Memo to Clinton: They went after Kerry for 30 years

[calteacherguy]

But didn't help him win the Presidency and it won't help you, either.

[Lucinda]

1. I'm sure she's just sitting by the phone waiting for this piece of advice from you.

:rofl:

[calteacherguy]

2. I wasn't offering advice.

And I'm sure she's not.

[CyberPieHole]

33. ...

:spray:

Now, THAT was funny!:rofl:

[cuke]

3. No they didn't

I don't remember rightwing commercials about Kerry througout the 90's and into the 21st century. They went after him when he was against the VietNam war and when he ran for president. Otherwise, they didn't attack him on a daily basis for more than a decade the way they have with the Clinton's.

Today, the righwing has reported that Hillary is a lesbian, a Dominionist and an Illuminati.

[Bitwit1234]

4. You forgot they reported she had affairs with

Vince Foster and being the black widow she killed him.

Then she had an affair with the PM of India

And she had an affair with Ron Brown and had him killed.

Now they have the lesbian thing, guess they can't make up their mind as to which smear they want so they'll do them both. AND the Clinton's have been under fire from the republicans since Bill Clinton ran for governor of Arkansas. The guy he ran against and beat, is the one who started the vendetta against him. I can't remember the name.

[gateley]

10. I thought the lesbian thing was old -wasn't that being talked about when

Bill was President? They couldn't make it stick then, so I'm surprised they're trying again.

Of course with THEM, nothing HAS to be proven!

[zbdent]

30. I made a RWer confused ... he said that she was a lesbian

but he shortly said she was sleeping with everybody ... I pointed this contradiction out to the person and he was briefly stunned at his own "logic" ...

[Carrieyazel]

14. Sheffield Nelson is the one you're thinking about.

Ex-Democrat who felt "betrayed", and decided to dedicate the rest of his life to destroying Bill Clinton.

But remember, Bill was the one who beat them down. Without his skills, where would she be?

[ChiciB1]

37. So Tell Me Why You Think They Won't Sink EVEN Deeper With

more scandalous and vicious lies?? They're SALIVATING for her to be the nominee, and given THE America of the past 2 decades, hey guys... IT WORKS!!

And please DON'T think they won't pull out ALL the stops! Yes, they'll do it to ANY candidate the Democrats nominate, but NOTHING comes close to the "bite" they want of her! IMHO, just to make my statement palatable.

[Lucinda]

5. But...but...they WANT to run against her, right?

:rofl:

[calteacherguy]

11. I believe they do, yes. nt

[Lucinda]

34. I don't. :)

[JTFrog]

23. self delete. n/t

[blm]

40. Gee - you forgot when Kerry was ostracized by all of DC for uncovering IranContra and BCCI

and CIA drugrunning.

Gee - where WERE some of you that you know so little about the last 30 years?

Kerry was targeted by GOP administrations, their FBI and CIA goon operatives, the Dem PARTY POWERFUL who supported IranContra and BCCI dealings, and was targeted by RW media asshats like Scaife long before most even heard the name Bill Clinton.

[cuke]

45. "ostracized by all of DC" < "target of national media for 15 years"

Yes, Kerry has had enemies for many years. More years than Hillary and very powerful enemies. However, he hasn't been the focus of a 15 year long national media campaign designed to destroy his reputation. The effort to bring down Hillary is a far more public effort than the one to destroy Kerry

[blm]

48. The difference is between what is REAL and what is dog and pony show.

While the dog and pony show and fake issues were ginned up throughout the 90s, what serious issues were being deep-sixed under all that noise?

Think about it - - IranContra, Iraqgate and BCCI's outstanding matters were deadly serious for this nation and the world.

And Bill was helping Poppy Bush sweep those matters under the rug throughout that entire time. Read his book.

[karynnj]

53. Both of them were attacked unscupulously

One difference is that throughout the time Hillary was attacked, she was first in the White House and then was an ex-first lady. That gave her a platform to respond from, where people got to see who she really was. The effort against Hillary was more public, but also seen as more the product of the lunatic fringe - with HRC sitting comfortably as first lady, regularly profiled as a good role model for girls.

