I'm in Las vegas, at yet another stiflingly full-of-shit Democratic debate, just breaking up now. The show tonight was a new low, with a suddenly cuddlesome troika of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards spending two hours giving each other friendly establishment back rubs while NBC played the Big Brother role, going to court to keep that meddling Dennis Kucinich off the stage. Afterward, the first flack to waddle into the spin cave is Mark Penn, Clinton's chief mouthpiece, one of Washington's most depraved and expensive lobbyist-whores.
Penn is the Democratic version of Karl Rove. He even looks like Rove, only he's fatter and more disgusting. Up close in a forum like this, his eyes bulge out of his fat, blood-flushed head; his neck spills out of his too-tight shirt collar; and he generally looks like Jabba the Hutt, his suit bursting at the seams, with only the bowl of snackable live toads suspended at arm's length missing from the picture.
After Obama's win in Iowa, everyone familiar with the Clintons and how they operate could have set their watches by the Hillary camp's inevitable decision to start reminding America of the dangers of electing a black teenager on coke. There is now a sudden sense on the campaign trail that the electoral chaos of the last year is a thing of the past, that this race is once again back in the hands of scaly Washington pros like Penn, the whole contest reduced to a series of empty PR ploys on the level of a staged crying fit and a series of back-channel character attacks. The Clintons are back, running things as they always have, with their back-stabbing, inside-baseball mastery, their fanatical, almost religious pursuit of the political fork in the road, their boundless faith in ruthless corporate bagmen of the Penn genus and other such faceless electoral point-shavers.
This all becomes punishingly obvious when Penn, smiling broadly, leans into the hive of spin-room microphones and announces with a straight face that Barack Obama's refusal to describe himself as a "chief operating officer" of the government bureaucracy marks a "critical distinction" in the race.
"But if that's the big distinction," I say, "doesn't that underscore how alike they are on the big issues -- like free trade, health care and their exit strategy in Iraq?"
Penn reiterates that Obama is nothing but a visionary, before adding a Nevada-specific line about the state's federal radioactive waste dump. "And I think we saw some distinctions too on Yucca Mountain, which is an important issue in this debate!" he says.
"So some amorphous thing on leadership and Yucca Mountain are the distinctions between the main Democratic candidates for the presidency?"
Penn pauses, then smiles. "Those are the distinctions discussed in this debate," he hisses.
So this is what it has come to. Conventional wisdom holds that when Hillary shed tears in New Hampshire, seeming to crack under the pressure of being pounded daily in the press as an unlikable loser, she struck a powerful chord with female voters who saw her as a victim of a male-dominated culture determined to punish a strong woman for daring to seek power. And who knows, maybe there's something to that -- but by the time Hillary reached Nevada, I was strongly tempted not to give a shit. To see Hillary Clinton as a martyr for anything is to give her far too much credit for weakness and not nearly enough credit for her strengths, one of which happens to involve resurrecting, against all odds, the ghost of Richard Nixon.
What people forget about Clinton is that she is basically a Republican at heart. She campaigned for Barry Goldwater once upon a time and even canvassed poor neighborhoods in Chicago looking for "vote fraud" by Democrats. She was president of the College Republicans at Wellesley. In 1968, at the height of America's most intense cultural debate in a century, she only abandoned the Republican Party because it backed Dick Nixon instead of her favorite, Nelson Rockefeller.
Which is ironic, because as a presidential candidate herself, Hillary has basically run exactly Nixon's 1968 campaign. Her stump speech from the get-go was all about the "invisible Americans," a nearly word-for-word echo of Nixon's revolutionary "forgotten Americans" strategy of that year. Like Nixon, she was targeting a slice of the electorate that had chosen to stay on the sidelines during a cultural war and secretly yearned for someone in the political center to restore order; it's no accident that Hillary was on the opposite side of every issue that sent lefties to the streets in the Bush years, from the war to free trade to the Patriot Act.
Her much-reported line about Martin Luther King needing LBJ to complete his "dream" was just another salvo in that effort, a subtle message to the public that the "change" she talks about so incessantly is only legitimate when it comes from the inside. Lest anyone think this is a fanciful analysis, listen to what Hillary wrote back in the day, in her senior thesis at Wellesley, which looked at the work of a Chicago community organizer named Saul Alinsky, who had offered her a job. "I agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas," she wrote, "but we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn't."
Ironically, after Alinsky's death, the man who carried on his legacy as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago was none other than Barack Obama, who took a $13,000-a-year gig similar to the one that Hillary turned down.
