jump to navigation

Thread…leading up to the one on one debate 31 January 2008

Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, DC Politics, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter.

DONATING MILLIONS Former President Bill Clinton with Sir Tom Hunter, left, and Frank Giustra, major donors to Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation.[Evelyn Hockstein for The New York Times]

I will be honest, The Clintons give me a headache the size of Texas.  What a shame.  On the other side of the possible future… I am taking a long view, contemplating debates between Obama and McCain.

 This will get uglier.  No matter what.

Not much on offer but a thread rising from the possible blockbuster report in the NYT

 Take it away….




1. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

I was wondering why Simon Rosenberg jumped ship… and was soon followed by his lackey parrot Kos.

Oh but poor Jerome” No can see” Armstrong… was caught out once again. He made a fool out of himself pushing for Hilary stance that Michigan and Florida should be counted…. no wonder jermone had to give up the star gazing biddness… he sucks… he can barely see the nose at the end of his face.

IMHO… I think this is what has happened… “they” could not attack the Clintons until there was “just cause”… it’s all in the timing. Bill stepped into the trap and now they are snared…

NOW… the coast is clear for anyone and everyone to jump aboard the Obama express… while the Clintons try to clean themselves of the scum… Hmmm one or two more days and I see Edwards and perhaps even Gore jumping on board.

Frank Rich’s article hinted that there was more to come

“The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything,” Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination

Truly, I do not think this has anything AT ALL to do with Obama per se… more like the Dem est. finally finding a candidate strong enough to get rid of the Clintons. Now that there is somewhat of a Dem majority… the last thing anyone want is the muddle thru 4 years of McCain or 4 years of Clinton scum.

2. D. Throat - 31 January 2008


3. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

Quoting it again because I think this piece is a killer..

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


Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

4. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

Also… one has the realize that being the last Democratic president has it privileges i.e. de facto leader of the party. Therefore, Bill has been the leader of the Democratic party for 16 years. Therefore, it is no wonder that he is out stumping for not only Hilary but McCain as well… cuz either way it goes BILL WINS. In fact, one could argue that being out of office has been more beneficial and a helluva lot more lucrative for the Clintons. This will all end with a new Democratic president. Bill has managed to maintain the reins of the Democratic party ie the purse strings after TWO Democratic nominees failed: Gore and Kerry. So, it is NOT in his best interest for ANY democrat to win the presidency it HAS to be Hilary or no body.

5. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

[Cue the Aggrieved Philanthropist, Tsunami- worker scheisse]

The effrontery of Clinton
cutting a private uranium deal in Khazakstan..


Indeed, in December 2005, Mr. Nazarbayev won another election, which the security organization itself said was marred by an “atmosphere of intimidation” and “ballot-box stuffing.”

After Mr. Nazarbayev won with 91 percent of the vote, Mr. Clinton sent his congratulations. “Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life,” Mr. Clinton wrote in a letter released by the Kazakh embassy.

6. marisacat - 31 January 2008

The Note’s Must REads which just came out at 2:28 am PACIFIC time, so several hours after the NYT report, does not link to it.

But they do link to Jonathan Alter’s tale of why Caroline endorsed Obama. yeah I so need fairy tales – about the Kennedys. I mean really. (oh opps did I use a bad word? There are so many now, Karen Tumulty had to explain and apologise for “re-jiggering” used by a headline writer)

IMO, the Clintons, like Bush, son and father, are OUTCOME. they are not aberrations.

Right, a pretty Dem party with angels in fluffy white robes is lining up behind under vetted (sorry to use an over used word, but it is true) and thin portfolio Obama to oppsoe the big ol’ bad ol’ Clintons.

Who are unlike anyone else.

What hogwash.

I’d really love to distribute weapons. Let them all go at it. obama would need to call a second to fight the fight.


7. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

it is NOT in Bill’s best interest for just ANY democrat to win the presidency it HAS to be Hilary or the “corporate endoresed” Republican ie McCain.

This is nothing but a palace coup.

8. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

Insider trading? Fuck this.

That same month, Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan’s intention — not publicly known at the time — to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology.

9. marisacat - 31 January 2008

There si a Cockburn and St clair piece on the runs…mostly on Hillary and Obama but also on others.

rides at the top of http://www.counterpunch.org

They throw out the bullshit that Teddy si taking 12 year old revenge (agaisnt Hillary) for Welfare in 96.

Oht hat is rich. As if any of them cared. Any of them.

