david swanson to do this? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. This Reminds Me Of The Sliming Of Al Gore In 00

When the press would pick apart every little story he told on the trail... For instance, he said his mom would sing him the union lullaby to put him into sleep... The press investigated and found out the song was published when he was twenty years old...

I'm surprised folks here are cheering them on...

[question everything]

3. And, hey, I got my 15 min of fame (nt)

[emilyg]

7. And hoping for a book deal

:shrug:

[desi]

11. Book Deal..?

Even the Weekly Standard would decline to publish this "writing."

[Bitwit1234]

4. We all knew the republicans would start their slime campaign

but I never in my wildest dreams would think, Democrats would jump on their bandwagon and flame and slash a Democratic Candidate.

But I suppose if you were so jealous you were streaming spittle because your candidate was dropping like a rock, you thought if you joined the slime machine against Hillary it would help your candidate.

I don't think so, I think the more THAT candidates supporters slime HIllary they more they are viewed as slime themselves.

[AuntPatsy]

14. I have a similar train of thought going on. What some so called Dem's

say about HC is nothing short of parroting the likes of all those associated with faux news and its more than disappointing to see people here on DU repeat the same memo they send out to their un conscience followers.

There is nothing wrong with calling out irregularities by DEM candidates but the venom spewed toward Hillary is sickening and undeserving of attention and or respect.

[cali]

5. bwahahah.

What a silly, silly piece. This isn't thoughtful criticism, it's a fact free hit piece of yellow journalism.

[Josiah1982]

6. I call "BULLSHIT"...

This belongs on some freeper site. Not here.

[jgraz]

12. The freepers would do well to take a few lessons in citizenship.

They might also learn a few big words. Sadly, the responses on this thread show that more than a few folks here could use a refresh on the topic.

[Perry Logan]

8. Swanson suffers from "Progressive's Disease." He has completely forgotten who the enemy is.

I'm sure you've noticed this phenomenon with many progressives--they forget who the enemy is.

Some progressives think attacking Democrats is the most brilliant strategy in the world and are always congratulating themselves on how they've screwed things up for the Democratic leadership. I hardly have to tell you this is ubiquitous behavior at good old DU.

Progressives (or whoever we're talking about here) publicly badmouth the Democratic leadership--usually based on an uncritical acceptance of corporate new reports. They protest Democrats, stage sit-ins at Democrats' offices, write nasty e-mails to Democrats, do satires of Democrats, smear Democratic candidates, threaten not to vote, start threads at DU calling the Democratic leadership traitors, threaten to withhold money from Democrats, do whatever they can to bring down the morale of their fellow Democrats, write endlessly about what utter turds the Democrats are, etc., etc., etc.

Imagine if just a fraction of that energy were directed against the Republicans. It's enough to make you weep.

[guruoo]

20. It's that 'Paris Hilton' wing of the party, ya know

[oasis]

9. Hillary chooses a dunce to carry out an important mission? I don't think so.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

13. Interesting way to present the criticism

I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but I certainly think the over-the-top whining from the Hillarites is unwarranted.

Thanks for a thoughtful post. K&R.

[bagrman]

15. Great Piece. Too bad the Hillarites didn't get it . If she's (s)elected they will.

[Imperialism Inc.]

17. Ummm, no they won't.

They'll never get it.

[sallyseven]

16. This entry is bullshit.

[Jim Sagle]

18. Mods, get rid of this fuckhead.

[guruoo]

19. I'll second that motion. n/t

[f the letter]

23. i don't like this piece very much and agree that these hypothetical situations are cheap discourse,

but what is wrong with you guys? Do you seriously think this is freeper material? i don't trust this candidate for a second, she's as hawkish and status-quo as most of the republican candidates. i agree with the bent of the post if not the method.

And furthermore, if 'progressive's disease' is when progressives continue to push for actual _progress_ and not just this one-step-forward-ninety-steps-back nonsense then consider me infected. i will never cast a vote for a candidate who won't end the war, restore our Constitution, push for impeachment of any one of the myriad impeachable crimes, put the insurance middlemen out of business through single-payer health care (or any other meaningful health care reform), etc etc.

Luckily there is at least one democratic candidate who is legitimately pushing for progress and peace. But it ain't her.

Thanks mods for not shitcanning this thread.

[Gman]

21. Who gives a flying phuck if somebody "planted" a question

It's just good politics. And if someone doesn't do the things like this needed to win a campaign they're probably stuck in the low, single digits, as is the darling here Kucinich. You either want to win or you don't.

People are dying in Iraq. People are being slaughtered in Darfur and people are fixated on this. Absolutely ridiculous.

[LWolf]

22. Harsh.

What an accurate portrayal of how many of us feel treated, not just by HRC, but by the entire party establishment.

It's harsh, and will inevitably draw defensive reaction.

In all of the flames sure to follow, I hope one point isn't forgotten or "ignored:"

This election cycle is not "business as usual." Enough people feel betrayed by the same to go through it expecting that voters will get in line like obedient sheep.

Deriding, shaming, playing the "fear" or "lesser of 2 evils" or "traitor" or "stupid" card, or other tried-and-true methods of commanding party loyalty aren't going to do the job, and this has been made clear very early on. Such efforts are more likely to drive more people away than get them to the polls to vote next year.

Democrats ignore opposition to "business as usual" and its preferred candidates at their peril.