And while there's an argument to be made that none of this old history matters that much now, there's no denying the clear difference in the two campaign styles. In Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton, we've basically got Kennedy-Nixon redux, and I mean that in the most negative possible sense for both of them -- a pair of superficial, posturing conservatives selling highly similar political packages using different emotional strategies. Obama is selling free trade and employer-based health care and an unclear Iraqi exit strategy using looks, charisma and optimism, while Hillary is selling much the same using hard, cold reality, "prose not poetry," managerial competence over "vision."
In Hillary's case, the Nixon analogy extends in almost every direction. To listen to a Hillary stump speech is to hear a tale of endless confrontations with enemies; at one event I attended in Iowa, she railed against the Republicans who tried to crush her over health care, the Chinese who tried to stifle her over her "women's rights are human rights" speech, a pharmaceutical industry that bucked when she passed a law requiring that drugs be tested for use on children, and a press that tells lies about her. The speech conveniently ignored the fact that Hillary (a) takes more money from Big Pharma than any candidate in the race and (b) voted to keep most-favored-nation trading status with China despite her human-rights concerns, and that she and her husband were bogged down in a scandal involving campaign contributions from the Chinese.
Hillary's campaign is and always has been presented as a pitched battle for political survival against bitter enemies, and no reporter who has watched the way she stage-manages every last utterance and generally treats the press like a gang of rattlesnakes (which they are, of course) can possibly fail to appreciate the similarity to Nixon's own troubled, hypervigilant relationship with the fourth estate.
Moreover, like Nixon, her "invisible Americans" deal is carefully couched to appeal to the fears of her own version of the silent majority -- fears about energy prices, layoffs, health care, terrorism. It's a conscious decision to contrast her approach to Obama's hokey-inspirational politics -- hence the relentless emphasis on the part of stooges like Penn on her "preparedness" and leadership, as opposed to Obama's airy "vision" and "hope."
From time to time, you hear Democratic insiders talk about this dynamic openly, as in the case of a "leading Democratic strategist" who appeared in the papers after New Hampshire claiming that Obama could have won a knockout if only he'd played the game right and concentrated on economic fears.
"Instead, he went for this professorial, highfalutin stuff," the flack told reporters. "A lot of these euphoria candidates, once they hit a bump, it's down the toilet."
And down the toilet is where we are, for sure. Watching Barack Obama in Nevada gave me a sick feeling. I bought the hype, and now I could see the straw sticking out of his suit.
Here's Obama, a black man, coming into a crucial debate having watched his white opponent and her henchmen slyly remind voters about what he was doing "in the neighborhood" as a kid and then point out that MLK couldn't secure his legacy without the help of a white man with a title. It was nasty, calculating politics, and any man with a pulse would have taken her to task for it here. But in the debate, Obama responded meekly by praising Hillary three times in the first five minutes, avoiding the word "black" as though it were a used Kleenex, and refusing to point out that he'd ever been against the war in Iraq.
While Obama -- apparently spooked back into say-no-evil "general election mode" by his New Hampshire ass-whippings -- bared his vagina to the state of Nevada, Hillary coolly mopped the floor with him. She refused an invitation to describe him as "prepared" for the presidency -- a slight that was especially biting given that Obama had just moments before described his opponents as "capable" -- and reminded voters that her opponents might not be prepared enough to save them from two wars, a foreclosure crisis, a recession, terrorist threats and a host of other scary shit.
Afterward, audience members had trouble identifying just what it was that they were left to choose between. "Before I came here I was vacillating between the two," Jocelyn Cortez, a civil rights lawyer in Vegas, tells me. "But I think Clinton did a really good job of giving us concrete elements of her plan."
Like what?
"Um, like, she was saying, I think she was going to set aside a certain amount of money for, um ... I think it was for, like, a bank to help people. ... It's kinda weird, but it was like the numbers spoke to me, the fact that she had thought about these numbers. And I love Obama, I think he's a great orator, but sometimes I think he went a little overboard with the, uh ...."
"The what?"
"The oral beautification of the whole thing."
Right, that. The whole prose-not-poetry deal. It's working for Hillary, just like her tears gambit worked. After all these years in public life, the only time Hillary Clinton sheds a tear is when her own political career is on the line? I didn't notice her crying when kids started coming home from Fallujah in rubber bags because of a war she voted for.