10. marisacat - 31 January 2008


and who endorses Obama

wee babes in the woods?

its a put up game, a battle between factions.

11. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

I loathe the unapologetic Right Wing but I don’t have words for the level of hatred I have for poseurs and traitors on the Left…

12. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

What is happening is the exact same trick the Clintons tried to use to rid themselves of Lieberman. Which they were half successful.

Hilary became the golden girl of the DLC, mimic’d Liebermans same rhetoric at AIPAC… etc etc etc…. then sent in her “seconds” to do him in in Ct. Her message was clear… I will change NOTHING…so back me instead.

It is all a matter of controlling POWER nothing about issues. Why?… because Hilary and Bill did not want Lieberman running the gov’t from the back bench if and when Hilary got elected. Now Lieberman is stumping for McCain … and so is Bill Clinton.. the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Obama is a “spokesperson”…and whoever is backing him wants the Clintons out and the power for their tribe… point blank… nothing fairy like about this.

13. marisacat - 31 January 2008

I don’t support the party (and that means from BillHill to Howard to Obama to Teddy to every last bullshitter), no matter what face they shove at the American people – and the world.

14. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

I don’t think i was asking if you supported the Dem party. I have been here from the beginning … by now I think I know where you stand on the party issue.

15. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

its a put up game, a battle between factions.-mcat

And Obam will serve Zion as well as doing the PTB bidding in the central Asian/ Indian Subcontinent/ China Energy supply game….Essential to protecting huge overseas investments. It used to be bananas…

Obama’s Almost “no Prob”, blase remark @ moving on Pakistan…

It couldn’t be more rigged….

16. marisacat - 31 January 2008

well LOL I am allowed to make statements as I see fit.

i am not required to be responsive

17. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

DT my understanding was the Hill Bill AIPAC ass kissery was tied precisely in having hands OFF Lieberman in CT ….Not big Lamonters IIRC

18. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

Well, I was just wondering if I had insinuated that you supported the Dem party?

19. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

No they wanted Lieberman OUT of the way…didn’t Hil endorse Lamont while Bill campaigned for him… as well as Obama iirc.

20. marisacat - 31 January 2008

I don’t buy this growing story that Obama and those who are assembling to try to pull his ass over the finish line constitute some desirable and or preferable PARTY outcome.

They don’t, imo.

others mileage may vary.

21. marisacat - 31 January 2008

didn’t Hil endorse Lamont while Bill campaigned for him… as well as Obama iirc.

uh no. obama was under Lieberman wing in the senate, he tried to say little but he never endorsed Lamont. Nor did Hill and Bill. I think if you google that Obama went into CT at least once for Lieberman. It ia while ago and I am nto spending time on it.

Hell Boxer campaigned for Lieberman. Most did or stayed mum… Lieberamn is a very real cornerstone of the party… why would he not be?

I love how people think he is some aberration, again.

And Has MORE power now.

Pooor boyos they appeared to be so surprised that Lieberman did not dry up and blow away.

22. marisacat - 31 January 2008

oh btw I am despite all signs to the contrary, hoping that obama makes it.

Not interested in another thwarted beloved for the voters. they should get their wish – and then live with it.

I also jsut saw his campoaign described as “all but third party insurgent”

Oh boy. whoever wrote that has a nose from here to Manhattan.

23. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

Mrs. Clinton Offers to Raise Money for Lamont Campaign

Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: August 26, 2006

NEW HAVEN, Aug. 25 — In a private meeting at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home on Friday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton offered to help Ned Lamont in his battle to unseat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman by sponsoring a fund-raiser, campaigning by his side and lending him one of her top political strategists.

Mrs. Clinton, who has known Mr. Lieberman for several years and endorsed him in the primary, has already contributed $5,000 from her political action committee to Mr. Lamont. Former President Bill Clinton campaigned for Mr. Lieberman in the primary, but has been critical of the senator’s views on the war in Iraq in recent days.

24. marisacat - 31 January 2008

people made mumbles and offerings, they did not beat the landscape for Lamont.

he has been and will continue to be a fiarly good party cash supporter and his wife is on the board of the largest hedge fund in the nation. Hell he gave money to Lieberamn after the vote for war.

They are not going to be abused by party leadership..

Sorry D Throat, we see things very differntly.

25. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

despite all signs to the contrary, hoping that obama makes it.

That is how I see the “Obama hope thing”… I too hope he is not as horrific as the Clintons… but one never knows.

