Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Politics of Personal Destruction.

Hillary has scandalous information about Obama!!! See:Hillary’s Obama Dirt What could it be? How bad could it be? We already know that he is related to Cheney.

I know!!! He probably has black babies.

Aren't you tired of sleaze ball politics played by sleaze balls. I liked Hillary. I was the one guy. I didn't think that she was electable because I knew that I was the only guy. I was and am tired of dynasties. I lost respect for her when she sold out the American people on the Iraq war just to position herself to run for President. I came to distrust her when she sold out the Constitution Of United States of America by supporting Bush's unconstitutional power grab. I lost more respect for her when I found out that she was a "corporate" Democrat.


If she thinks that her "negatives" are low enough that she can play the same kind of sleaze ball against Obama that Bush played against McCain in South Carolina, then she has another think coming. If she becomes the Democratic nominee, I do not presently think that I will vote for her. Depending on what kind of a stumble bum fascist jerk the Republicans run, I may even vote Republican. I won't want to throw my vote away on a third party, so there is no where else to go. I may change my mind in the mean time and choose to swallow the filth and support her. Otherwise I will hate myself for supporting a Republican, but if the Dems need to be defeated, then they need to be defeated and I should work to do that. It is better for the Dems to go down in defeat than it would be for the party to fall to the corporatist. If it comes to that I will move over to the Republican column until after the election.

IMO Hillary is unelectable and / or if she does get elected, she will do it by selling out to the same people that control Bush. She would be much more dangerous than Bush because she is actually smart. IMO the corporatist fascist already have control of the Republican Party and have significant inroads into the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party falls it is over. It is time for Democrats to wakeup and realize that.

I like Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, Ron Paul... anybody but Hillary!!!

Posted by Ray Guest at November 20, 2007 11:30 PM
Comment #238859
I like Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, Ron Paul… anybody but Hillary!!!

Does anybody but Hillary include Guliani?

But Ray, you should brace yourself for the inevitable claim that it’s not Hillary at all who is spreading these rumors but that dark prince of the right, Robert Novak.

Obama knows better than that, because like other Washington insiders, he knows that Novak has close contacts inside the Clinton campaign, and he’s seen this tactic before from the Clintons, as when the whole story about Obama’s connection to an Islamic madrassa was being spread around by the Clinton people while they simultaneously blamed the whole thing on Republicans.

Also, just for your information, there’s no actual evidence aside from hearsay, urban legends and sour grapes from the McCain campaign that those rumors of push polling in SC about McCain’s “black baby” were true, much less that they originated with the Bush campaign.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 21, 2007 1:08 AM
Comment #238865

Ray, I agree with you on Hillary. But, I take exception when you say: “It is better for the Dems to go down in defeat than it would be for the party to fall to the corporatist.”

A Republican president like Romney and a Democratic Congress will only serve a gridlocked government which we are experiencing to a high degree now. Given that this country MUST act decisively on some very major and controversial issues in the next 5 years to avoid passing points of no return, I have to disagree with you on your point above.

(Some of those issues are health care costs, Medicare, effective border security, climate change, energy dependence and conversion from oil sources, and ending deficits and producing budgetary surpluses while moving forward on these other issues.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2007 1:49 AM
Comment #238883


Come on, don’t be so gullible, man. A right-wing columnist has written something that makes you mad at Hillary. Pretty amazing coincidence, isn’t it? (And this is the guy who outed a covert CIA agent, so we know about his ethics.)

I won’t pretend to know whether Novak’s is telling the truth, but it is pretty foolhardy to let him influence your vote. I can just imagine what would happen if the tables were turned, a left-wing columnist (say, David Corn) wrote something similar about Giuliani and Romney. Republicans would just laugh it off. But then they are probably a little shrewder about these things.

Your argument for voting for the Republican is, not to put too fine a point on it, loony. If you want to undermine the “corporate” elements, voting Republican is not going to help. You seem to think that defeat would teach the Democrats some sort of a lesson. Haven’t they experienced enough defeats? Don’t kid yourself — if the Republicans win the presidency the Dem politicians will just be even more skittish about embracing a left-wing platform.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 21, 2007 7:23 AM
Comment #238885

Another thing to keep in mind. Even if Novak is telling the truth, what he is saying is that Clinton has some dirt on Obama that she decided NOT to use.

Well, what the hell do you want from the lady? We all know the campaigns do opposition research. Would you feel better if she used it?

