Hillary’s skeletons

The increased national scrutiny that comes with a Presidential bid has awakened the many skeletons crammed into Hillary Clinton's political closet.

Now they climb over each other in frantic attempts to get out and add to the many questions and issues that threaten her front-running Presidential campaign.

Good. It's time we got past the hoopla and myths of Hillary Clinton and took a hard look at this Presidential wannabe who is willing to sacrifice honesty, integrity and even personal shame for a shot at the big time.

Even in the cynical world of Washington, the callousness of Hillary Clinton stands out. She is a hard, cold, overly-ambitious politician for whom nothing – not scandal, not the sexual antics of an oversexed husband, not even humiliation – can deter.

She even turns her role as the cheated-upon spouse to political use, joking about her philandering, former-President husband – the one who lied to her on national television when he claimed "I did not have sex with that woman – Ms. Lewinsky." In fact, Bill Clinton gave new meaning to the term "Presidential probe" and tried to cover his ass with lies as often as he covered Monica Lewinsky, and God-knows how many other women, with his ejaculate.

Hillary Clinton's ruthless ambition is the subject of recent books: A long tome by Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein and a shorter, but more pointed analysis by Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth – who covered Clinton at The New York Times.

Gerth uncovered many of the doubletalk and fast-buck antics of the Clintons in the Whitewater land swindle, an investigation muffed by the Republicans when Special Prosecutor Ken Starr forgot about the real crimes and went after the Monica Lewinsky affair.

In his book with Van Natta, Gerth looks at how Hillary sells her soul to fatcat contributors with big checkbooks.

Bernstein looks at Hillary's rocky relationship with her father and even rockier marriage to Bill – a marriage long known as a union of convenience, not love.

Both Clintons have survived previous public peeks into their private lives. It's no secret that Hillary looks the other way when Bill screws around because it is in her best political interest to let him chase women and leave it be. She knows she can count on him to be there to work the crowd, turn on the charm and help her cause when needed, just as he used her for political advantage as governor of Arkansas and President.

But it may be the money that finally does in the Clintons. Most politicians sell out to the highest bidder but few do it with the open glee and shameless hypocrisy of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

"I know a lot of rich people. My husband and I never had any money … now all (of a) … sudden we're rich," Clinton told an interviewer recently.

The lavish lifestyle enjoyed by the Clintons since Bill left office raises many questions – most still unanswered.

How, for example, could they afford a multi-million dollar mansion in New York while still saddled with enormous legal bills from their many scandals? Many of those bills remain unpaid today even though both Clintons received millions from book deals and speaking engagements.

Both Clintons jet around the world on private aircraft owned by rich friends and supporters. As a Senator, Hillary pays the equivalent of first class air fare when she travels on someone else's plane even though studies by the General Accounting Office show such payments don't even begin to cover the cost of such travel so the lavish trips become large political contributions that circumvent the intent of election law limits.

"Whatever I've done, I complied with Senate rules at the time. That's the way every senator operates," Clinton claimed in an interview with Associated Press reporter Kathleen Hennessey.

That, of course, is the oldest cop out in the political playbook, the "everybody does it" excuse that wears thin with a public tired of "business as usual" in Washington.

"Money," California political legend Jesse Unruh once said, "is the mother's milk of politics."

The stink you smell is mama's milk curdling in the political churn. Like Hillary Clinton, it sours under the hot glare of a national spotlight.

42 Responses to "Hillary’s skeletons"

  1. John Farley  June 4, 2007 at 11:14 am

    Doug, you quoted a recent anti-Hillary article in The New York Times by Jeff Gerth. You should know that Gerth is pretty unreliable. He was obsessed with the whole Whitewater scandal, which he helped to promote, but it turned out to be much ado about not very much.

    That is not all: Gerth also went after the Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, who spent a year in solitary confinement based on smears by Gerth in the NY Times. When Wen Ho Lee finally got his day in court, the serious charges against him were dismissed and the judge actually apologized to Lee for the government’s conduct.

    Don’t take my word for it. Check out Gerth’s record.