26. marisacat - 31 January 2008

no I don’t share the hope game. LOL He and Michelle are quite desperate imo to BECOME the Clintons… not that they have that strange level of strength… not that I see. over and over media never mentions her Daley connections… pretty amusing.

I am interested in those who support him not being whiners for years.

27. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

Why do you keep making this into some kind of a argument.

I said Hil endorsed Lamont while Bill went out and campaigned for Lieberman… so said “um no”… so I gave proof that Hil indeed endorsed and Lamont while Bill went out and campaigned for Lieberman.

No were did I mention anything about Lamont’s donations or his alliances… In fact in the earlier comment I specifically illustrated that they are ALL in the same bed… as now we see both Lieberman and Bill Clinton stumping for McCain…. so what the hell is the difference?

28. marisacat - 31 January 2008

Gosh D Throat…

May I not say what I want at my own blog?

may I not make statements?

You imo see pantomime as quite important. I see it as cover or just that, pantomime.

If 5,000 and ‘offerings’ from Hill is real support, I am flabbergasted. when Dem party leadership moves in to blanket a run with their power, everyone knows it.

it is tow very different ways of looking at the party.

And iirc you actively support Howard as DNC chair, I do not.

You state you see hope. I have stated over and over I don’t engage in that anymore:

ooo who is the bad man that will wreck everything… oooo got to protect this or that Dem… oooo can this or that Dem rise to the occasion. ooo si there hope here or there?

I have divested myself of that burden. and what a burden ti was.

I may wish for Obama to win, but it is nto based on any thought that the party can exrete anything good.

It is what it is and I am nto a member. I would have left in 91 but then I would have bene shut out of the primary system in CA and I did nto want that. when that changed in 03, I left as soon as the o4 vote was over.

29. marisacat - 31 January 2008

My mentioning his donations and his wife’s position is EXPLAINING why gthey will create a facade.’

They had no interest in being seen as opposing him/

As I said, we see things differently.

30. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

As they say politics makes strange bedfellows… I for one am not displeased with the Daley backing… it takes a thief to catch a thief.

The only reason Dean got a far as he did was because the powers that be in both parties sorely miscalculated his appeal then they all piled on. Hilary chinking her champagne glass with Chelsea a the convention when Dean came to the stage… whining… I’ll whine away people are still whining about MLK and RFK decades later…

31. marisacat - 31 January 2008

Here is Alter on Caroline’s support. LOL he has a reference (might be a quote, I scanned it) from obama that he hopes it willhelp him with Catholic women over 40.

32. marisacat - 31 January 2008

murder and assassination as effective removal from the political process, in an era where hundreds died and hundreds of thousands were denied, is quite different.

Obama presents himsself for the political process. It really is nothing else at this point. And as I have ssaid (and Axelrod is on the record, as well, in the Heileman New York mag of last week) his resume is thin.

hers is thick.

big dif.

33. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

Re Joementum and Clintco ..Quite
the Opposite..

Yeh it the sucky, but there it is. (beginning in Primary)

Bill Clinton to campaign for Lieberman in Waterbury
By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer

U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is rolling out the big gun in his increasingly close primary battle with Greenwich Democrat Ned Lamont.

Former President Bill Clinton is slated to campaign on behalf of the three-term incumbent Monday in Waterbury, Lieberman’s campaign spokeswoman said today.

“We are thrilled to have President Clinton come to the state to campaign for Senator Lieberman,” the spokeswoman, Marion Steinfels, said. “It is not only a big day for our campaign, but it is a big day for Waterbury and Connecticut.”

but then again, they said they would support Lamont after the Primary, LOL

Also laying on hands for Lamont were such powerful party figures as former president Bill Clinton, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).

(Again with the sucky annointy religy wijji)
But really, Kibbles and Bits

In background conversations, Democratic officials gently signaled their desire that Lieberman abandon his independent candidacy but appeared reluctant to press him publicly. A senior Democratic official in Washington said leaders had met and decided to put off confronting Lieberman at least for a few days, to allow the senator time to absorb the implications of his loss and his new isolation from longtime colleagues and supporters. “There’s a feeling that the dust needs to settle,” the official said.