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 21, 2007 7:42 AM
Comment #238903


Good point about voting Repub might make the Dems swing even more to the right. I would argue some of the other points here but don’t have time right now.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 21, 2007 12:12 PM
Comment #238905

Maybe I will have to throw my vote away on green.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 21, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #238923

THE PRIMARY HAS NOT EVEN STARTED! HC is a corportist. So is the whole Rep bench except Paul,McCain maybe and Huckabee,but he is a religious wacko.Voting Rep would be like shooting your foot because you can’t dance.
Take a good look at Edwards. We have more choice than HC or BO. He is a serious contender with a great deal of support from labor,more than HC.He does not take corporate lobby money.What counts is how people vote not what the media says. The corporate media wants nothing more than for America to have a choice between two corporatist candidates.

Posted by: BillS at November 21, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #238960

I think you missed the boat about Hillary and it sounds like you are getting your news from the Republican “play book.”
True Democrats do not stab anyone in the back and claim how lilly white their hands are, we will let the those who control the Republicn party do that.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at November 21, 2007 6:51 PM
Comment #238998

BillS, Edwards may not take “corporate lobby money” directly but tons of corporate money finds its way into his coffers. How important, really, is the distinction? There was a story in the news recently about how over a hundred executives and hedge-fund managers of a company he worked as a consultant for have been giving him large donations, and he gets all kinds of money from trial lawyers.

It’s funny, isn’t it, that Obama does not believe that all of this is a lie hatched by a right wing journalist? Like anybody who has been working in Washington journalism a long time at the level that Novak has, he has cultivated ties to members of all the parties. It’s his bread and butter. Obama knows this. But Clinton is no dummy either, and knows perfectly well that she can plant vague rumors about damaging information with Novak and then deny any responsibility for it. It’s not the first time her campaign has done this either. You have to hand it her—she is one slick political operator. She can out-Rove Rove.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 22, 2007 12:58 AM
Comment #239004

You guys are thumpin the daylights out o me and my wife is gonna smother me with a pillow when I go to sleep.

Someone said Hillary might not be behind this leak by the right wing nut job prince of darkness - and that is possible. The Repubs could be behind it - afraid of Hillary - but I don’t think they are afraid of Hillary. I think they that are afraid of Edwards and Edwards could be the beneficiary of this. Edwards could be behind it - smear both top dogs with one fell swoop but I don’t think so - too risky. Throw mud, bad - throw mud and lie about it, worse - throw mud and blame it on someone else, worse than bad - if you get caught - too risky. So, I am confident that Hillary is behind this. I could be wrong. I was angry when I wrote this article, but up until this point I was prepared to support her candidacy as the far lessor of two evils if she became the nominee. Now, unless evidence comes out that she was not behind this, I really do not think that I will support her. I think I will go green. That is where my heart is anyway.

I just don’t think that I can support her:
Her politically calculated stand on Iraq.
Her support for the Patriot Act and Bush’s power grab.
Her dangerous, hawkish, Bush supporting stand on Iran.
Other reasons (out of time for now).

I think that we need a real Democrat or no Democrat.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 22, 2007 1:36 AM
Comment #239010


But what would you think if the party labels were switched? A prominent left-leaning journalist says that someone from the Giuliani camp told him they have damaging information about Mitt Romney. Would you take this as evidence that Giuliani is a sleazebag? No way.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 22, 2007 9:02 AM
Comment #239019

Loyal Opposition,

As I said above and elsewhere, Corporatists have inroads into the Democratic Party but they control the Republicans completely. No one will get elected with out at least a partial sellout - no one. Dean’s “scream” in 2004 was publicized and criticized the day after he said he wanted to break up media consolidation. But there is a real difference between where Obama, Edwards, and others get there money and where Hillary gets hers. The greater the difference - the less the sellout. That is why we need public financing of elections.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 22, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #239024

“That is why we need public financing of elections.”

Amen to that, Ray !

Let’s put politics itself, on a budget. If the American people believe things are going well for America and government, they will contribute to keep it that way. And if they don’t, they won’t contribute.

Imagine a campaign finance system in which no individual is permitted to contribute to a candidate, party, or political action group more than what the IRS reports as 20% of last year’s mean charitable donations. And no association is permitted to contribute more than 25% of that mean times the number of their membership.

I haven’t run the numbers, but, my guess is under this system, next year’s $1.5 billion dollars would be whittled down to something in the neighborhood of $400 million for all candidates in all federal races.

Then add the following, no candidate may self-fund their own campaign beyond what their highest public fund raising competitor has raised, and a self-funding candidate may not accept public funding.

That would level the playing field considerably. And open the political system to many more regular Americans outside the professional political vocation.