That was where it all came rushing back. Hillary's stunning victory had been in the books for mere minutes before we were all suddenly reminded of all the reasons we came to hate the Clintons over the years -- why there were scores of very smart people who by November 2000 were actually willing to pull a lever for Ralph Nader rather than go anywhere near a Democratic Party ticket. Seven years is, it turns out, a long time, just long enough to forget that Clinton fatigue was what saddled us with George Bush in the first place.
The crying incident was Hillary's own personal Checkers speech, a painful bit of self-mutilation tossed off on the last step before the political gallows -- a pure sea-cucumber tactic, scaring us off with a display of vulnerable green guts. We missed the chance to finish her off, and now she's back in charge, setting the tone for a campaign that gets dumber and meaner and dirtier by the day. Thanks to you, New Hampshire, the Clintons still have us to kick around.
_______
Sad To Say ...
"They dangle the carrot of real change in front of us, then yank it away in favor of the entrenched interests. Hillary? Barack? Who knows? Who cares?"
Yup, it sure looks like a Hitlery/McCain contest. Obama gives the appearance of change but none of the substance. We'd have been bombing Lebanon along with the Israelis last year if things had been up to him. He quakes in the presence of AIPAC just like the rest of them. There won't be any change this time around, you're absolutely right.
The New Nixon? Bring her on!
Nixon was very liberal on domestic issues calling for universal health insurance coverage and also a guaranteed wage. If she would support such programs and succeed in implementing them, well, I say, that would be a very positive direction for our country.
"Only Nixon could go to China"
where will Hillary go?
further to the Right than any GOPer could imagine in a wet dream.
Is false hope better than no hope at all?
where will Hillary go?
when will the uber-liberals grow up and stop demonizing democratic leadership (the Clintons) for pragmatically governing from the middle
Well, you'll be waiting a long time, then.
Hillary is not *for* anything.
Never has been, never will be.
She's nothing but Dick Cheney in a pant suit.
Filthy political hack.
The only one worthy of being elected was Kucinich.
I'll have to vote for Obama in the CA primary.
And hope to god most people do on Super Duper Tuesday.
Mike V.
http://michaelav.blogspot.com
Hillary
This is a great article. You should put this article on http://www.hypocrisy.com. Its a cool website that talks about all the hypocrisy in the world, and they have several articles on all the presidential candidates. This is a good one for that website as well.
On the subject of hypocrisy
"while NBC played the Big Brother role, going to court to keep that meddling Dennis Kucinich off the stage. "
Remind me - who was it who went to court first?
Oh yeah - Kucinich.....
Because....
.....NBC first arbitrarily decide to exclude him from the debate. Kucinich had no other choice if he wanted a chance to participate. Aren't the networks supposed to operate in the public interest?
Actually he did
Have another choice - he should have gone to the FCC first.
If you read the Nevada SC decision that was their basis for over turning the lower court's decision.
Basically the first recourse for Kucinich should have been the FCC and - if they didn't help THEN the courts.
The FCC....
....wouldn't have done squat. You know it and I know it. They are a bought and paid arm of corporate America. Also, the Nevada SC would simply have looked for another reason to dodge the issue.
The real issue is NBC, who's been given the right to use the PUBLIC airways, kept out a candidate from participating in a public debate helping to determine the leader of this nation; for reasons related to private gain.
They basically didn't like his message, so they squelched his voice. That's the real issue. Private corporations determining who the public gets to see and hear. They've been fighting to marginalize him from the very beginning; they just decided to be more blatant about it lately, because they knew they could get away with it.
And if
they had done squat he would have had a legitimate recourse to the courts.
I'm assuming you don't agree with ignoring the law when it's politically convenient?
Not my main point
Well, my reading of the FCA, which enabled the FCC, is that Kucinich had one of two recourses for damages, through the FCC or through the courts, but not both. He chose the courts.
I am willing to concede, however, that I may have an incomplete understanding of all the case law. I am, after all, not a lawyer.
The main issue I was trying to illustrate though, was that NBC FIRST disinvited Kucinich from the debates based on arbitrary considerations which they contrived for the sole purpose of excluding him. The court system would not have been brought into this at all if NBC had been doing its job in the public interest, which is after all part of their responsibility in being granted a license in the first place.
Your
Second point I have some sympathy with.
The first is why I refered to the NV SC ruling which states that the court's
"sole function with respect to FCA enforcement is to review final FCC orders"
So his proper course of action was to go to the FCC first.
It's on page 3 here.
I think Kucinich would have done himself more favors if he and Gravel had got together on this one. As it seemed to me he wanted the wrong against himself righted but not the right thing done period. That's just how it struck me though.