Kerry was a 27 year old kid when the RW first attacked him - leading to an atmosphere so poisonous that Kerry and his wife regularly had their tires slashed and worse, bricks thrown through their windows - one landing within a foot of their baby daughter. The most powerful man in the country ordered people to DESTROY him. When he was fighting the Contras, the RW accused him of everything from drug running - which THEY were doing to destroying their "investigations. In all cases, Kerry was right and was fighting to keep the government from breaking the law - the attacks on Kerry were prominent, the conclusion that he was right was buried. In all these cases, including the SBVT ones, he did not have the media platform the Clintons had to fight back from.

[blm]

60. Don't forget how they tried to plant COCAINE in Kerry's office to turn the tables

on him and his investigators and make the public believe it was Kerry all along who was involved in the contra cocaine dealings.

[cuke]

69. No one remembers that. Everyone remembers the blue dress

No comparison.

[blm]

76. Yep - we need MORE self-centered politicians in high office, not ones working to protect

the rights of the citizens to open and accountable government.

People SHOULD remember BCCI, since everything happening today, from 9-11 to Iraq war, from Dubai's takeover of our media and ports to the horror story of Pakistan's nukes are ALL the continuing story that is BCCI.

Those that do not understand that are the LAST people who should be choosing the next president. They are the least informed in our citizenry.

[karynnj]

77. There is a far bigger difference

The blue dress was not "planted". Clinton's actions were wrong. The embarrassment was his fault.

Kerry, on the other hand, proved that the CIA was turning the other way when cocaine was really brought into the country, arms were bought with the profits and given to RW thugs who filled innocent people. Kerry's investigation was far more likely to never be a political asset than to be one and might be part of why he lost. (Eliott Abrams, cousin of Dan Abrams, was indicted for lying to Kerry. You also have Oliver North on Fox.) It did though play a role in stopping Reagan's illegal central American wars and once exposed, it shut down that avenue of cocaine coming into the country. Those are both major accomplishments.

This is another example of trying to equate Kerry being smeared for GOOD work to BC being smeared for his flaws (Jennifer Flowers, lying about how he avoided the draft and the blue dress). Unless you are saying that BC's actions with Monica were as exemplary as Kerry's service or work against the Contras.

[cuke]

80. Right, and Hillary really is a lesbian, and she really did kill Vince Foster

She has had many false stories printed about her. More than Kerry has.

"This is another example of trying to equate Kerry being smeared for GOOD work to BC being smeared for his flaws "

This is another example of you getting hysterical. My post does nothing more than point out the fact that Hillary has been attacked in the national media far more than Kerry has.

[karynnj]

84. Look at your post that I responded to - it mentions a "blue dress"

It does not mention Vince Foster, a story that was exhaustively killed when BC was President. I would far rather be called a lesbian than a war criminal or traitor. I agree that HRC has been smeared, but I do NOT agree that it was more than Kerry - or Teresa, for that matter.

My sentence that you quoted was not hysterical and it is accurate. My point is that for a politician, Kerry was unusually clean and he was willing to take on tasks that were important, though never likely to help him politically. His reputation was damaged in 2004 and since then a wing of his own party has made things worse for their own greedy reasons.

[cuke]

86. Look at all the posts. Look at the OP

This thread is about who has been attacked more, Hillary or Kerry.

It is not about whether the attacks were true or not. You are becoming incoherent.

"My point is that for a politician, Kerry was unusually clean and he was willing to take on tasks that were important, though never likely to help him politically. His reputation was damaged in 2004 and since then a wing of his own party has made things worse for their own greedy reasons. "

And my point is that your point is irrelevant to the discussion and irrelevant to anything I have said.

[karynnj]

92. Incoherent as well as hysterical

personal attacks - is that to emulate your candidate's first response to negatives? I usually am not seen as either hysterical or incoherent.

You do not get to declare what is relevant. You can, of course, dispute that it matters
1) The difference in the platforms they had to respond from

and

2) whether the charge is accurate. (Reference specifically to "blue dress" that you used as a smear. That was NOT a smear but a part of history I regret my young daughters learning of.)

[blm]

85. Not by the mainstream media - the stories against Kerry were mainstreamed

while stories about Hillary being a lesbian and Vince Foster's murderer were stories only the RW media pursued.

BTW - the point was that Kerry was blocked and smeared for reasons deadly serious to this nation and its democracy.

Big difference.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

There never should have even been a Bush2, a 9-11, or this Iraq war. None would have happened if the outstanding matters that were uncovered by Kerry in the first place hadn't been deep-sixed by a Dem president protecting his predecessor's secrecy and privilege over the rights of citizens to open government accountable to its people.