Kibbles and bits ,

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wrote a $5,000 check to the Lamont campaign and said he will pitch in as needed

Whole Lotta bullshit out there in the bloggy kibble about her support for Lamont. GMAFB! From Howard BeBe fuckin Wolfson? LOL

From Wonkette

Harry & Hillary Loan Top Goons to Lamont Campaign
…. it seems Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton are loaning some big guns to Ned Lamont’s brave attempt to rid U.S. politics of Vinegar Joe.Hillary Clinton and her senior advisor and spokesperson Howard Wolfson met with Ned Lamont and his campaign manager Tom Swan …. Howard Wolfson will be joining Team Ned.

Hillary offers Lamont more than words [Daily Kos]

Top Reid consultant also working for Lamont [Daily Kos]

LOL. They rolled on his ass in the home stretch. Widely Publicized, the entire Dem Establishment afraid to piss off Joementum and “The Lobby”. Howard Wolfson was probably tyin up Lamonts phones all day long with free long distance to Tel Aviv. It really is a joke..

Immediately after hearing A Clinton offer “To Help”– and you haven’t paid anybody– realize that you are moments away from flying jism, electoral demise, or being the principal subject named in an indictment…

This was part of Sirota’s eye of the fire, Post mortem on Lamont

Refusal by outside groups or lawmakers to serve as surrogates for Lamont: Lieberman had, among others, right-wing radio, the national Republican Party, and the President and Vice President of the United States repeatedly attacking Lamont on his behalf. He also had various Republican and Democratic senators at his side, lending credibility to all of his negative attacks on Lamont, and more generally to the legitimacy of his general election candidacy that was, at heart, an affront to the democratic primary process.

Lamont, by contrast, had none of that. It wasn’t just that people like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former President Bill Clinton refused to campaign for Lamont even though they had both whispered official endorsements of him. It was that most of those who did nominally help the campaign only agreed to voice positive statements about Lamont, but refused to forcefully take on Lieberman for attacking the Democratic Party or violating campaign finance disclosure laws.

34. marisacat - 31 January 2008

oh “big dif” is SARCASM menaing NO DIFFEREENCE.

35. marisacat - 31 January 2008

sorry to be rude, I think the Clintons got the oucome they wanted in CT, I really do. .

Nobody told Lamont to stick around after the primary and CAMPAIGN.

Where was Wolfson?

They (Lamont family) decamped and the loss was set in motion.

When they REALLY move in you know it.

36. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

5000 dollars, a fund raiser and advisory aid… is not peanuts.

But that was not my point which is and still is Hil endorsed Lamont while Bill campaigned for Lieberman. That is a fact, not an “um no” That is what I gave proof of …the why for’s are a different matter.

Yes, I agree with Dean being at the DNC… and it has already shown advantages, 50 state strategy, not allowing the Clintons to run rough shod over the primaries etc etc.

37. marisacat - 31 January 2008

LOL who did Lamont debate prep? Cuz he failed badly,. Probably the high point was denying that Lieberman marched in the Civil Rights marches in the South.

38. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

What is happening is the exact same trick the Clintons tried to use to rid themselves of Lieberman. Which they were half successful.

I think the Clintons got the oucome they wanted in CT, I really do. .

I agree they were left with no blood on their hands…

39. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

Can I go back to thrashing TEH CLINTON?? LOL.

We must be able to agree on that. LOL

40. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

The whole Lamont issue I see has another aspect… It was suppose to be the White Boyz entree into the Democratic consulting society. Did you ever get a look at Lamont’s ad with Kos peeking in the window???… Like anyone knew who the hell Kos was!!! Then these idiots marched to CT en masse and basically told any Dem voter in earshot that they were STUPID for support Lieberman… too arrogant and egotistical to even hear out what the locals had to say… they were toxic and embarrassed Lamont.

The White Boyz talked a lot to trash of how great they were that their troll rating, liberal/progressive purging blogs couldn’t cash… I think it was smart of Obama to steer clear of them… they are just another bubble waiting to pop…

Truly… I think this is why Hilary “bit” the Lamont bubble… she knows she isn’t liked in the blogosphere and wanted to be seen as being on the “cool team” but ever the triangulator she sent Bill out for Lieberman …. just in case.

41. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

I would just say that while Hill “endorsed” Lamont, it was going through the motions with every mea culpa and assurance neccessary behind the scenes, few were probably even neccessary as the Lamont was left dying on the vine in the summer.. No tears here, Never understood the fascination thought he was an ass….Never sent him a nickle. though many other fools did. I was still DP then, still reading DK waiting for a late breaking Fitzmas…LOL

42. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

Spot on in 40 DT.