Ona related note - before NH should all these people (well D people at least) have been invited to the debate?
http://www.sos.nh.gov/recounthills.htm
Frankly I have no idea who some of these people are.
Actually.....
I read the Nevada SC ruling again before responding to your previous post. Then I went back and read the FCA. As I said, my interpretation of the FCA was that Kucinich had two distinct paths to recoup damages. Alas, I'm not a lawyer, so I may have interpreted this incorrectly. I would hasten to add, however, that Kucinich received a favorable ruling at the district level, so his case was obviously open to interpretation, and not cut and dried. Judges are after all, just people too.
It may be that Kucinich and Gravel should have gotten together on this one. Gravel was screwed even worse than Kucinich. Kucinich, however, was the only one "disinvited", so maybe that was a pivotal point in his argument to the courts, and including Gravel might have only muddied the waters.
As far as which candidates should have been included, I think I would give current and former congresspersons and senators a bit more credibility than just your average Joe.
good one
"While Obama ... bared his vagina to the state of Nevada"
good chuckle from that one.
So, anyone got a 'splanation, in view of the abysmal performance given by these 2 since they discovered each other, why Democrats insist on voting for one of them instead one of the 2 GOOD candidates (Kucinich or Edwards)?
Why is it that americans are so rapt by the two having the slap fight that they cannot see their own salvation right next to them?
gawd americans are stoooopid!
_______"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
Schlub Culture
"So, anyone got a 'splanation, in view of the abysmal performance given by these 2 since they discovered each other, why Democrats insist on voting for one of them instead one of the 2 GOOD candidates (Kucinich or Edwards)?"
You know the answer to this question, jtree. The public's complete lack of concern for anything but the most vacuous in American life. Even with a war draining our treasury, family members dying in Iraq, nothing done to fix the mess caused by Katrina, and forced from their homes by a financial crisis about to shut off access to any more of the usurious lines of credit they now depend upon, what interests Americans most is the Super Bowl, wings and beer. The American public is best exemplified on the local news, the home in some rust belt blight burning because someone was drunk and forgot to turn off the space heater, the yahoo headed to "the game" sporting dual Steelers penants on his car, and the the weatherguy gesteculating about some warm front like a schmuck. It was different years ago. I feel sorry for anyone under 60.
it was a rhetorical question.
but nice lament.
except...you must not watch much teevee (smart guy), because the weather is now almost always done by some comely bunny type. You know, to keep the 18-42 male demographic.
And yes, the days of Cronkite and Huntley are loooooong gone.
_______"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
i don't think we the people,
i don't think we the people, even we the working class trailer trash people bedazzed by the wide screen teevee, are quite as stooopid as you and Lowell thingy would like to imagine.
When you point the finger of blame, look in a different direction - up, not doooown.
The last thing the corporo-fascist state wants is an informed citizenry. They bought the media long ago - even NPR works over time to shovel the shit and spin the propaganda. A progressive populist will never be allowed to present his ideas to the people or stir them up out of their overworked and underpaid misery or give them hope, because the Machine will go into overdrive to ridicule and sideline that person, warping and soundbiting their message till it's unrecognizable. And if the people persist, their votes can always be Diebolded, and if the candidate persists, he can always be Wellstoned.
Nuf said. No New Deal, just same old shit.
all true. all too true
we're stupid. we're trained stupid. we're kept stupid.
except... why is it that those of us here and at kos and huffington ... aren't stupid?
as many as 90% of americans "believe" in a personal, interventionist god and heaven or some such. a third believe in rapture. two thirds believe in the efficacy of prayer.
With that much skepticism being so thoroughly suppressed, is it any wonder how we're so goddamn stupid?
But, am I so exceptional that I haven't fallen for their horseshit (I watch a considerable amount of teevee, though selectively)? Did my parents succeed in raising a pensive kid where most only succeed in raising post-hypnotic drones? I cannot believe that I am that much better than the putz across the street. So why is he a fascist? And why does he have a willard sign in his yard? How could anyone be THAT stupid?
_______"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
Vote For Joey!