[cuke]

87. Absurd

Everyone has heard the Hillary is a lesbian and the Hillary killed Foster stories. Most of the stuff thrown at Kerry is unknown to the american people. Your Kerry obsession prevents you from seeing the obvious truth about how the Clinton's were attacked in an unprecedented manner for well over a decade.

[blm]

88. I defended them from those attacks and YOUR Clinton devotion absurdly prevents

you from acknowledging the truth about the difference in the reasons for those attacks. Clinton was hit with dog and pony show attacks that kept the media busy while the SERIOUS CRAP he was protecting Poppy Bush on was being swept under the rug.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Do you understand Marc Rich story?

Clinton took being attacked for that - it was better for him that RW storyline went with allusions to the allure of Denise Rich and large payoffs from a wealthy tax evader and his divorced wife.

That smokescreen completely took over while the FCAT that Clinton had pardoned another one of Poppy Bush's IranContra operatives was left out of the public debate. Not to mention the fact that Rich was also named as an outstanding matter in Kerry's Dec 1992 BCCI report.

But, hey, most Democrats wouldn't appreciate Clinton pardoning another IranContra figure for Poppy, would they?

In fact, some Dems might even drop their long conditioned knee-jerk defenses of Clintons whenever they do get attacked in the future.

[cuke]

91. My point still stands

Hillary was attacked far more often and more viciously than Kerry has been. That is the issue the OP raised. Too bad your Kerry obsession prevents you from engaging in any discussion of this. You can only talk about your obsession with the Clinton/Kerry rivalry

[blm]

93. Except part of the SILLY attacks on Hillary were HELPFUL to Clintons. It conditioned Dems

the party to be their kneejerk defenders while they were busy defending Poppy Bush's secrecy and privilege throughout the 90s.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

PS - there WAS no rivalry. Clintons treated ALL other Dems who led opposition to Bush badly.

The rivalry is between the wing of the Democratic party that believes in Open Government accountable to the citizenry and the wing of the party that protects secrecy and privilege of powerful and closed government.

[cuke]

94. My point still stands

Hillary was attacked far more often and more viciously than Kerry has been

[blm]

95. Because your attention span in politics started WHEN?

Nixon's goons left Clintons alone.

Reagan's goons left Clintons alone.

Clintons had RW attacks that didn't come directly from Bushes - they were RW wingers using pure crap to keep media involved with that crap to obscure the protection of secrecy and privilege of BushInc by his cooperative Dem successor.

You think it's awful that RW and media talked about the blue dress - or do you think it was awful that media talked about blue dress while ignoring the ongoing coverups throughout the 90s of all the outstanding matters that surfaced regularly related to Poppy Bush's IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning operations?

You either get that or you don't.

[karynnj]

82. and she had a far more public platform to respond from

[karynnj]

51. You are forgetting that he was attacked for fighting against the Contras

and BCCI.

[cuke]

70. No, I'm not

The fact is that while they have spent a lot of time going after Kerry, they've done even more to tarnish Clinton's reputation

[karynnj]

78. Actually they have done more against Kerry

To compare, first eliminate all attacks on Clinton that have some root in truth. Then consider that he had 8 years as President where he had the biggest megaphone to counter them. Moat people know the outlines of his accomplishments as President, know he is well spoken and well liked in the world.

Against Kerry, they have trashed his reputation -

He is a very highly decorated vet, and they have a significant number of people thinking him anything from a war criminal to a coward, when his actions show a very decent, strong leader. They have people convinced that he got a dishonorable discharge, which he didn't and who have called him a traitor.

Before running, Kerry was a foreign policy expert - often on the TV talk shows, when Biden was not there. He also was considered a policy wonk and a workaholic. The media misused the Senate system that lists only one sponsor, to say that he had passed very little significant legislation. In fact, it ignores that sometimes legislation uses pieces of earlier legislation - as SCHIP used a Kerry written bill and it ignores that even if not passed legislation can be influential. Kerry/Welstone, aka as Clean Elections, Clean Money was used as the model for Maine's and Arizona's campaign finance laws. They in turn are the model for the currenly proposed Durbin bill. It also ignores, that another way to get thinks passed is to get them accepted into a bill by a voice vote. (A couple Kerry bills that benefited troops were passed this way. As was the Sense of Senate resolution to have a regional conference for Iraq that was included in the 2006 Defense Bill.