It was suppose to be the White Boyz entree into the Democratic consulting society. Did you ever get a look at Lamont’s ad with Kos peeking in the window???… Like anyone knew who the hell Kos was!!! Then these idiots marched to CT en masse and basically told any Dem voter in earshot that they were STUPID for support Lieberman… too arrogant and egotistical to even hear out what the locals had to say…-D. Throat

LOL. Ain’t it the truth..

43. Hair Club for Men - 31 January 2008

It was suppose to be the White Boyz entree into the Democratic consulting society. Did you ever get a look at Lamont’s ad with Kos peeking in the window???… Like anyone knew who the hell Kos was!!! Then these idiots marched to CT en masse and basically told any Dem voter in earshot that they were STUPID for support Lieberman… too arrogant and egotistical to even hear out what the locals had to say…-

And you know they were white because people of color marching into Greenwich or Darien en masse would have led to an immediate withdrawl of 10,000 troops from Iraq to “deal” with the problem.

44. Hair Club for Men - 31 January 2008

BTW, for a website that likes its diarist solidly pro Israel Kos also likes it’s political candidates solidly WASP doncha think.

Ned Lamont
Darcy Burner

Almost makes me feel like a person of color

They also seem to like their political activity in places like Bellvue/Kirland WA or suburban Connecticut.

Not exactly impoverished blue collar rust belt towns, are they?

45. D. Throat - 31 January 2008

Ned Lamont and Kos ad

of course there had to be the remix

46. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

Sorry— Lube anyone?

Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions
Tapes Reviewed by ABC News Show Clinton As a Loyal Company Woman

47. JJB - 31 January 2008

MCat, no. 42, last thread,

Daily Kos has feminist stuff. Got banned from their [sic] for criticising feminism too. Hmm.

That DB sure is a bright one, isn’t he? I realize that when typing quickly you’re bound to make all sorts of mistakes, but that one is pretty hard to miss, also not likely you’d type that combination of characters unintentionally. Anyway, he’s lying. He was banned from dKos in the pre-Scoop days for stalking me and posting vulgar insults. I did not say or do anything to get him banned, it was strictly Kosolini’s decision. He came back once the Scoop setup had been started, and lasted (IIRC) about 7 months, keeping a low profile most of that time. When his presence was discovered, he was not only banned, but every comment and diary he’d posted was purged from the site, which was pretty rare even back then (summer of 04, I think). He tried posting again as “DavidByron2” and so on, didn’t last long under those monikers.

melvin, no 77, previous thread

Romney almost casually elevates Al Qaeda to the status of one of the four great powers in his imaginary world, along with “the oil countries,” China, and the US, which he describes as the only major power standing for democracy.

They all speak about al-Qaeda as if it’s as rigidly hierarchical as the Gestapo, with a reach that extends much further. Or as if it’s THRUSH, and they want to play Napoleon Solo.

Dropping the Fed’s short term interest rate didn’t help the market yesterday, and it’s done no good so far today. As of 9:46, EST the DJIA is down almost 160 points.

Yet another opposition leader has been murdered in Kenya, a very large country that appears to be slipping into anarchy, if it isn’t already there. The ongoing violence is said to have claimed some 800 lives, which has to be a ridiculously low figure. This really does not seem to have attracted much attention here, in spite of the fact that we’ve been using Kenya as a base of operations for our involvement in the war in Somalia (which is getting even less attention than what’s happening in Kenya).

48. JJB - 31 January 2008

Stuck in moderation, I think.

49. BooHooHooMan - 31 January 2008

Still here…Broder has a piece up (Yeh I Know, Broder) sayin the trend of D endorse + BO in for a longer run could {always cautious with Broder} could lead to BO vs Big Mac Flak Jacket as the DP Tools
retool towards a McCain matchup..

As an aside, it is kind of Hillarious that, even in the event of an
exhaustive Primary Season, the incumbent hacks still have the sway
via the rules……Anyways, FWIW….


A Matchup Starts to Take Shape

By David S. Broder
Thursday, January 31, 2008; Page A21

Heading into Tuesday’s unprecedented day of voting in two dozen states, a degree of order is finally emerging in the dramatic races for the presidential nominations of both parties.