Hi Oryx,
I don't think anybody's done this to us, that's too facile. We're doing this and have done this to ourselves. I mean how can it possibly help when people see their political, economic and social solutions wrapped up in packages like Hitlery, Obama, McCain or Romney. Think about it. Some - if not most - actually consider bacteria of this kind as in some way inspiring! The imbecile enthusiasms expressed for them are the very measure of the schlub mentality that curses us. And as long as there's a bag of Cheese Toasties to munch or an infomercial in which to see ones life as modeled, it'll never change. In the final analysis, schlub culture is brought to its highest development with the kind of idiot that employs Joey Greco of Cheaters to help him find his way through life. One might even expect one of Greco's clients to appear in some intervention wearing a "Vote Democrat" teeshirt. People like this exploit themselves, and although pitiable, are more likely to benefit from a high fibre emetic than from sympathy. These are the folks that are giving you Hitlery and it doesn't make any difference if they're black or white, Latino or Anglo, man or woman, rich or poor. The problem is the state of mind not the gender or the ethnicity. I say vote for Joey Greco, he's probably the one person most closely in touch with schlub culture. And after you've finished voting you can always go and hock your mother's engagement ring at Vic's Jewelers. That'll cover the wings, the beer and cable subscription for a month.
bacteria infested brains of Trolls
You're onto something, John. The "schlub culture" is just too brain dead to perceive that Senator Hillary Clinton is someone the nation should be proud of. The "schlub culture" calls her insane things like "Hitlery" and thinks it's funny, because they have damaged brains as a result of some of the population getting high doses of heavy metals which our bodies don't yet know how to release. The brain tissue embedded with heavy metal deposits causes bacteria to florish around said deposit, which makes critical thinking nearly impossible. Also, of course, the Republican party's dedicated destruction of our once great education system for the last 35 years might have something to do with the fact that we're now a society of imbeciles. (Thanks, Ronnie Ray-gun.) PNAC has been grooming the country to be stupid unquestioning Christian Soldier automatons for their endless wars, or part of the huge bulging prison population that is groomed from birth to be imprisoned slave wage zombies. What a great laugh Likud Zionists must be getting over the coup.
_______Lené Wangmo
Please Sir! I Have A Question.
Is there some knowledgeable American who can explain to me why, following the complete disaster that was Bush, the exact same routine is being followed to elect another President. Wasn't George enough of a disaster for America, for the world?
It is obvious that the current political system which threw up Bush is a failure. It is obvious that the President has way too much power. It is obvious that big money, religious fundamentalists and political dynasties control American politics.
So why weren't radical changes made to stop the rot? If something's broke, don't you fix it?
_______David Grayling
why wasn't the rot fixed?
Because a lot of the operatives in the Democratic Party undoubtedly knew that someday there's be a candidate who knew how to use all that power and all that corporate money as skillfully as the Republicans do. And now they have one.
The only people crying are the voters who have been screwed out of a choice.
Screwing Voters Seems Popular!
America deserves better, MissGrizz. How come out of 300 million people, Hillary is a front-runner?
She couldn't even keep her husband in line so how is she going to run a complex nation?
_______David Grayling
Screwing Voters Seems Popular!
So any woman whose husband cheats on her is somehow guilty of some defect? Who knew there were so many defective woman undeserving of whatever station in life they may work to achieve.
Venomous tripe
You have no business writing about Hillary Clinton if you're so craven a creature as to compare her in any way to paranoid tricky Dicky. Hillary Clinton has truly been a victim of the most unfounded venomous tripe ever written or said about a person, and she certainly has a right to point out that fact particularly since there are many of us who wish to sort truth out from the character-assassinators.
You do more than err when assuming Hillary Clinton resembles paranoid nutball Nixon when she is merely being totally honest about being on the receiving end of underserved venomous tripe. Since she is not a liar and is not paranoid, as Nixon truly was—both liar and a paranoiac, it then becomes pertinent to examine what kind of person would care to characterize her so viciously as to equate her with the dark-souled sicko Nixon.
Hillary Clinton’s victimization from mindless hatred directed at her should make all Americans interested in justice, honesty, fairness, and equality be startled into recognizing that we do have a steak of psychosis running through the American psyche that finds it perversely tantalizing to scapegoat and vent on a powerful, highly intelligent, skilled progressive female politician, rather than respect her and honor her. It should give every American pause that we
Live in a culture where one out of three women are seriously abused, raped, assaulted. There seems to be an aspect of the American psyche that is arrested in a disturbed adolescent male stage of development that finds it extremely stressful and threatening to be in the presence of a great and powerful woman, and like a psychotic adolescent, feels compelled to smash her down in some way, hence the Hillary-Hate bandwagon, where the twisted adolescent male ego types and their female co-dependent cohorts hop on and start slinging the venomous tripe about Senator Hillary Clinton.
You, Mr. Taibbi, are not a journalist serving truth and insights for the benefit of your society. You are just another maladjusted bully boy, arrested in the adolescent male ego stage of personality development, erroneously believing clanging your brass balls brings you power as you feel your temporary rush in slamming a great lady. Those of us who sympathize with Hillary Clinton’s dilemma of being a dedicated public servant while also having to deal with the sick venomous tripe slingers, know the real liars when we read them. You are serving the dark side of the American psyche, not the side of our national character seeking wholesome light. You’re not nearly as cute and clever as you think you are.
_______Lené Wangmo
Yes he is.
Yes he is.
inauthentic Matt
Uh, no, defiancedemon, Matt is NAWT kyoot. Matt is merely a Hunter Thompson wannabe, riding on Hunter's gonzo stylistics and huffing a whiff of contact high from Hunter's gravitas and tireless search for truth amid the vile dissembling of politics. Matt is no more the real thing, the real Kyoot that was Hunter, than Barack is heir to the JFK dynasty.
Beating up on Hillary Clinton certainly takes no balls or truth to do so, since Newt and his Nutball Neocons have been at it slinging their American Heritage Foundation/Mellon-Scaife financed sh@# for 15 years, with scores of other bobble-headed punditutes keeping the hate alive. Anyone jumping on that chimp sh@t-slinging bandwagon, thinking they're adding to the public discourse gives evidence of only one thing that's certain--that they suffer some form of impaired twisted perspective that finds verbally aggressive sadism and attacks on Democrat leaders somehow self-satisfyingly pleasurable, much as the schoolyard bully likes pounding on others to deliver to himself a false notion of superiority. In Hillary's case, the hate-mongers seem to need to try to do what in psychology is called "leveling," which is a slanderous envy-motivated attempt to cut the more superior person down to the much smaller size of the
leveler. However, the only one being fooled is the leveler is the punkass leveler himself, and the likeminded trolls who get off on wicked gossip about a fine person whose fineness reflects to the Trolls what a tribe of Authoritarian-pawned fools they are, and what a pack of worthless stinking hyenas they run with.
Those of us who do not drink the Hillary-Hate koolaid, clearly see that the chumps on the Hate-Hillary shit-slinging bandwagon, are weak minded, pawned tools of the Machiavellian Authoritarians bent on destroying powerful effective experienced Liberal politicians. PNAC has moved in. Matt’s demented pairing of Hillary’s name with evil Tricky Dicky is the worst kind of cheap tabloid tactic to chain yank readers into taking on another dose of poisonous venomous lies, for the cheap thrill of it. All that Matt proves is when that he is a failed Hunter wannabe, a nasty-spirited pawn of the vilest faction of our soulless Catastrophe Capitalists in charge of propaganda delivery, and though momentarily he gets his kicks in kicking Hillary, he serves no purpose other than to further the Neocon agenda, which is to get Barack elected so the Swiftboat machine can eat him alive and finish Liberal Politics in America for good, or elect McInsane to bomb the planet to rubble so the Catastrope Capitalists can clean up once again while America dies.
I’d love to see just what kind of piece Matt could write were he to privately challenge himself to write as if his life depended on it, a brilliant convincing piece that would make the slander-poisoned public get off the collective imbecilic and wicked Hillary Hate bandwagon, feel ashamed for participating in the sh@t slinging,
and become vibrantly proud Hillary Clinton supporters with some great reasons to do so. I suggest a private challenge because of course to write a piece for publication that praises Hillary would make that huge bandwagon of shit slingers automatically attack Matt for not being one of them anymore. That would take REAL balls, the kind that Hunter Thompson had.
It might be worth your time, Matt, to think about just what really motivates Caroline and Ted Kennedy to endorse Barack. The dynasty making a move to throw the hat in again? Caroline as
V.P.? Bobby’s kids lining up. It’s rather interesting that Bill and Hillary Clinton are dismissed as political dynasties, like the Bush family, when really they are just two highly effective, intelligent, dedicated public servants, loved by the entire world, but interestingly, hated in their own country because of the effectiveness of the brainwashing delivered out of the Heritage Foundation character-assassination campaigns to destroy the two most powerful politicians whose perspectives are in direct opposition to PNAC. Why else bother to spend the 100M to take the Clintons down? Why now is American Heritage, et al, ponying up another 500M to take down the Clintons if Hillary is elected. The real story Hunter would be chasing is the irony of how the real solid good guy politicians we have are held up as wicked enemies, when nothing could be further from the truth. The People need to stand by them now, or PNAC will finish the job on the Clintons and on our nation once and for all. Stop playing for the Machiavellians, Matt. And as long as you do, you are NAWT KYOOT, even if “defiancedemon”
likes to think so. He gets his two widdo bwain cells rubbed together when Matt says hateful stuff about Hillary. Wooohoooo, demon of defiance gets his bullyboy rocks off on slandering, in an attempt to level, a powerful smart experienced female political leader
Lené Wangmo
I'm sure it was you that
I'm sure it was you that Woody Allen had in mind when he mentioned mental masturbation in one of his movies. Are you related to Andrea Dworkin, by any chance? Not that it matters...
Anyway, I've long sinced learn that the little piggy squeals loudest when it's favorite ox is being gored. Continue squealing, girlie. The rest of will laugh silently behind our sleeve as you do so.
Right you are. The
Right you are. The right-wing screech monkeys are just
pissed because their candidates are all losers that can
only bring up raygun's name to try to justify their
assinine positions. It's really impossible to try to
sell thir brand of bullshit to thinking prople. If their
philosophies are so good, why do they need 1200 plus radio stations to try to convince us that their way is better? Look around you people! Really see who is robbing you blind, lying to you and treating you like shit. It ain't the Democrats, people. It's those like
turdman bush; liar, fascist, thief, conspirator, flaming
sociopath and lunatic.
Vote to defeat all g.o.p. scum, all the time, every election.
Yes he is.
defiancedemon thinks Matt is cute?
Matt, Matt, Matt
So, exactly when did Hillary burglarize her opponents' doctors office, or campaign headquarters, etc.? Your allegations are disingenuous, and completely unsupported.
I don't think that RS is really such a good fit for you anymore. You should apply for a job over at National Review, or maybe Weekly Standard. Perhaps you could do some writing for Bill and Rush.
_______"Paranoia, the destroyer"
--Ray Davies--
Matt, Matt, Matt
here here – cynicism for the sake of cynicism - sees nothing - builds nothing - gives nothing - a sad sad nothingness with no where to go
Matt the BillO wannabe
Right on, JMadison!!
_______Lené Wangmo
hillary's tears
The crying incident was Hillary's own personal Checkers speech...
so right.
Jan 2 2016 - 9:45pm (0 comments)
Jan 2 2016 - 9:14am (2 comments)
Jan 2 2016 - 8:12am (0 comments)
Jan 1 2016 - 8:59am (1 comments)
Jan 1 2016 - 1:36am (1 comments)
Dec 30 2015 - 10:26am (10 comments)
- For Palin Junkies
by MizzGrizz
583 posts, 30310 views - Out of Circulation But Just Like Randy Quaid From ID4...."I'm Baaaach!"
by mewkitty
6 posts, 254 views - Your favorite SC screen name
by xxdr_zombiexx
77 posts, 6323 views - Nevada Boy Sleeps Through the Night After First Cannabis Oil Treatment
by mewkitty
18 posts, 873 views - The 11th Minute of the 11th Hour of the 11th Day & Section 60 ~ ~ ~
by SmokingMan
23 posts, 2734 views - Wingnut Museum: A Repository of the Craziest of the Cray-Cray
by mewkitty
12 posts, 991 views - Alaska court erupts in laughter as right-wing extremist asks to be deported to heaven
by xxdr_zombiexx
9 posts, 788 views
- Bill Cosby case should be resolved by a plea bargain
by Mason
0 comments - Jenner Recants
by Bob Patterson
0 comments - Lessons from Greece: The Saga Continiues...
by yellow
0 comments - The Procession of the Clowns
by GreyRaven
10 comments - Trump calls for a Muslim data base registry
by MissMarple
3 comments - Sophistication
by Gerard Pierce
0 comments - Fending off the Wolves - November 2015
by GreyRaven
0 comments - #BenCarsonWikipedia: Twitter roasts GOP presidential contender's difficulties with The Real World.
by xxdr_zombiexx
4 comments - THE MEANING OF LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING
by rene sonsmann
0 comments - Did anyone else watch the debate?
by MissMarple
9 comments - CARPE DIEM (SORT OF)
by rene sonsmann
1 comments - A QUESTION
by rene sonsmann
0 comments - Memory fails... trying to remember a name....
by mewkitty
6 comments - WISTFUL THINKING
by rene sonsmann
0 comments - "I'M SORRY", "I DON'T KNOW", "I MADE A MISTAKE"
by rene sonsmann
0 comments - What We Need: Disruptive President Trump
by Joel S. Hirschhorn
3 comments - A BRIEF HISTORY OF GEORGE DUBYA
by rene sonsmann
1 comments - Firefox's Lightbeam – the "Tracker Tracker" – Find Out Who's Spying on You
by AntiSpin
5 comments - This Is How Donald Trump Becomes the President of the United States.
by Madhoosier
1 comments - THE BEACH OF LIFE
by rene sonsmann
0 comments - P.N.A.C.
by rene sonsmann
0 comments - The Republican Presidential Debates, Round One
by Madhoosier
0 comments - T.R.’s New Nationalism and the Central Condition of Progress
by lifeamongtheordinary
0 comments - Serial Killers (for ALL the animals)
by Vi Ransel
1 comments - Short Story
by Vi Ransel
0 comments
The highest-rated threads (minimum ten votes):
- This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like
by David Corn
56 comments
39537 reads - Barking Mad
by Mike Whitney
28 comments
23227 reads - Police Spying in the Birthplace of the First Amendment
by Dave Lindorff
11 comments
12815 reads - Shame on Us All
by Robert Parry
44 comments
14861 reads - David Kuo's Book "Tempting Faith": The Author's Agenda, the Authoritarian Behavior He Reports, And the White House's Response
by John W. Dean
34 comments
61433 reads - Olbermann Special Commentary Nov. 1
by Barry Ragin
28 comments
25097 reads - Housing Bubble Smack-down
by Mike Whitney
30 comments
26285 reads - At Least We Aren't Nazis!
by Pamela Troy
10 comments
13047 reads - An Important Story You Didn't See
by Stephen Pizzo
34 comments
25588 reads - Why I Love Santa
by Cenk Uygur
9 comments
10396 reads - Delusions of victory
by Sidney Blumenthal
20 comments
12073 reads - The Public Housing Struggle in New Orleans: A Tale of Two Sisters
by Bill Quigley
3 comments
10189 reads - Saddam is Dead
by punkmonksf
34 comments
40542 reads - The 2006 WTF? Awards!
by Ed Naha
8 comments
11180 reads - Olbermann: Special comment about ‘sacrifice’
by sofazappa
9 comments
9453 reads
Blogs
Alan Bisbort
Alicublog
Americablog
Andrew Bard Schmookler
Atrios
Bad Attitudes
Barry Lando
Barry Yourgrau
Barbara O'Brien
Bartcop
Blog Report
Bob Geiger
Booman Tribune
BTC News
Chris Floyd
Cliff Schecter
Crooks and Liars
Culture Kitchen
Daily Kos
Dave Lindorff
David Corn
David Sirota
David Swanson
Demosthenes
Digby
Ed Naha
Ed Tant
Firedoglake
Greg Palast
Hal O'Boyle
James Wolcott
Jayne Lyn Stahl
Jesus' General
Joe Bageant
Josh Marshall
Len Hart
Liberal Oasis
Making Light
Media Is A Plural
My Left Wing
Pierre Tristam
PM Carpenter
Political Junkies
RJ Eskow
Riverbend
Roger Ailes
Rude Pundit
Russ Baker
Sadly, No
Scholars & Rouges
Scott Shuster
Seeing The Forest
Skippy
Stephen Elliott
Stephen Pizzo
Steve Gilliard
Susie Madrak
Ted Rall
Timothy Gatto
William Fisher
Worldwide Sawdust
Advocacy
Mesothelioma Treatment
News & Commentary
AlterNet
Antiwar.com
Black Agenda Report
Black Commentator
Buffalo Beast
BuzzFlash
Consortium News
Common Dreams
CounterPunch
Crisis Papers
Democratic Underground
Democrats.com
Dissident Voice
Drudge Retort
In These Times
The Huffington Post
MediaChannel
The Nation
The Progressive
The Washington Monthly
Scoop
TomPaine.com
Truthdig
Truthout
Virtual Citizens
Working For Change
Radio & TV
The Young Turks
Thom Hartmann
| 100 Most Recent Threads | Topics & Issues | Events | Polls | Chimp 1.0 Home | Top | About | Contact | Advertise | Shop | Donate
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use © 2011 Smirking Chimp Media bot trap |















The Media Blackout Worked!
By pointedly ignoring John Edwards, the narrative of the "Thrilla In Manila" has come to pass, and it's on to politics as usual. I hate it when it inevitably comes down to business. They dangle the carrot of real change in front of us, then yank it away in favor of the entrenched interests. Hillary? Barack? Who knows? Who cares?