In addition, his personality and his personal life were trashed. Teresa Heinz Kerry, an incredible soft spoken brilliant woman with many accomplishments - including having led the green building movement through her hands on actions in Pittsburg for over a decade (She has the real credentials here - not WJC), and on fostering work on woman's health, environmental toxins, and cancer, is now caricatured as loud and almost crazy.

Had Kerry won, he would have had at least 4 years in the White House where people would see the type of person he is. (I know the Clintons were trashed, but they also had the visibility that comes with the White House.

[blm]

89. You mean she didn't fight back effectively and her rep is STILL tarnished after all this time?

.

[aquart]

6. No, they pretty much left him alone until he ran for president.

Just as they never bothered boyscout Gore until he ran.

Neither one of them proved geniuses at fighting back. You can't say that about the Clintons, however.

And just so we're clear: your fella won't know what hit him, if he's the candidate.

(Hoping your fella is not my fella.)

[calteacherguy]

8. But Obama has something the Clinton's have never had, because they've always been afraid.

And so, they've triangulated, sidestepped, danced, behaved Machiavellian, obsessed over polls, asked what the definition of "is" is, proclaimed they didn't inhale, and all the rest.

You remember that scene in "City Slickers" where the old guy holds up one finger and says something like once you figure out what the one most important thing is, that's all you need?

Well, I won't say more. Think about it.

[aquart]

15. Oh, please.

Save your "profundity" for someone who might be impressed.

As for recycling old Republican talking points about the Clintons, you should have more self respect.

The one consistent thing about Obama supporters is how low they've been willing to sink. It doesn't reflect well on the candidate.

[calteacherguy]

18. I appreciate the work Clinton has done on Children's issues.

She's done some good things, and some bad things, in my opinion. She and her husband are not above criticism, especially in a primary race.

I appreciate the positive things all the candidates bring to the field.

[cali]

22. City Slickers? LOL!

You're seriously using a B movie to make a point about how Obama will protect himself if he's the candidate?

The truth is that the repukes will go after whoever is the candidate with single minded ferocity. And it'll be ugly.

With Obama they'll use dog whistle politics and the worst out of the Atwater/rove playbook. And I worry about his ability to fight back. He hasn't had the experience of being slimed in that way.

[beachmom]

38. You're wrong, and I have evidence:

Sorry, about the link, but it gives you the whole story from 1987: "John Forbes Kerry, Most Pecuilar Man in the Senate". It probably had to do with the fact that he had uncovered the CIA drugrunning which later led to the full fledged Iran/Contra scandal.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189725/posts

Hideous stuff.

Other attacks were in 1971, where he was put on Nixon's enemies list. He was dubbed "Live Shot" when he investigated BCCI in 1991 and of course was targeted when he led the POW/MIA investigation so that the U.S. could normalize relations with Vietnam.

This all goes to, of course, proportionality. Kerry was neither POTUS nor a POTUS's spouse, so the attacks tend to be proportional to how much power you have. Yet even with the limited power of being first an activist and then secondly, merely a freshman senator, he really was targeted big time.

As to the OP, well, I am not sure one way or the other. But the idea that Kerry was "left alone" prior to running for president is not true.

[beachmom]

39. Delete. dupe.

[blm]

41. BULL - that completely FORGETS the attacks on Kerry for uncovering IranContra

and BCCI, CIA drugrunning and the illegal wars in Central America=.

WTF do you THINK Scaife cut his teeth on, fer chrissakes?

[karynnj]

54. So you had bricks thrown through your window

and people trying to frame you so you could not stop the illegal Central American wars?

You also ignore that BC was at one point 3 out of 3 in 1992, because of major missteps. In 1992, Bush was below 40%, sinking to 33% before the election. How did BC fight back on the draft story - 1) He said he didn't remember, 2) He said he just wasn't drafted, 3) then he admitted to a deal to join the Arkansas NG after Oxford,4)then the ROTC Colonel spoke of the letter he wrote after getting a high draft number and Clinton denied it --until it was given to the media. Then BC surrogates, like Kerry and Kerrey defended him.

Contrast to Kerry having given the media BEFORE AUGUST,
- 140 pages of Naval records - with fitness reports all glowing
- They had Nixon administration people saying that Kerry was clean and a war hero - 2 years after he left Vietnam
- An historian's book, that Kerry had no editorial control over - that backed Kerry
- All the men on his boat for any medal, backed him 100%
In addition when the SBVT book came out they gave the media over 36 pages documenting the lies.