    By the way, I am not a Hillary Clinton fan. But don’t take Jeff Gerth as a reliable reporter. He isn’t.

  2. allan hirsh  June 4, 2007 at 11:28 am

    mr. hirsh:
    This reminds me of the joke about the sheriff’s girlfriend, or the other one about leading a lamb slaughter. The attitude expressed in the article sounds like someone wrote it wearing his favorite hockey shirt.

  3. Wayne K Dolik  June 4, 2007 at 11:37 am

    Very interesting points in your feature article today Doug. I to have a problem with Hillary Clinton, but my position is for different reasons.

    With my view I am concerned about putting two families in charge of the Whitehouse for to long. Familiarity breeds attempt! We live in a very secret time in U.S. Government. So, if we put another Clinton in the Whitehouse how many bags of money end up in the Bahamas? With the loss of our freedoms since 911, we just cannot afford these two families in the Whitehouse. We need fresh faces.

    The other problem that I have with Hillary, is that Hillary has not said one time, that she would ever roll back the Unitary Presidency and restore the U.S. Constitution, end torture, close Gitmo, and return Habeas Corpus. In fact from all appearances, Hillary seems to indicate she would support the Bush status quo by keeping permanent troops in Iraq!

    Thanks for speaking truth to power Doug.

  4. mrtshw  June 4, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    I have lived in Arkansas nearly 64 years and have known the Clintons since 1978. They are charming, incredibly intelligent and even more incredibly amoral. Scandals related to Bill’s sex life were tolerated because nearly every other politician. journalist,etc shares that proclivity and thus they usually avoid shining that light too broadly or intensely. However the Clintons, Huckabees, and many other prominant Arkansas politicos’ moral depravity goes far deeper than sexual indiscretions. Most prominently among them is the decades long marketing of tainted blood worldwide which had been bled from AIDS and/or hepatitis infected prisoners and was sold for $millions during Clinton’s 12 years, extending into Jim Guy Tucker’s And Mike Huckabee’s tenures. Now that boys and girls is beyond despicable. Their failure to investigate official coverups of injustices related to multiple cases of child murders – Janie Ward, Kevin Ives,Don Henry, Chris Byers, Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, Angel Misty Trantham, etc -is nothing short of criminal.
    Needless to say even the idea of another Clinton or a Huckabee in the White House is profoundly sickening to this old Arkie.
    *************************************************
    From Jim Gilliam’s blog

    Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal
    October 30, 2005 12:05 AM

    A great friend of mine, Kelly Duda, has his film premiere in LA on November 8th at the AFI festival. His documentary is a big deal, and it should set off a massive investigation. From the Sunday Herald:

    It shows how the US state of Arkansas, under former president and then-governor Bill Clinton, allowed contaminated blood from AIDS and hepatitis-infected prisoners to be exported around the world during the 1980s and 1990s to be used in the manufacture of clotting agents for haemophiliacs.

    The documentary also reveals for the first time how senior figures in the prison system doctored prisoners’ medical records to make it look like they were not carrying the deadly diseases. Even after it was known there was a problem, the film reveals, blood products were allowed to be supplied to Europe, including to the UK, where thousands of patients were infected with HIV and the potentially fatal liver virus, hepatitis.

    He has gone through so much to get this on the screen, you cannot even imagine. And I’m not talking the usual struggling filmmaker crap, I mean hardcore out-to-get-him powerful-people-do-not-want-this-story-out-there kind of struggle.

    Months ago, I remember seeing Bill Clinton on TV talking about the AIDS crisis and everything he was doing for it, and all I could think about was why he didn’t do something about the tainted blood in his prison system when he could have.

    Back in the 90′s, when the vast right wing conspiracy was out trying to get Clinton, there were all sorts of people sniffing around this story trying to pin it on him, and nothing ever quite stuck. When he was finally out of office, all the sniffing stopped, except for one guy… Kelly Duda, who felt deeply that someone had to stand up for the thousands of hemophiliacs still suffering and honor the thousands already dead because of rampant corruption in Arkansas — corruption Clinton should have ended.

    Andy Gunn, a hemophiliac who contracted AIDS and hepatitis from the tainted blood: “It’s a murderous cover-up. They have effectively murdered thousands of haemophiliacs and got away with it.”

    Read the Sunday Herald article, and check out the website. If you’re near LA, come see the film, it’s at the ArcLight on Nov. 8th at 9:45pm. You can get tickets here. And I’ll be there too, the tall bald white guy with oxygen tubes up his nose getting pissed off at the pharmaceutical companies.

  5. kent shaw  June 4, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Wayne K Dolik: “With my view I am concerned about putting two families in charge of the Whitehouse for to long.”

    NO MORE CLINTONS!
    NO MORE BUSHES!

  6. kent shaw  June 4, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    mrtshw, yours is the first data I have ever seen on the tainted blood from Arkansas issue. Obviously the powers that be WERE successful in suppressing this information. I will question her about it if I ever have the chance at a Clinton campaign appearance.

  7. lackeylocal  June 4, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    If this travesty is still going on, then it needs to be addressed. Before we, the reading public can do anything we have to know the facts.

    Factor 8 – Let us know.

  8. mojibyrd  June 4, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    Interesting article, but the comments were even better…I still find it amazing that so-many people have to make this a gender issue when a man dislikes a woman in politics/business/television or life in general…can we not get past that pathetic ideology.

    Of course I also like jellicoe’s comment that it is okay to be – “Ruthless .. cynical … willing to sacrifice honesty, integrity and personal shame”!, as that – “sounds just like a politician, or maybe even a “Presidential wannabe”!..since when the hell is okay to be slime and considered to be the next president…what the hell happen to honesty and a government for the people not corporate profit and greed.

    I think jellicoe needs to get his/her male bashing head out of their arse and smell the roses for a change.

  9. Carl Nemo  June 4, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    An excellent “spot-on” indictment concerning her character!
    In fact you went easy on her… :))

    Carl Nemo **==

  10. Steve Horn  June 4, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    I don’t give a tinkers damn about gender or race – but if you really want the Republicans to win in 2008, put Hillary in the drivers seat for the Dem’s -

    Ignore the gender, ignore the name and Bill’s “legacy” (as though he was the first guy in history to take advantage of a position of power so he could get blown by a woman who worked for him)- rather – look at the persons history and tell me, is that what you want leading our nation? No ethics, lots of corporate backing, backroom deals, sketchy legal dealings, a history of evading official questions?

    Personally, I wouldn’t take Hillary to a dog fight if she was the defending champ.

    Steve Horn

  11. kent shaw  June 4, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    Doug T: “It doesn’t take much checking of the archives to understand that I don’t like any of the candidates or any of the parties.”

    Same here. And I am distraught. What are we going to do? Our country is headed down the toilet.

    Kent Shaw

  12. mary cali  June 4, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    Mary

    Sandra Price writes about Hillary and universal health care that Hillary would “make millions on an insurance
    scam”. Ms. Price says she wouldn’t want that to happen nor would I, but Ms Price offers no evidence for this accusation. I guess we are to just take Price’s word for it.

    The Clintons bring out the irrational in people. It has been impossible over the years to determine what accusations were genuine and which were dreamed up by the Clinton haters. Monica was enough for me to not want the Clintons back in the WH. As capable as I believe Hillary is, I don’t want a National Inquirer presidency again. As voting R is a nonstarter, I will be forced to vote for her should she be the nominee. However I would prefer her as Senate leader to replace Harry Reid.

  13. Roadapple00  June 4, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    ‘W’ is the 43rd. The 42 before him were also men. Put a woman in there (republican or democrat), she couldn’t do any worse than the 43 before her.

    Roger

  14. kent shaw  June 4, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    mary cali: “Monica was enough for me to not want the Clintons back in the WH.”

    To me that was a tempest in a teapot and something like $70,000,000 was spent by Ken Starr to catch Clinton in a lie under oath about a blowjob.

    Let us not forget Clinton’s true legacy: WTO, NAFTA and GATT. Sold totally down the river by globalist Clinton resulting in millions of jobs shipped offshore.

  15. mary cali  June 4, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    Mary

    reality. I do not fault Clinton for dealing with it.
    Jobs were created because of those treaties as well.
    Do you think that countries are going to confine their economic activity within their borders? Any leader today will have to think globally, and be a globalist. To do otherwise is to deny reality.

  16. Access Of Evil  June 4, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    Hillary worked for Goldwater during his run for Pres. in the 60′s. She was a “Goldwater Girl.”

    What’s that tell you?

  17. LurkingFromTheLeft  June 4, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    …she’s seen the errors of her ways -

    …that’s she seen the light -

    …YIKES – she’s born again –

    …a Neocon in Democratic skin? -

    …is it too late for me to throw my beret into the ring?

    LFTL

  18. kent shaw  June 5, 2007 at 12:11 am

    Name one.

  19. mary cali  June 5, 2007 at 7:45 am

    written on the issue by economists of both the liberal and conservative persuasions. I suggest you read one.
    As one economist said CA has had free trade for 150 years with Appalachia without impoverishing CA. MA has traded with MISS for 200 years without impoverishing MA. You get the point, I hope.

    That is not to say that the global economy doesn’t create problems and in some cases hardships for some people, but to think that we don’t need treatites to address it is unrealistic. I am not happy about the loss of manufacturing in this country, nor that more and more of our food is now being imported. Adjustments may be needed to deal with the problems, but a global economy is a reality that isn’t going
    away. Trade agreements are part of that reality.

  20. anthny  June 5, 2007 at 8:56 am

    anthny:
    Well in the secret world of the District you can be talking about any of the present and past presidents and candidates, including any regular person on the street.
    The fact is everybody has some skeletons in there closets. Another fact is Bush, Clinton, Bush, and then another Clinton as President would be as smart as letting the Unsupreme court select another president. It could happen though knowing that alot of women want Hillary in the WH, wheather or not she is a hypocrite, theres always room in Washington for one more.

  21. kent shaw  June 5, 2007 at 9:30 am

    written on the issue by economists of both the liberal and conservative persuasions.

    Name one that you have read. I would like the title, author and a brief synopsis. I will consider reading that one.

    Perhaps I am more well read than you presume.

    Its easy for an “economist” to make claims of glorious benefits of globalist free trade. My guess is that “economist” hasn’t lost his decent paying job making shoes in New England to China where the workers that took his job make six cents an hour. But then I guess thats one of those “adjustments” that will be coming real soon now.

  22. www.nazilieskill.us  June 5, 2007 at 9:13 am

    Why are people so quick to assume that the Clintons were evil enough to profit from bad blood transfusions, while few people can accept that Bush and Co. were evil enough to do a 911?

    John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming

  23. mary cali  June 5, 2007 at 9:24 am

    Mary

    Most of the information I have gotten on the global economy comes from a lecture series on the subject where the economics PHD pulled from many sources.
    You can start with James Glassman, Richard Rubin, the Brookings Institute, American Enterprise Institute for starters.

    As with most enterprises there are winners and losers with a global economy. Most thinkers on the subject agree that the “losers” need remedial help in adapting to the new realities. They also agree that environmental issues need to be addressed. I think we need to maintain a manufacturing base here in this country as well. There is alot to be processed, but to think that the global economy, which has existed since humans started trading commodities, can go away is ridiculous.

    Also, nations that are dependent on each other economically are less likely to go to war with each other. One of the reasons for so much worldwide terrorism is that the young people in developing countries do not have jobs making them recruits for terrorist networks. I’d trade some jobs
    to keep that from happening.

  24. kent shaw  June 5, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    mari cali: “One of the reasons for so much worldwide terrorism is that the young people in developing countries do not have jobs making them recruits for terrorist networks. I’d trade some jobs to keep that from happening.”

    I think Charley Reese, writing for LewRockwell.Com puts it quite succintly:

    “Since WW II, America has been continuously inserting itself into the affairs of the Middle East. We have overthrown governments (Iran), financed dictators (Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Iran and others too numerous to mention), taken sides in sectarian conflicts (Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon), devastated Muslim societies with embargoes (Iraq, Libya, Iran, Palestine), launched campaigns of aerial bombardment (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan), stationed troops where they aren’t wanted (all over the Middle East, but particularly Saudi Arabia), and embarked on the occasional military conquest (Iraq, Afghanistan).

    Given this legacy of death and destruction, is it so outlandish to suggest that these policies just might have something to do with the 9/11 attacks? Might not these policies be an underlying cause of the widespread hatred of America across the Muslim world? Is this idea so crazy that it should be excluded from “acceptable” political discourse?

    Even if common sense doesn’t make the argument by itself, we don’t have to speculate as to why Muslims harbor such hatred toward America. All we have to do is ask the Muslims. In poll after poll, people across the Middle East have made it abundantly clear why they are angry with us, and it doesn’t have much to do with our freedom or our democracy, but it does have everything to do with our destructive foreign policy.”

    See the full article here:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe79.html

    So yeah, maybe if they were gainfully employed they wouldn’t strap dynamite to their bodies and blow up innocents. But maybe if the United States acted like a member of the world community instead of the biggest bully on the block things might just be a bit different too. Maybe things will change after we’ve exported ALL of our jobs to the third world. Everything will be fine after just a few more minor adjustments and 100% of the nation’s wealth is held by 1% of the population instead of the current 90%. The American Enterprise Institute is of course a far right wing “think tank”. There seems to be a divide in philosophy among Americans — there are those who believe it should be every man for himself, the law of the jungle prevails and the weakest get eaten by the strong. There is also a school of thought that believes we are all in this thing together and that we should help each other out.

    But we’ve wandered rather far off topic. Sorry about that, Doug T. This is my last post on this thread.

    Kent

  25. TexArcane  June 5, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    Ever wonder what a political succubus looks like? Now you know…

  26. Jellicoe  June 4, 2007 at 9:22 am

    “Ruthless .. cynical … willing to sacrifice honesty, integrity and personal shame”!

    Gosh, sounds just like a politician, or maybe even a “Presidential wannabe”!

    “Hard … cold … overly-ambitious” too!

    Must be an uppity woman to boot!

    Get over it, Doug.

    Doug

  27. JoshuasGrandma  June 4, 2007 at 9:44 am

    Sounds like you have gender identity issues, Doug.
    But that’s so typical; many men feel their masculinity threatened when confronted with a smart female who doesn’t behave according to stereotype. And their marriage has lasted – probably because of ability to focus on the larger issues. Why don’t you save your catty claws for the GOP and why all their candidates do so much wife-swapping for younger and younger models.

  28. Steve Horn  June 4, 2007 at 11:32 am

    You wrote “But that’s so typical; many men feel their masculinity threatened when confronted with a smart female who doesn’t behave according to stereotype” –

    No – I don’t feel that my masculinity is threatened by a woman like Hillary – I feel that our collective personal freedom, and our nation are threatened by Hillary and others of her ilk, without regard to gender.
    Also – you define “smart” as someone who lives outside the law, flaunting the limits and ripping off the very government she’s pledging to uphold and defend?

    Being a liar and a cheat does not make a person smart, it may lead some to believe they are dishonest and unethical – but as the current administration demonstrates – being unethical does not require smarts!

    Peace

    Steve

  29. Steve Horn  June 4, 2007 at 9:45 am

    I’d be willing to bet that the Republicans are hoping for Hillary to get the nod. I’ve never felt her to be presidential material (sorry, but I felt the same way about Bill) – they just come across like a pair of hucksters – willing to lower the bar of ethics as a matter of convenience.

    So if you really want to see a Republican in the White House in February 2008 – my suggestion is – toss your support behind Clinton or Obama –

    Peace

    Steve

  30. bjiller  June 4, 2007 at 10:12 am

    So you criticize the wife because the husband lies about having an affair? Because she jokes about it? What is she supposed to do? Divorce him, I guess, so all of the Hillary haters can then criticize her for that.

    I’m no Hillary supporter, but it is disappointing to see you parrot these GOP talking points.

    I’ve never understood why Hillary provokes such rabid hatred in the right. Maybe because she is too much like them, but calls herself a Democrat? Is it fear?

  31. JoyfulC  June 4, 2007 at 10:32 am

    Doug, didn’t you admit some time ago to having been paid to help smear the Clintons during the Clinton administration? I think you need to exempt yourself from commenting on Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency under the circumstances. Unless, of course, you’re getting paid to stir the pot.

    (Why have I had to register to post comments on this site so many times?? This must be the 4th or 5th time I’ve registered on this site now. It seems to change systems frequently. It’s a bit of a pain in the butt.)

  32. Doug Thompson  June 4, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    What I said was that I was asked to be part of a project and that I withdrew when I found out it was a program to smear the Clintons. I don’t work for partisan political causes. I prefer to be free to smear both sides.

    –Doug

  33. Sandra Price  June 4, 2007 at 10:32 am

    interest in the public schools across America. Years ago she came up with some social engineering plans to try to take hate out of the class rooms. Her plans was to introduce all kinds of social conditions to explain to the younger kids how they must behave. When I was in school, we were not allowed to make insults or physical moves against another student and if we broke the laws, we were sent home. Here’s a clue, I lived in fear of my grandmother’s thoughts that I was not perfect.

    When my kids entered school the rules were laid out and the students questioned about whether they would raise a fist in or around the classrooms. We did not need a wicked witch of the north to train us not to do this or that.

    I do not want an intrusive federal government anywhere and I feel Hillary will abuse her power to redesign all of us one way or another. I also do not want universal health care to be run under a Socialist. Hillary would make millions of dollars on this kind of insurance scam and I would rather she didn’t.

    If she runs the government using the same economic actions that caused them to build up upayable debts then I do not want her in the White House. In fact I don’t want anybody who is running for POTUS to be our President.

  34. CheckerboardStrangler  June 4, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    This is the reason I am not behind Hillary.
    I’m not shocked that she’s ruthless, I’m not shocked that she just keeps Bill around because he knows how to work the room.

    I was once married to a genuine Hollywood starlet and she taught me how to work the room. Her former husband, a high powered screenwriter, taught her.
    Even when things started to turn sour we still enjoyed working the room, HEY it HAPPENS in all KINDS of marriages and we’ve historically referred to it as “Christian Family Values” or “staying together for the children”, so what else is new?

    What sends the “ook” sensations down my back is the Clinton penchant for social engineering, making it a crime to voice certain opinions or to express oneself a certain way.

    Do we really want to devolve into another United Kingdom, possibly the most surveillance happy democratic society on earth, with laws that corral subjects into a corner and strip them of everything that separates us from cockroaches and sheep?

    To quote another ranter, “are humans smarter than yeast?”

    Yes it’s offensive to hear someone smear an entire race with sweeping generalizations or to watch rudeness become the carte blanche of the working world, but a law will only make it impossible for humans to distinguish between a pat on the head and a rolled up newspaper with no inkling as to WHY.

    Some things are and should remain an ass-whooping offense.

    We have plenty of herd members that are perfectly capable of separating the one wildebeest that strolls down to the watering hole and gives the rest of the pack the stinkeye. We have plenty of life lessons that we can dish out.
    This is NOT government’s job, no matter how much Bill and Hill want it to be.
    Bill was fond of saying “people have too much freedom”.
    It’s time to send a message to Bill that Nurse Ratchet isn’t going to get the job of depriving us of it.

  35. Captain America  June 4, 2007 at 10:56 am

    Captain America

    I recently read two articles about Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. I was struck by the the similarities between the Roosevelt’s and the Clinton’s complex political and personal relationships.

    The Roosevelts were not subject to the same scrutiny as the Clintons because private lives of Presidents and their spouses were considered off limits in the past. The other difference
    is that Hilary is seeking elective office while Eleanor Roosevelt did not.

    I think it is not unusal for rich and powerful couples to make practical accommodations with respect to their personal relationships to achieve wealth and power. I think Hilary is being criticized unfairily in this regard. She’s just a lot more visible than other women who have made similar compromises to achieve their life’s ambition.

    It’s almost a job requirement for any Presidential candidate to be cold and calculating with megomaniacal tendencies. Some candidates are fortunate to have warmer and fuzzier public personas than others.

    I look forward to reading the two new books about Hilary because from the reviews I read they seemd like objective appraisals rather than the more typical right wing hatchet jobs on the Clintons.

    Although I’m not supporting Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primary because I am very concerned about her November electabilty given her high negatives in most polls, I think she is probably more qualified to be President than any recent nominees other than Richard Nixon and Al Gore. This doesn’t mean I approve of Nixon’s Presidency, it simply means that obejctively my appraisal is that he was intellectually and experientially prepared to assume the duties of the Presidency. However, she falls short in terms of “likeability.”

  36. Beelza B ubb  June 4, 2007 at 11:02 am

    Beelza Bubb

    When FDR was president he was married to a wife with a conscience. Eleanor Roosevelt.
    If the Genocide in Rwanda were happening during FDR’s presidency I am sure that Eleanor would have taken Franklin to task about it. She had a conscience.
    Being that the Genocide in Rwanda happened during Bill Clinton’s presidency, I ask what did Hilary do about it? Did she pressure Bill out of conscience to do something to stop the Genocide in Rwanda?
    As I recall he did nothing about it. His dalliance with Monica is a trivial shortcoming in comparison to his not doing anything to stop that Genocide from happening. I ask, What can Hilary tell us now about what she did during that time?
    These are real skeletons in her past.
    Beelza Bubb

  37. SnowCrash7  June 4, 2007 at 11:13 am

    The Hillary apologists here are amusing. Hillary long ago sold out to corporate interests. These mega corporations pull the strings of far too many politicians of BOTH parties. Hillary recently flew to Silicon Valley to announce her support for an INCREASE in the number of ‘temp’ H-1B visas for foreign workers. That pretty much guarantees her big bucks for her campaign chest from the corporate fat cats there. Also pretty much guarantees that more American workers would be displaced at worse or have their wage levels severely impacted at best. Yet she is still allowed to wear the mantle of a champion of the working class!!! What hypocrisy.

  38. JoyfulC  June 4, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    Would that issue of The Rant still be archived around here somewhere? I wouldn’t mind going back and re-reading it.

    C

  39. JoyfulC  June 4, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/1024

    While you do note that you quit, it seems like you were pretty deep into it before you did. You also point out that Scaife pulled out of the project too — once it looked like he was going to be caught red-handed.

    I’m sure everyone was duly shocked at what was actually going on. I’m sure no one intended to create a conspiracy. ;)

    C

  40. Doug Thompson  June 4, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    ..I pulled out once I found out who was funding it and who was involved. As I said in the column, I wasn’t proud that I was any part of it.

    I find it amusing that some here accuse me of using GOP talking points about Hillary. I doubt those who read my Friday column about Bush feel that I push a Republican agenda.

    That’s what I dislike about drive-by posters. They don’t take the time to do any research before making incorrect assumptions.

    It doesn’t take much checking of the archives to understand that I don’t like any of the candidates or any of the parties.

    –Doug

  41. LurkingFromTheLeft  June 4, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    …Freud would be proud in your choice of words:

    …’I pulled out’ – ?

    …sorry Doug – I couldn’t help myself!

    LFTL

  42. LurkingFromTheLeft  June 4, 2007 at 10:54 pm

    …one of the few type F’s that don’t see the draw with HRC –

    …I’d love to see a woman in charge – BUT she just doesn’t do it for me -

    …sadly, I’m not sure who does YET –

    …I tend to view her as a carpetbagger ready to move in and prosper –

    …the time is correct BUT she’s just not the ‘IT’ woman -

    …I just don’t find her sincere – I know she’s a politician but I still hold out hopes -

    LFTL

Comments are closed.