There is another positive consequence to such a system. All candidates and parties would then clamor and lobby for public communication’s spectrum for political messages, also on an equal access basis.

And none of these measures would violate current Supreme Court rulings on money as speech.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #239053

But what would you think if the party labels were switched? A prominent left-leaning journalist says that someone from the Giuliani camp told him they have damaging information about Mitt Romney. Would you take this as evidence that Giuliani is a sleazebag? No way.

You’re right—I probably wouldn’t. Just as I had problems with the conviction of Lewis Libby for perjury on the testimony of a whole gaggle of left-leaning journalists.

I can’t say with 100% certainty that Novak is right about this, but when it comes to Clinton vs. Obama, I don’t have a dog in that hunt and don’t much care.

I do happen to believe it’s true, however, based on my subjective views of the record of Hillary Clinton. Obama seems to think it’s true as well. In this case, I have to admit that I’m using the same standard of evidence that liberals use when they allege one scandal after another on a nearly daily basis. There ain’t one bit of verifiable evidence there, but by god, I have my opinions and feel in my bones that they’re true!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 23, 2007 1:25 AM
Comment #239067


I think I like your campaign finance plan, except I am not sure how it applies to corporations - which could be a problem.

Loyal Opposition,

“gaggle of left-leaning journalists.” Judith Miller - really???

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 23, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #239070

Ray, corporations are not voters. Corporations are legal entities apart from voters. But, they are also associations of investors, and their investors are their membership and their membership is entitled to the same individual OR association contribution as any other individual or association.

The way I envision this working for corporations is this: If the Board of Directors elects to contribute a share of profits to a political campaign according to the rule for all other associations, the investors will respond appropriately to that corporate decision, each according to their own values of investor profit vs campaign donation.

In other words, corporations are just associations. The individual investors are limited to the IRS’s determination of 20% of the mean charitable giving for the previous year, and their corporate association may elect to direct an amount equal to 25% of the IRS mean charitable giving in the population, but, the corporation will have to answer to the investors for that decision to divert profits away from their investors.

Needless to say, the computational costs for the corporation to determine their total number of investors as of a legislated cut-off date for such determination, would be a factor for investors to consider, and the FEC, SEC, and IG’s would make occasional audits and inquiries to insure compliance. Likely, not an invitation corporations would elect to undertake, but, the option is there if they choose to contribute to campaigns.

I don’t know where the law stands on foreign contributions to American elections at this point in time, but, such laws would also apply to corporations making contributions to political campaigns and the responsibility for making such determination of classification of their investors would be the corporations to undertake and held accountable for.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 23, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #239076

Edwards planted false info, pleeeease give us a break, If Bob Novak and his neocon water carrying scares you and makes you fear Hillary then you either need help or have you wife get a bigger pillow.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at November 23, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment #239154

C.T. Rich,

The point of comment was that Edwards would probably never do that. I do believe that Hillary is behind this. The only reason for The Prince of Darkness (Novak) to do this on his own would be if the Neo-Cons feared Hillary. I do not believe that they do fear her. Her “negatives” on the left are high for all of the reasons listed above and other reasons well. Her “negatives” on the right are astronomical and too numerous to mention. Her “negatives” in the moderate middle are a blend of all the right and left negatives. She has negatives up the Yin Yang. Yin in Chinese medicine is female, Yang is male. So she has “negatives” up the female male - if can wrap your head around that. The Prince of Darkness has no reason to to sabotage her. Now Obama, different story: Black enthusiasm (maximum turnout), main stream appeal, youth enthusiasm, yuppie enthusiasm, possibly some white apathy, but overall a much more serious threat then Hillary.

Edwards: Enthusiastic union support, enthusiastic working support, in the right place on the Iraq war, in the right place on the Iran war, so he is also a much more credible threat than Hillary.

The Prince of Darkness did not plant this story to discredit Hillary. I believe Hillary is behind it. I had become increasingly ambivalent about her - now I am hard negative.

David Remer,

I think that your campaign would allow corporations too much continuing power and influence. Campaign contributions are so lucrative that they could easily justify them to their share holders. I would your plan with the following modification. Corporations have granted personhood. Alright that is wrong, but lets accept it. If they are a “person” then each of them are one individual “person.” Let each corporation accept the same campaign contribution limits (free speech limits) that each individual person has to accept and limit their campaign contribution to the same as any other individual. That would be a plan that I could accept.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 24, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #239155

David Remer,
I think that your campaign finance plan would allow corporations too much continuing power and influence.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 24, 2007 9:29 PM
Post a comment