Kerry completely demolished the credibility of the SBVT to anyone willing to look or listen. In 1992, it was clear that BC lied and that the attack was to some degree accurate. Where it was not accurate was that he was not a draft dodger by any normal definition. The difference was the media of 1992 and that of 2004.

[blm]

59. Would Bill Clinton have preferred Kerry DIDN'T spend 4yrs exposing Bush1's crimes

of office the entire time?

Would Bill Clinton have preferred Kerry supported Bush1 on all those serious matters from 1985-1993 the way Bill supported Bush2 publicly on terrorism and Iraq war from 2001-2006?

Gee - how would that have worked out for Bill? Bush1 could have gone into that 92 election with no worries of impeachment if he won because without Kerry there WERE NO INVESTIGATIONS.

[oasis]

7. Kerry wasn't a fighter. Hillary is.(eom)

[blm]

42. Right - IranContra, BCCI, illegal wars in Central America and CIA drugrunning were

uncovered because Kerry wasn't fighting the Bush machine at all.

In fact - care to explain HOW all that ended up once Bill took office?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[oasis]

50. What's Bill Clinton's non-pursuit of BCCI illegalities got to do with Hillary? I'm

stating that she'd be more aggressive in combating her political foes than John Kerry.

I backed JK 100% for his prsidency run in 2004, but he didn't get it done because he lacked a killer instinct.

Hillary has the steely determination to smash any obstacle that would prevent her from taking her seat behind that desk in the Oval Office.She is in charge of the only political apparatus that can go toe-to-toe with the right-wing colossus.

[blm]

61. Right - election fraud that took away 5million Kerry votes had nothing to do with it.

And my point is that everything happening today is because Bill deep-sixed BCCI for Poppy. It certainly wasn't because Kerry didn't fight HIS battle and exposed what he could.

And if Hillary was such a great fighter, then why the Clintons trashed the WH story that went on for 9 months?

If she was a great fighter, then why couldn't they make the lies against them go away AT THE TIME?

They couldn't. The media is under firm control of the fascists now - and that, too, never should have happened but for Bush2's reign. A reign that NEVER should have happened. Period. BushInc should have been jailed by 1994.

[oasis]

64. Did you expect Hillary to perform a Lady Godiva stunt to rebut the "trashed WH" story?

She was not in charge of WH communications/PR. She is in charge of her campaign however.

[karynnj]

67. That was post WH - and the strange trashing the WH and stealing

some furniture stories were badly countered as were the pardon stories. This period in fact is a good comparison with Kerry, as NEITHER had the WH platform to fight from.

The point as BLM says is that the nedia changed during the end of BC's term - and has gotten worse since then. As an ex-President and first lady, they could not dispell these stories for months. Kerry largely did get the MSM to reject the SBVT in about 2 months - during which they gave them more and more back up on the Navy's account (aka "Kerry's story"). I am not sure which set of charges have more believers at this point - my guess is that they are near the same level and we will (nauseatingly) hear both of them again.

[blm]

68. Did you expect Kerry to speak in front of Firefighters Convention and challenge Bush on swifts

and Vietnam records?

Oh yeah - he did. But the networks refused to air that speech.

You all seem to think it's OK for a President and his team to be unable to get past a NINE MONTH STORY based on a lie that took off, but blame Kerry - someone most in this country hardly knew - for somehow not having the grip on the media that Clintons have commanded because of his position as a two term president.

[karynnj]

55. Sure, I was impressed when she and Kennedy led the fight against Alito

and when she and Feingold introduced a comprehensive plan to change the policy in Iraq and had her recommendation that a regional summit for Iraq was needed in the 2006 defense bill. That she had to do this with Kerry and his allies speaking to the press and vilifing her made it harder.

:sarcasm:

[oasis]

57. My reply to the OP was in its proper context. Hillary won't sit queitly by and

let the right wing harpies have their way with her.Sadly, Kerry's statesmanship tripped him up on his way to the White House.

[karynnj]

58. The problem is that the presidential candidate has to be presidential

The fact is that Kerry gave the media FAR FAR more on the SBVT charges than Clinton did on anything - also, they completely disproved the charges - calling Flowers names did not disprove those charges.

