From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Originally From New America Media
Monday, May 5, 2008 :New America Media, Commentary, Donal Brown, Posted: May 05, 2008 Editors Note: Hillary Clintons negative campaign is robbing the Democratic Party of its energy and could very well usher in another Republican president. NAM contributing editor Donal Brown is a long time Democrat and a retired teacher who, fresh from the Peace Corps in 1968, donned a suit and tie and worked a precinct for anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy.
SAN FRANCISCO The Democratic presidential primary race brings to mind the 1968 campaign. Frustrated with Lyndon Johnsons conduct of the Vietnam War, young people, in particular, embraced Senator Eugene McCarthys motto, Clean for Gene. They shaved their beards, got haircuts, put their education on hold and walked the precincts.
After McCarthy almost upset Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, rather than suffer a humiliating loss to McCarthy in Wisconsin, Johnson dropped out of the race. McCarthy ultimately lost the nomination to Vice President Hubert Humphrey who had successfully rounded up the votes controlled by party bosses in non-primary states. With the Democratic Party divided and many of the young people disillusioned by the triumph of the old guard, Humphrey lost the presidency to Richard Nixon by a thin margin.
The recent Pennsylvania campaign showed that New York Senator Hillary Clinton can run a dirt-laden campaign and have some success, but at what ultimate cost? Her negative campaigning could deprive the Democratic Party of youthful energy and turn it into a loser in the general election.
Read More
If you think that a few loopy loops of Reverend Wright's more unfortunate sound bites endlessly playing in October spells terminal trouble for Obama, why are all my old Republican friends rooting for Hillary? And why is McCain quietly playing tag team with Hillary Clinton to destroy Barack Obama's chances?
The Republican insiders aren't just rooting for Hillary they're salivating at the chance to run against "THE CLINTONS." Republicans know that in spite of the Wright "issue," the absent flag pin "issue," the who Obama's acquaintances are "issue," the if Michelle loves our country enough "issue," etc., etc., that none of this amounts to anything compared to the HUGE target Bill and Hillary would present in the fall.
Republican shills don't do things by accident. So when the Weekly Standard (05/12/2008) publishes gushing praise for a Democratic candidate they have their reasons. Anyone who takes the following pro-Hillary puffery at face value should call me about this great bridge I have for sale. In "An Exceedingly Strange New Respect--Hillary Clinton Makes Friends In Some Surprising Precincts," Noemie Emery (contributing editor) writes:
"The Hillary of May 2008 is radically different from the Hillary of two months ago, much less the one of last year, or of eight years back. And this one (at least till the nomination is settled) has some traits the right wing can love.... And better--or worse--[Hillary Clinton] is becoming a social conservative, a feminist form of George Bush. Against an opponent who shops for arugula, hangs out with ex-Weathermen, and says rural residents cling to guns and to God in unenlightened despair at their circumstances, she has rushed to the defense of religion and firearms, while knocking back shots of Crown Royal and beer.... She might run to the right of McCain, if she makes it to the general election, and get the votes of rebellious conservatives. Or she, Lieberman, and McCain could form a pro-war coalition, with all of them running to pick up the phone when it rings in the small hours."
Notice the Weekly Standard's gratuitous swipe at Obama on the way past, while pretending to boost Hillary as someone tough to run against. Yeah, right, the Republicans just love the Clintons and are shaking in their boots at the thought of a Hillary Clinton/John McCain match up!
Here's Karl Rove's wet dream/Republican strategy. When the Weekly Standard et al. have done their work and, through a series of backhanded compliments, fooled the Democrats into thinking Hillary would be harder to beat than Obama then phase two -- the easy destruction of Hillary -- will begin.
It's October 1, 2008, deep in the batcave Rove is talking to his pals...
"Gentlemen; can anyone seriously contend that the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton would be possible without the fact that she was married to Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton would not have become a senator, let alone be running for the presidency, absent being Bill's wife. Her association with Bill Clinton is the bedrock upon which her candidacy stands. Unlike Obama, who's association with his minister was peripheral at bes t- -and that the public is now sick of hearing about -- Hillary Clinton's ties to Bill Clinton are the foundation of her candidacy. So here is what we'll be pounding home...
"A far bigger issue than Obama's minister is Hillary's association with her husband! Anything Rev. Wright said vis-a-vis damage to Obama's chances against our boy was pale by comparison with what Bill did, said, was and is and Hillary's political association with him. Even if this isn't "fair" on so-called moral grounds--as in the privacy of the Clinton's bedroom, bla, bla, bla,--it's certainly fair game now because Hillary's connection to Bill is not just personal-- it's also a political marriage, especially since he's out campaigning as much as she is...
"Obama had to answer for his minister again and again. Now it's perfectly fair to ask Hillary to answer for Bill. It may not be polite, but as Bill said; 'Politics is rough, and if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.'
"If who baptized Obama's children was Hillary's business ('I wouldn't have stayed in that church!') then who she conceived her child with is all our business too! Even if it isn't 'our business' her candidacy is our business and that's entirely based on the legitimacy -- and damage control -- she conferred on Bill by staying with him even after he:
"# Committed adultery in the Oval Office with a young woman about the age of Hillary's daughter,
"# Pardoned criminals in a manner that -- at best -- seemed to bolster credible charges of corruption,
"# Cashed in on his public service to the tune of $108 million (in contrast to, for instance, Jimmy Carter's legacy)
"# Cashed in on his presidential connections, including dealings with foreign dictators and using his influence for his own and for his friend's gain,
"# Engaged in far-flung and dubious fundraising practices during his presidency in which the Lincoln Bedroom was virtually for sale,
"# Entered into a corrupt relationship with donors to his presidential library,
"# Amassed a fortune in a 'charitable' family foundation and only began to disperse some of the money in the context of launching Hillary Clinton's campaign,
"# Has a continuing reputation (well established by friends, associates and personal connections, check out the new FOX NEWS footage about to be released!) for gross philandering that he will bring back into the White House and keep shaming America,
"# Left the Democratic Party with a discredited legacy, an impeachment and the loss of both houses of congress,
"# Played the race card in the fight against Obama, (we can pick up a lot of black votes for once now that the Clintons have managed to alienate most American blacks, maybe forever! Or, at least those people will stay home this year!)
More
During the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton gave the following gloss on her Bosnia fairytale: "I can tell you that I may be a lot of things but I'm not dumb... On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case ...on a few occasions I was not as accurate as I have been in the past... So I will either try to get more sleep...or have somebody who is there as a reminder to me. "
Huh?
Ordinarily, saying things that aren't in keeping with what one knows to be the case is called "lying". And what's dumb got to do with it? No one ever accused Hillary of being dumb. And dumb couldn't explain her Bosnia remarks anyhow.
Yet bizarrely enough, the press didn't seem to notice or comment on the utter absurdity of her remarks. Either they were accepted as some kind of apology or they were relegated to the ever-expanding swamp of campaign "gaffes" and "silliness."
In any case, the Bosnia story has now been overshadowed -- most recently by the lunatic performances of Reverend Wright. But whether or not Reverend Wright is a nut-job is not remotely the same order of question as whether snipers were shooting at Hillary Clinton. Everyone senses this, even if they can't articulate it.
More
Publish to Newswire
Add an Event