Public opinion and leadership support are finding their way to the same destinations, pointing to a clear favorite and a single viable alternative in each race. ………

50. JJB - 31 January 2008

BHHM, no. 49,

Broder could make a World Series Game 7 in which both pitchers took a perfect game into the 9th inning sound like a seminar devoted to the history of the Conference on the Law of the Sea. Still, it was worth reading for this graf:

Unelected conservative ideologues — such as Rush Limbaugh and George F. Will— can mutter in frustration, but Republican politicians recognize what was written here as long ago as last Dec. 2: “If the Republican Party really wanted to hold on to the White House in 2009 . . . it would grit its teeth, swallow its doubts and nominate a ticket of John McCain for president and Mike Huckabee for vice president — and president-in-waiting.”

Well, scratch, scratch, scratch go your little nails! That passage should make the next Bradlee/Quinn soiree as interesting as that long-ago Lally Weymouth party where Norman Mailer suckerpunched Gore Vidal.

It takes a unique sort of arrogance (motivated no doubt by pique over having been slighted by Will in some way) to quote yourself with such as air of lofty condescension as Broder does here. If he really wanted to get Georgie Bowtie’s goat he could point out that the reason he hates McCain so much is because of the Arizona senator’s work on campaign finance reform, which threatens the income of Mrs. Georgie Bowtie, who’s a big GOPerative media consultant. But that’s the kind of substantive material you will never see in a Broder column, which is as likely to give you honest analysis of our political system as The Racing Form is to give you a story about doped horses, fixed races, etc.

51. JJB - 31 January 2008

More From The Dean!!!!!

Obama is not inevitable, but the longer the race continues, the greater that hunger will be.

The very estimable former Vice President Henry Wallace was, alas, noted for some dreary rhetoric in his speeches, with banalities, platitudes, and nonsequitors bumping up against each other like pieces of tortellini in a pot of boiling water (i.e., “New horizons beckon with meaningful opportunities.”) I’d say the Dean has outdone him here with a beautifully compact koan of utter meaninglesness. That belongs on a teabag tag, or in a fortune cookie.

52. wilfred - 31 January 2008

File this under “Biased Media”.
From Josh Marshall:

One point that should not go unmentioned is that what former President Clinton is described as doing in that Times article is little different from what the first President Bush has done in his post-presidency. And his son is the president. So if it would be a problem with Bill, and I think it would be, it unquestionably is already a problem with the current president’s dad. And no one has seemed to much bother about it.

53. supervixen - 31 January 2008

ms x, from the previous thread:

Well, then color me baffled. I still don’t understand your problem with my original link.

Wow, I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly.

I didn’t quote fucking Ann Coulter but a pair of writers genuinely interested in feminism, not in throwing it out wholesale.

“genuinely interested in feminism” but spouting the usual lame ignorant bullshit. Sorry, it’s not that much better than Ann Coulter.

I stand by my original assertion that Pappas’ defense of Hillary is a crock of shit.

WHO CARES??? Why does anyone care about this ridiculous garbage? What does it matter who defends Hillary? Who is this “Pappas” and why should anyone listen to her?

For the record, Hillary is the US version of Thatcher. Although at least Thatcher stood on her own – her husband was notably weak and uninteresting.

54. JJB - 31 January 2008

It seems that Rudy Duce is planning on campaigning for John McCain. I do hope this more than just empty endorsement rhetoric. RD’s poll numbers started to go into freefall the moment voters got a look at his repulsively ugly mug, and anything that hurts McCain is fine by me. I think he’s by far the most dangerous person still in the race, and a McCain presidency will outdo Bush Jr.’s in mass slaughter by a enormous factor.

55. JJB - 31 January 2008

wilfred, no. 52,

It’s only a problem if Clinton does it. I’m sure even the admirable Jimmy Carter has done something similar throughout his pre- and post-presidental careers, though probably not at the scale Clinton and Bush have.

This is not to say that Billary aren’t engaging in reprehensible practices, just that it’s curious how the MSM never pays attention to this sort of thing unless they’re involved. And as much as they seem to be raking in, it’s probably a small fraction of what Poppy Bush and Henry Kissinger have extorted over the years.

56. supervixen - 31 January 2008


They all speak about al-Qaeda as if it’s as rigidly hierarchical as the Gestapo, with a reach that extends much further.

Yeah, not bad for an organization that doesn’t exist.

As I say to those credulous twerps who natter on about al Qaeda being a major threat: gee, if they’re so powerful, how come they haven’t managed to stage ONE terrorist attack in the US since 9/11? Not ONE? All they need is one desperate loser who’s willing to blow himself up in a shopping mall. Can’t seem to find one, though. Makes you wonder.

Or as if it’s THRUSH, and they want to play Napoleon Solo.

Mmm, luvved that show.