Also - Kerry did, using his well mannered persona, make some very very hard hits on Bush - like when he spoke of "our Kids" dying because the ammo dumps were not guarded. Or his comments on OBL getting away because Bush outsourced the effort at Tora Bora - said first in 2002 - and roundly criticized by BC.

[oasis]

65. To insist on displaying impeccable decorum at all times can be a hinderance

in a street brawl. Hillary's a pit bull scrapper when it comes to her territory.

[karynnj]

66. Can you give me some examples of HRC's pit bull scrapperiness?

I seriously think that I (and anyone from the JK group) can list more JK ones.

I have to go back to HRC complaining about the vast right wing conspiracy when BC was President to get a real example - unless I thought the comment that Congress was not a plantation - or something like that was - which I don't. I think that Kerry benefited by his temperament and his impeccable manners. It let him go further on attacks than anyone else.

It was Kerry, who:
- In 2000, called Bush on letting OBL escape. (The Clintons were not for attacking Bush on this.)
- Throughout the fall, Kerry made the point to anyone who equated "war of last resort" to the concept of Just war, that the Iraq war was not a just war. This is a charge that HRC has yet to make and it is a very harsh charge.
- Kerry, in a carefully worded charge, called Bush negligent in not securing the known ammo dumps. He personalized it as killing and maiming "our kids". As said it was as painful a charge as it was irrefutable. Remember that that was the issue until the OBL tape "came out" - and it was moving voters. Nothing HRC has said has so clearly linked incompetence to people being killed.
- On torture, Kerry's speech was far more adamant and unequivocal on the issue. Not to mention, HRC fell for answering the hypothetical question in a way to chose that she would torture.
- On corruption, Kerry is as unequivocal as HRC is triangulating.


Go look at any of Kerry's 2006 comments on Iraq, terrorism, Katrina, and especially corruption and Kerry is FAR FAR stronger and more willing to hit Bush. He, not HRC, was out there fighting. On Iraq, she thought that the best political solution was to do nothing in 2006 other than speak vaguely.

What I saw after the Philly debate was her staff, then BC, then Wes Clark and Terry McAuliffe all describe the normal front runner piling on as unfair and even swiftboating. This was, I think, a mistake as the attacks were nowhere near that and it brought into question whether the media and Clinton repeated until everyone believes it theme that Clintons are great at fighting back is true.

[oasis]

72. First termer Clinton stood on the senate floor and asked the question "Bush knew what?"

as she held up a copy of the NY Post with the cover stating "Bush Knew"(pre-9/11 intelligence). Hillary was ready to lead the charge against Bush then. Instead, she was greeted by a chorus of chirping crickets from her Democratic senate "pals" .

[karynnj]

74. So - no follow up?

Did she go before the MSM? I know many of us have CSPAN-2 as our favorite station, but we are a minority. Holding up a tabloid is grandstanding. the Jersey Girls had more to do with getting the investigation.

Kerry's work against the Contras was an intensive effort for 2 years, during which he was ridiculed, subjected to death threats, and nearly framed for drugs by the Iran/Contra creeps. On BCCI, it was 5 years under the same conditions and being told to stop by nearly the entire Senate, Jackie Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.

[blm]

90. And so she wimped out? Kerry had NO backup on BCCI and kept at it for 6 yrs.

He had no backup on IranContra and kept at it for over a year before it caught on in the senate.

Kerry stayed on Tora Bora from Dec2001 straight thru election day with no back up from senate Dems. It took a book by a CIA agent to gain notice outside of Kerry.

Kerry called for Rumsfeld's job THREE times in 2003 and 2004. Kerry, Dean and Clark all called for his job and none of the bigname Dems backed them up.

Downing Street Memos - No signature from Clinton on the inquiry and Bill told America he never even heard of them though they had been out for over a month at the time he was asked in a national forum.

Cry me a river over backup - Hillary did what she did and FOLDED and led NO ACTION after her initial venture.

[blm]

71. Really? They HAD their way with her and Dems ended up in the minority and

she now chews at the edges of the right on nearly every issue just because she fears taking a stand.

She and Schumer argued AGAINST Alito filibuster in caucus because she feared making a public stand. Thousands of phonecalls to her office and her plans for her primary race drove her to come out for that filibuster - but only after she and Schumer gave cover to those Dems on the fence.

And their staffs attacked Kerry in the media for that filibuster. They acted like cowardly scum.

[oasis]

73. My point. Hillary will defend her person, her territory and her right to be president.

She's not going to tiptoe politely around the mighty right wing attack machine as others have done to "stay above the fray".

[blm]

75. Really? And she didn't think to use that 'talent' to oppose Bush from 2001-2006?

And she didn't think to use that 'talent' to defend her country?

What was she doing with that 'talent' during the Bush years?

Historian Douglas Brinkley's observation in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bob Woodward's observation on election night 2004:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Hillary Clinton in Oct2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


She really LOVES her country and her party and will defend it mightily.

Yep - we NEED more self-centered lawmakers in office - ones who put their own ambitions above the good of the country.

[karynnj]

79. All true BLM

My post was sarcastic - it was of course Kerry who led on that and who was vilified even by the NYT that wanted HRC to lead a filibuster.

[BenDavid]

9. One of the reasons HRC will win against the right wing

attack machine is she is the most investigated woman in america. The right wing found nothing during the 90's. Found nothing when she ran in 2000 for the Senate and nothing now. Only accusations and she has the War Room mentally as her husband if they decide to go after her in 2008.

If I told you over and over again that HRC could not win, then soon you would begin to say the same thing. That is what the right wing wants us on the left to believe. Do not buy into their bs. HRC will become a historic figure in 08. She will not run on being a woman but history will be made by her. She will be among the women that has made history and by the time the election rolls around folks will want to be part of this historic event. So come on over once she takes care of obama and be part of something truly historic in american politics.

Ben David

[aquart]

17. And, God knows, they have tried.

Don't count Obama out. If he takes the defeat well, he may end up president yet.

[Nedsdag]

35. They're not going after the past innuendos.

They'll go after her voting record, her duplicity, and her "playing both sides of the issues."

The Rethugs know that the stuff from the 1990s (billing records, lesbianism, etc.) won't work. If they try that then they'll lose in a landslide.

[karynnj]

56. Cattle futures ... Rose Law Firm records ... no, nothing there

[dkf]

12. Drudge has something up now.

Ugh.

I almost feel sorry for her.

And I can't believe the worst stuff is coming from the UK. What is their beef?

[aquart]

19. Wow, Drudge as a DU source. Like Politico.

Haven't been there in years, how's it holding up?

[dkf]

20. Yeah I know I'm supposed to hate Drudge

but he covers a lot of interesting stuff. Even Hillary is using him.

[ieoeja]

49. UK is standard CIA/KGB propaganda method.

Plant story in overseas media. Get domestic media to quote overseas media.

This is why the FBI launched an investigation of the anti-Clinton propaganda. It had all the earmarks of a gov't run operation. They ultimately discovered it was a "vast rightwing conspiracy" -- that phrase was a direct quote from the FBI report; not some bullshit made up by Hillary as the rightwing would have you believe today.

The similarity to a gov't operation was due to Murdoch and Mellon Scaife employing a large number of ex-CIA members who specialized in propaganda.

[Carrieyazel]

13. You've hit it right on. It's always about her. She's the only one who knows anything.

Give me a break.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. They all but ignored Kerry until 2004.

Your sense of history is wrong.

[blm]

43. Yeah - it was Clintons who were targeted for uncovering IranContra and BCCI

and illegal wars in Central America and CIA drugrunning all those years......


oops....no,. it wasn't. They protected BushInc on those outstanding matters.

John Kerry is the one BushInc FOUGHT the entire time.

[beachmom]

44. That shows you have amnesia. Don't you remember "Live Shot"

and "Most pecuilar man in the Senate" all coinciding with his investigations of Iran/Contra, CIA drugrunning, and BCCI. See my comment upthread with links.

Oh, and I believe he was put on the Enemies List by Nixon in 1971. He's still on the GOP enemies list.

[durrrty libby]

21. A few weeks ago all your posts were praising her and now

you come off as a jilted lover

Stop embarrassing yourself

[wyldwolf]

24. yeah, that is kinda odd... if I may take a page from the conspiracy playbook here

Perhaps Obama has outbid Hillary for calteacherguy's services.

[durrrty libby]

25. loI ..I think the puzzle is more organic than that. Who knows

:shrug:

[ecstatic]

31. lol nt

[Perry Logan]

26. Yea, but Kerry wimped out, and Hillary won't.

[earthlover]

28. You mean she will stop wimping out? She wimps out all the time--another word for triangulation

[Mass]

29. Hillary lives for wimping out!!! Sadly, she and some of her supporters think that attacking

other Dems is the way to go.

