The Clintons: A Theory

It is sort of interesting to (0.00 / 0)

think about... but I think if that scenario were to happen, I don't think HRC would find warm reception in 2012.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 18:33:03 PM CDT

I dismissed your theory out of hand, (4.00 / 1)

and then I saw this later in the day:

More McCain love from Bill

Yesterday, the ex-president once again spoke fondly of the presumptive Republican nominee:

   "We now have a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate, bipartisan, to do something about global warming and do more buildings like this," Clinton said, "because she and John McCain took reluctant Republicans all over the world and showed them how the planet was changing. She will work with anybody, go anywhere, do anything to move America forward."

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 21:26:02 PM CDT

The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton was (0.00 / 1)

bankrolled by the same people who backed the Bushes and who employed Hillary while she was at the Rose Law Firm.  Since Stephens Inc, Tyson Foods, Walmart and the Rockefellers prefer to conduct business as family enterprises or 'closely held' corporations, the totality of their interests are difficult to discover.  But, there's no question, for example, that NAFTA and the Council for the Americas were long-time David Rockefeller interests and that McLarty, Clinton's chief of staff, was more than a boyhood friend from Hope, nor that his transition to the Council for the Americas and the Kissinger Association was more than a fortuitous happenstance.
Hillary Clinton should have run as a Republican.  It would have been more honest.  
But then, honesty does not seem to be her strong suit.

We have a long tradition in this country of government serving as a transfer mechanism for turning public assets into private wealth.  The current Republican party is totally committed to that process; recent Democrats have been willing to distribute wealth a bit more broadly. That public officials should be tasked with carrying out specific responsibilities to promote the general welfare is a not yet well-established principle.  

Government that responds to the will of the people is only in its infancy.  After all, it's less than half a century since all citizens got to have a say.  The FOIA went into effect in 1967 and is still honored more in the breach than in compliance.  

Robert Parry's take on the Bush/Clinton decades is instructive.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:47:35 AM CDT

I'm troll rating (0.00 / 0)

I've tried to stay away from the presidential diaries, but this "Hillary should have run as a Republican" accompanied by one of Hannah's customary unproven conspiratorial rants degrades the conversation.

I will go back to musing about good political movies now.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:35:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

From the "Getting Started" Page (0.00 / 0)

On the other hand, if you feel that a comment was written whose sole purpose is to degrade the conversation or be intentionally abusive, you may choose to give it a 0 or Troll rating, a substantial number of which will cause the comment to be deleted. Note: Troll rating a comment simply because you disagree with it is considered ratings abuse and is grounds for banning the user.

I don't believe the "sole purpose" of hannah's post is to degrade the conversation or to be abusive. I've been troll rated because someone disagreed with me, or thought I posted incomplete information.

There are points in hannah's post with which some may disagree or have information to rebut them, which is fine. Others have wondered whether the Clintons, by showing McCain love recently, as in " Only McCain and Hillary have experience" or "Only McCain and Hillary love America" are not somehow helping the Republican cause.

We need to save troll ratings for real trolls, or really over the top, insulting comments IMHO.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:51:57 AM CDT

I found it to be just that (0.00 / 0)

It was over the top; it isn't just a case of disagreeing. If it has been the ordinary Hillary  bashing, I would have ignored it, like I have ignored the bashing for a while now; it was the Hillary bashing accompanied by Hannah making up conspiracies which, as usual, she does not include any cites for - whether from reputable or irreputable sources that made me post the troll rating. Enough already.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:02:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A history of deception-- (0.00 / 0)

Not a pretty picture

---

by: hannah @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:30:17 PM CDT

Keep digging that hole (0.00 / 0)

Hannah, what isn't pretty is seeing you try to prove your conspiracy theories by linking to a radical right wing blogger who has written that global warming is not real, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have helped terrorists, Bush was right about Iraq, and we should eliminate SHIP.
And the person interviewed in the link you provide? If you spend ten minutes perusing his web site, as I just did, you will see him attack Ted Kennedy for opposing Alito's nomination to the bench and Nancy Pelosi for going to Syria. He also supported Lieberman over Lamont, and has written a book about "The Crimes Of Camelot".  www.jzeifman.com.

If you want to criticize Hillary Clinton, go ahead, but you may want to rethink whether you want to use right wing and other whackos as your reference sources.

By the way, here is a 1996 review of Zeifman's book from the Washington Post - that I found in five minutes by googling:

Zeifman's theory goes something like this: John Doar, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum and other Kennedy loyalists investigating Nixon obstruct his impeachment "to cover up malfeasance in high office throughout the Cold War." The scheming starlets are abetted by Peter Rodino, a weak, corrupt chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is afraid that Nixon might expose his own Mafia ties. Rounding out the list of conspirators is Burke Marshall, Robert Kennedy's assistant attorney general, who orchestrates the bogus investigation in the hopes of keeping Nixon in office, which will, he believes, help Ted Kennedy win the White House. Using a variety of dubious legal strategies -- still with me? -- Doar and his co-conspirators do everything they can to avoid putting the president on trial, a strategy, they hope, that will prevent Nixon's lawyers from revealing the "crimes of Camelot."

Or, as another review I saw said, this is a great book for people who are worried about black helicopters and who think that the moon landing was faked.

If you had spent 15 minutes doing some minimal research, you would have found that this guy you are citing is a radical right wing blogger/"journalist", and that his interview is with a guy who appears to be nuts. Enough already.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:53:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not credible enough... (0.00 / 0)

Without a transcript or link to one from that speech I would have to say that this isn't very credible. MSNBC is on par with Faux News in misrepresenting and twisting the quotes of the democratic candidates. They have done it to Bill Clinton on numerous times.

Post a link to the transcript and I might change my mind. But so far I haven't seen anything on this speech.

Just saying (half the facts doesn't make it true),
Wynter

---

by: Wynter @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 13:36:21 PM CDT