57. JJB - 31 January 2008


I loved the first season, which was a wonderfully stylized, tongue-in-cheek romp through an obviously phony but perfectly realized demimonde (I especially loved the episodes that began with the off-screen narration as Solo and Kuryakin entered U.N.C.L.E. headquarters through the tailor’s shop, it reminded me of the Yorkville neighborhood where my grandparents and a great aunt lived). Then they started playing it more seriously, with a bigger budget, more location shooting, more realistic props and sets, and it lost a lot of its magic (going from B&W to color also hurt things, I thought). Then they turned it into a camp fest, and lost me completely. The fact that I aged 10 to 13 during the years it was on run probably played a big factor in that as well. Still, watching it gave me a lot of pleasure through most of its run. I guess it says something about the US public’s gullibility that a very large number of the show’s regular viewers were convinced there was a real U.N.C.L.E. because the credits always expressed the producers’ gratitude to The United Network Command For Law Enforcement for their assistance in making the show. No matter how often and how loudly it was proclaimed “that’s only a JOKE!!!!” people still insisted there had to be a real U.N.C.L.E., else why put that in the credits?

No wonder it’s so easy to launch invasions of countries that pose no threat to us.

58. ms_xeno - 31 January 2008

sv: …WHO CARES??? Why does anyone care about this ridiculous garbage? …

Ridiculous because you say so. All the spin out there everyone puts under the microscope here but I’m not allowed ? I guess I missed that memo.

If you have links debunking what was excerpted in the Rutgers link, feel free to share. Since this space isn’t routinely overrun with anti-feminists, as are some others, it’s as good a spot as any to do so.

I’m just not ready to throw every WOC I’ve read discussing White women’s racism onto the dust-heap of the “easily manipulated” or every White woman who tries to discuss it into the dugout with Coulter. But do as you like.

59. liberalcatnip - 31 January 2008

I too hope he is not as horrific as the Clintons… but one never knows.

Yet, when I’ve tried to bring up that Obama just might be, I’ve been thrashed by you, D Throat. Why?

As an aside, in pondering this one on one debate tonite, I was thinking about the undisputed fact that Obama struggles in such scenarios and that it’s his flowery orations that come easily to him. How is that going to bode for him if he wins and has some tough negotiating to do with the Repubs, world leaders etc? Or will that be an issue? I’m asking…

60. liberalcatnip - 31 January 2008

As for the Kazahkstan thing, I’ll do more reading on that to see if it is more serious than I initially thought. The guy is on the Clinton Foundation board so I don’t see why this is all so suspicious (ie. the fact that they were over there together and that Bill may have used his influence to help him get a contract. What are the ethics rules in the US regarding former presidents doing people favours?)

61. liberalcatnip - 31 January 2008

Poll: Big expectations for new president

WASHINGTON – Americans have a decidedly dour view of how things are going in the country and an outsized view of what one person — the president — can do about it.

n a year when talk of change is all the rage in the presidential campaign, people have great expectations for the next president’s ability to get things done, according to an extensive Associated Press-Yahoo News survey released Thursday.

Large majorities of voters believe the president has considerable sway on a range of big issues such as inflation, interest rates, the federal deficit, taxes and more. Fully three-quarters believe the president has at least some influence over health care costs, for example. Sixty-nine percent can see the president making gasoline prices go up or down.

They are less certain, though, about the president’s ability to change how things really work in Washington: 55 percent think it’s possible; 44 percent are doubtful, no matter who’s elected.

Overall, supporters of Clinton and Obama are about equally likely to think it’s possible to change the way Washington works. Voters who backed Edwards, who campaigned passionately against the status quo and the influence of special interests, were least likely to think Washington can be changed.

So, we’re not the only cycnics.

62. liberalcatnip - 31 January 2008

Or “cynics” even.

63. JJB - 31 January 2008

By all the deities that reside atop Olympus, that NYT Clinton Scandal Story is mind-numbingly dull. Not difficult to understand, mind you, just BORING!!! Does anyone think this isn’t what former Presidents do once they’ve left office (save for Harry Truman, who was remarkably honest for a politician in any era, let alone the modern USA, and possibly Lyndon Johnson, who’d stolen a substantial fortune for himself during his years in the Senate and White House and may not have had the energy to expand his holdings).