Apparently, you still cannot tell us why your candidate is good (short of the fact she is married to Bill Clinton).

[blm]

46. Kerry stayed on BCCI for 6 years. How long did Hillary last before she caved on healthcare

issue?

I think you have no sense of perspective or recent history.

[karynnj]

81. Kerry didn't "wimp" out

he fought an uphill battle against a sitting President at a time of war, who was unscrupulous enough to use terror levels to terrorize people, to use government departments to covertly praise his programs, a media that was more biased than any in my lifetime, the Catholic church in some areas saying people could not vote for him and the SBVT, who that corrupt media gave credence to.

That is what he fought with grace and strength. On the basis of his 3 debates, about the only time people saw him unfiltered, he almost won - and likely would have won if the election in Ohio was fair. When there were not enough votes to claim, he conceded at 2pm the next day, the second slowest concession.

HRC, if she's the candidate, will have a much easier race. People are far less happy with the Republicans and the war in 2007 than they were in 2004. And there is no sitting President. If she was so much better, she should have run in 2004 - to save us from Bush.

[earthlover]

27. It is a curious bit of "logic" that says Clinton is better because she is most attacked

Fact of the matter is, because of all these attacks....rightly or wrongly....Hillary is the candidate with the most people going into the race saying they would never vote for her.

According to a recent Zogby poll, about half of all voters would not consider voting for Hillary. Hey, folks, if these numbers hold up there is no friggin way she could avoid a LANDSLIDE let alone actually win in November. And how do these numbers change when Hillary is the most well known of candidates, people have already formed their impressions of her?

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

So good luck with your dream world thinking that Hillary being attacked for years is a good thing. It's not!

[rufus dog]

32. It is a bit of pretzel logic

To the Hillary supporters, what do you hope for her to accomplish if she takes office in Jan 09? Explain the vision.

And you can leave out, it is about the Supreme Court, that I get.

[Nedsdag]

36. That's because Hillary doesn't have a vision.

I'm also tired of the "vote for the Supreme Court" meme. It didn't work for Dukakis in 1988 or Gore in 2000.

Voters don't vote for who chooses the Supreme Court justice. You know it and I know it.

[earthlover]

52. The sad thing is Hillary as a nominee is the most likely to result in a Rep court

because she is about the only Dem nominee who could lose.

Translation for Hillary supporters: that means the Reps win and get to choose the court.

[phillyliberal]

62. clinton

Add Obama to that list... hillary and obama will not win in my opinion.

[cuke]

47. Universal Health Care,a rational and reasonable foriegn policy

investment is children, a more progressive tax system, a realistic energy plan, economic strength, etc

[earthlover]

63. so..specifically...how does Clinton plan to make a more progressive tax system?

It's not enough to just say platitudes.

As to "economic strength"....wow! what courage THAT makes to be in favor of! Just. Wow.

Investment in children. Another. Noncontroversy.

A rational and reasonable foreign policy. Wow. Sounds nice. Until you realize what this means is IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION and KYLE-LIEBERMAN! What is rational or reasonable about EITHER? I have a suggestion: call a spade a spade. Why don't you just be honest? And say Hillary will lead us to war so she won't look like a weakling?

[cuke]

83. *yawn* more moving the goal posts

You should read your own posts. You asked about "vision", so that's what I gave you.

And you respond by complaining about "platitudes" and a lack of specifics.

You asked about "vision". What did you expect to get in response?

You want specifics? A more progressive tax by repealing the * tax cuts on the wealthy. Strong economy with tax policy, universal health care and comprehensive reform of our health care system, stop subsidizing corporate outsourcing so we can compete more fairly, enforcing worker's rights and strengthening unions, realistic energy plan, affordable child care, making college affordable, along with a list of other proposals meant to strengthen the economy and help the middle class. You can read about them on her website.

"Investment in children. Another. Noncontroversy."

So, in your world, the recent SCHIP bill passed with a unanimous vote?

But all this is wasted on you. You won't ever be satisfied, that is obvious. You are complaining that I answered your question in exactly the form you requested. You asked about vision and then complain that the response wasn't about policy. If you wanted to know about policy, you should have asked about policy