Eisenhower was the recipient of all manner of gifts from certain wealthy men of business before and after his Presidency (probably during as well), Nixon used his position to increase his wealth while President and kept on grabbing afterwards, Jerry Ford went from being broke in January 1977 to being a multimillionare in a few short years, Reagan would have dived head first into a barrel of raw sewage if told there was $100 at the bottom. Remember the nice retirement home his rich friends paid for at the end of his presidency, one of whom (George Steinbrenner) received a pardon after making his substantial donation? Has the NY Times (or anyone else) published front page stories about how any of those men turned the Presidency into big bucks (aside from Nixon, who probably took in a lot less than both Bush, Sr. and Kissinger)? It’s probably no coincidence that of all these former Presidents, the only ones whose financial dealings merit this kind of interest are the people who refuse to flatter and suck-up to MSM bigwigs.

What I find disturbing about this story is not the Clinton/Giustra connection so much as fact that the former president was sucking up to the loathsome Kazakh dictator Nazarbayev. And I find that a lot less disturbing than the Bush family’s joined-at-the-hip relationship with the Saudi royal family.

BTW, this article was obviously intended to harm Billary’s chances of returning to the White House, yet it suggests that they are capable of operating independently of each other by stating that he was apparently trying to help Nazarbayev improve his image while she was publicly denouncing him and trying to prevent Kazakhstan from achieving its goal of heading the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for a year.

Also interesting is that it’s been demoted from Pride of Place on the paper’s website earlier today. It can now be found as the third item in a barely noticeable list of “More News” stories.

64. JJB - 31 January 2008

The story has now fallen even further down the front page, to the “below the fold” area, under the smaller font “U.S.” index. There’s a story in that demotion, possibly something very embarrassing to the NYT. It’s very rare for them to run away from a story like this so soon, rather than admit to error they’ll usually stand by the pile of dung until the stink attaches itself permanently to them (e.g., their conduct w/r/t Joodles Miller and her re-writes of the Fu Manchu saga updated to modern Mesopotamia).

65. marisacat - 31 January 2008

There was a story recently that they/NYT pushed, for the brief time til it was quietly dropped further and further down and allowed to drift …. but I cnanot remember the issue being raised.

If ONLY Poppy and the boys had been looked into… you could catch dribbles, but except for the odd extended piece in alternative media or the odd reference in MSM, where you had to fill in the chasms, so little.

I recall that in GulfWar 1, the sons (Neil and Marv, iirc) were reported to be on the ground within hours doing deals right and left.

The shame of it all. The endlessness of it all.

66. liberalcatnip - 31 January 2008

Obama supporters racheting up the nastiness. The links to the e-mails are dead so it looks like somebody got their hand slapped. Here’s another link to the content.

In part:

In addition to re-inventing her past, the most obvious new Billary Clinton strategy is to use ‘Token Negroes’ like BET Founder Bob Johnson, Tavis Smiley, and Magic Johnson to name a few, to attack and discredit Barack Obama, a tactic which many blacks find additionally offensive, calling these black Clinton cronies ‘sell-outs’. Spread the word….share the facts. The Clinton’s have been conning the black community for a long time and are NOT what they claim to be. I bet they go home at night, pour some expensive wine, kick their feet up and just laugh like crazy about what big black suckers we are. But now, it’s time to prove them wrong !

By: Greg Jones

67. liberalcatnip - 31 January 2008

There’s a story in that demotion, possibly something very embarrassing to the NYT.

I’m not sure about that. They have a habit of kicking stories down on their site.

68. Intermittent Bystander - 31 January 2008

Spied at a newsstand today: New York Post endorses Obama.

Not exactly a love letter, natch. Bashes Hillary, Bill, and Obama, but sez at least he ain’t them. Oh, and he inspires people, too.

Cute juxtaposition near the end, where they trash-talk Clintonian triangulation – it reeks of cynicism and opportunism – but then pirouette to warn their readers:

Finally, Sen. Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband, and is much more disciplined in pursuit of her agenda.

69. liberalcatnip - 31 January 2008

Trapper John: What a genius.

70. liberalcatnip - 31 January 2008

Apparently, Mike Gravel is holding an alternative debate tonite. Good for him!

71. ms_xeno - 31 January 2008

What does MoveOn do again that’s so all-fired important ? Hell, I’d forgotten all about them.

If I donate today, do they have some groovy PBS-style premium, something babies can wear ? I have a baby shower to go to on Saturday. Hopefully it won’t be teeming with M*th*r T*lk*rs or I’ll be leaving super-early– free food be damned.

72. marisacat - 31 January 2008

LOL thread for the Los Angeles cage match…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: