User login

You DO NOT need to register to VIEW articles and comments. To add a comment you need to register. Registration is FREE!

Visit BuzzFlash on:

Facebook

and

MySpace

click here

See All The BuzzFlash Premiums

The Clinton Campaign Embraces the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to Launch Attacks on Obama

Submitted by mark karlin on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 11:31am.

EditorBlog

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

March 27, 2008

It's hard to feel so betrayed.

After ferociously defending the Clintons in the '90s against the vast right-wing conspiracy, we have seen them embrace the dangerous anti-democracy conspirators in order to attack Barack Obama. Time and time again since 2000, Senator Hillary Clinton has sought out and used the very people whom we defended her against -- and the evidence is damning.

One of the first overtures Senator Clinton made was to Rupert Murdoch, owner and creator of FOX News. Murdoch threw a fundraiser for her early on in her Senate foray and Clinton pursued a rapprochement with him with vigor.

In the 2008 campaign, the Clinton embrace of the right-wing conspiracy who we fought a pitched battle with in the '90s has been relentless -- and all with one goal in mind, to find common cause with them to attack Barack Obama. This is beyond shameful; it is a Shakespearean betrayal, something out of Othello or Macbeth.

BuzzFlash was the first Internet site, as far as we know, to point out the significance of where Senator Clinton tried to tamp down her Bosnia "sniper fire attack" lie (spoken on at least four occasions) with a one-week belated personal blast at Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama. What is most revealing is not the diversionary strategy, but that she did this at an editorial meeting at the Pittsburgh Star-Review. The Star-Review is owned by the infamous Richard Mellon Scaife, who was the largest financial backer of the infamous "Arkansas Project" that was the privately funded precursor to the Ken Starr impeachment efforts against Bill Clinton.

Subsequent photographs appear to show that Richard Mellon Scaife was seated next to Senator Clinton during the Tuesday editorial board session in which Clinton attempted to divert attention from her Bosnia whopper. It wasn't the first Clinton family rapprochement with Scaife. Bill Clinton had lunch with him a few months back, clearly as a way of attempting to woo him for Hillary's race in Pennsylvania and raise money for his library foundation (another "unvetted" list of contributors that is a potential minefield of conflicts of interest).

A lot of us shed a lot of sweat taking on Scaife as he poured money into the "Arkansas Project" in the early '90s, most notably coming up with "Troopergate" and Paula Jones. The Scaife-backed initiative was led by a long-time right-wing rag known as the American Spectator. Ted Olson was a key figure on the board who provided "oversight" (eventually there was a falling out over alleged financial improprieties on the part of the Spectator staff), while David Brock, before his political conversion, wrote hit jobs on the Clintons for the Spectator. It cannot be diminished as to the important impact that Scaife's financing and the American Spectator had on keeping trumped up allegations against the Clintons simmering until Jesse Helms was able to get Starr placed into the Independent Counsel's position.

You'd think that the Clintons would honor those who defended them by continuing to reject the tactics that nearly brought them down, and against which we all railed. But the noted and deeply respected journalist James Fallows penned a disgusted article the other day condemning the Hillary Clinton campaign for distributing an American Spectator hit job on Obama to the media to try and dirty up the Senator from Illinois. That's right, the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign, in two days, used the financier and trash paper of the right-wing conspiracy that pursued them in the '90s against Hillary's Democratic primary opponent -- and used them not against the right wing or McCain, but against a fellow Democrat.

Fallows denounces the malodorous stench of hypocrisy. The Clintons seemingly want us to defend them against the vast right-wing conspiracy, while they use their former foes to dirty up Barack Obama: "But if, as I assume is true based on Marc Ambinder's report, the Hillary Clinton campaign is circulating a hit job from the American Spectator, this is simply disgusting. (Marc has just confirmed to me that indeed the article came in an on-the-record email from Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign spokesman.)"

This is what Fallows concluded. "That the Clinton family would dignify the American Spectator, of all publications, is astonishing to anyone who was alive in the 1990s." That Hillary Clinton would team up with Richard Mellon Scaife and his vanity newspaper in Pittsburgh to besmirch Obama in order to put a brake on the growing damage generated by the exposure of her Bosnia "fairy tale" is unforgivable.

But there is more insidious use of the "right-wing conspiracy" to enhance Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Most BuzzFlash readers are aware that Clinton has received thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Republican votes, in Texas and Ohio as a result of a Rush Limbaugh "chaos" strategy to have her nominated because she would be easier for the Republicans to beat -- and she would turn out GOP voters in the November election to cast ballots "down ticket" for Republicans running for Congress, the Senate, State, City and County positions. Well, the day of the primary voting in Texas, who should appear on the Rush Limbaugh Show (albeit with a guest host) but Bill Clinton.

And let us not forget about how BuzzFlash documented the liaison relationship that the Hillary Clinton campaign had developed with the infamous Drudge Report (you know Matt, who leaked, among other Ken Starr tidbits, the semen-stained blue dress story during the impeachment period). And it was to Drudge that someone from the Clinton Campaign's staff or consultants leaked the photo image of Barack Obama in traditional African garb.

It's hard for many of the current supporters of the Hillary Clinton campaign who bonded strongly, as we did, in the '90s to realize how they have sold us out by using the right-wing conspiracy megaphone to smear fellow Democrats. Many Clinton advocates still are of the mindset that the Clintons are being relentlessly pursued by the Scaifes of the world.

Yes, the die-hard, rabid Hillary haters are out there in the media, but instead of raising the campaign to a level where we could define a new "frame" for battling with them, the Clinton campaign has joined forces with many of those key people that they ask us to defend them from.

That is a betrayal of the basest kind.

We, for one, will not defend those who mobilize the vast right-wing conspiracy when it suits their personal goals.

We are progressives. We are Democrats. We believe in decency and integrity.

You won't find us bailing ourselves out by teaming up against "the black man" with Richard Mellon Scaife, or the American Spectator, or Rush Limbaugh.

But the Clinton campaign will, and then ask us to defend them from the very same people.

Maybe a sucker is born every minute, but we're not going to be one of them.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

BuzzFlash Editor's Afternote:

From the right wing National Review, an item by one Byron York:

Hell Has Officially Frozen Over [Byron York]

It caught my eye as a flash on Brit Hume a few moments ago, but here is a photo from Hillary Clinton's visit today to the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. In this picture, she is seen talking to none other than Richard Mellon Scaife, the owner of the paper and the man who once said that the death of Vincent Foster was the "Rosetta stone" of the Bill Clinton administration. (He also funded the so-called "Arkansas Project" at The American Spectator.) We've heard reports of a rapprochement between Scaife and the Clintons of late, and the Pennsylvania primary is fast approaching, but this is still a pretty striking picture.

Oh yeah. James Fallows

Submitted by Swift2 on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 12:37pm.

Remember him? He's the guy who wrote that torrured, wrong, and stupid book about the Whitewater "scandal." A leading light in the enabling of the right-wing attacks in the '90s. Nothing he said turned out to be true. I'm sure you attacked him then, Mark. Now you accept what he says, because he's reliably anti-Clinton.

When Obama meets with whoever, it's reaching out and bipartisanship. You might celebrate the fact that Hillary has gotten a respectful hearing from a man who used to hate her. Kind of a triumph, no? But no, that's not the interpretation that fair-weather friends take, because it doesn't suit their leader.

You brought up the word

Submitted by Swift2 on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 12:31pm.

And it is "betrayal". Of the Clintons by their former supporters, like you.

Understand, you can vote for whoever you want. There are definitely cases to make for and against Obama, Clinton, or any other politician. But what the Obama campaign has done is create a bunch of rabid believers and demonizers. Hillary, in pushing back against the incessant calls for her to withdraw before the primaries are over -- because supposedly she's hurting the party -- has cited the late California primary several times. You know, in politics, that anything can happen? Look at the past. When has there been such a cry that everybody else get out of the race? I don't remember a single time. Remember Howard Dean? The party establishment, and John Kerry, did him in by beating him in Iowa and New Hampshire. He was sunk. He couldn't raise money any more. He dropped out. Hillary CAN raise money. She's still winning races, some by a lot. Why should she withdraw? Because Buzzflash says so? Who the hell are you?

So she mentioned Bobby, as an illustration of the kinds of unexpected twists and turns. She had mentioned it in the pages of TIME in March. The meaning wasn't evident to anybody then. When did it become an affront against decency and the American Way? When the Obama campaign put out a press release, and DRUDGE agreed, the remark referred to Obama! (Just like Drudge and the Obama campaign asserted -- with no evidence -- that Hillary had fed Drudge the picture of Obama in African costume. Right. Believe Drudge, that's a good way of being bipartisan.)

After Obama's campaign defined the remark as an evil attack on Obama, all his minions went crazy. Dowd's always crazy. Matthews, and Keith Olbermann, all on their high horses in outrage... as if on cue. Can you say, "Left-Wing Noise Machine"? Is it anymore truthful that the right-wing noise machine? Some people were hinting darkly that Hillary would have Obama killed. Now, that's evil and crazy.

Let me tell another story. During Paul Wellstone's first run for the Senate, he was late in the campaign and 20 points behind. A reporter is sent to cover the loser. But he finds the HQ buzzing and enthusiastic. "But you're 20 points down!" Wellstone smiled and said, "Anything can happen, if you keep working. Lightning can strike." A few days later, his opponent put out a stupid letter that became a scandal, and Wellstone won. Because he was ready to win. Anybody who wants any different kind of politician wants to lose. Give me the Happy Warrior anytime.

Understand, I'll be perfectly happy with Obama, though he's my second choice. But the Outrage Twits need to just quiet down. You're going to turn this election into a joke: "The Persecution and Assassination of Hillary Clinton Performed by the Inmates of Blogistan and Directed by the Marquise de Huffington." Come on, ease up. You've won. Half of all the Democrats, or nearly, have voted for Hillary. Time to give her some respect and stop believing everything you write. It's bad for the party, and it's bad for your liver.

The Clintons

Submitted by doctoral on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 7:01pm.

Your Editorial is full of high-drama, untrue crap.

Money Money Money

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 5:49pm.

OK, here are some data, as of March 20, 2008 from
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008

(I can't seem to format the table correctly. First there's the list of candidates.
The %'s reading across are for donors giving $200 or less, more than $2300,
and more than $4600.)

Clinton 23% 51% 24%
Obama 40% 32% 6%
McCain 24% 46% 11%

I don't know why these categories were chosen, but it's obvious that Obama has
74% more small donors than Clinton whereas she has 4 times the percentage of
donors over $4600.
The footnote says these are data from individual donors and do not include PACs.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

Hi Collen,You are right

Submitted by Thomas M on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:19pm.

Hi Collen, You are right about Obama having many more small donors than Clinton. My point is that he claims he is not taking money from Lobbyists. When you bundle money, techinally you can say that. But it is not really true. Many, many lobbyists are in the bundled money donations. Hillary does it too. Even John Edwards. He had big time money behind him from the trial Lawyers. They lobby Congress a whole bunch. If you think about it, Obamas campaign said they were spending a million dollars a day, no way you can do that with small donors. At 109.00 average small donor, and they claim they have hit 1 million donors, that's 109 million dollars. That would last him a little over 3 months. There's stuff all over the internet if you look hard enough. Whether Obama does it, or Hillary does it, Our White house is bought every election. This is not a reason to not vote for him, but maybe a reason not to believe everything Politicians say. It's a shame our elections are run on big money. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/NATION/579478775/1001technically http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/obama_now_has_300plus_bundlers.html

That works only if I and all the other donors give only once

Submitted by lastbastionofreason on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 9:00pm.

Many of us are set up to give small amounts each and every month. So go figure that! And then come back and tell me that Senator Obama is lying to us. Some months, I and others can give more. Like when we receive our taxes return checks, many of us will donate much or all of that to Senator Obama. Go read about how he is raising money. It's on his site. Do the math when you have all the information and then post.

The influence of money is pernicious

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 5:14pm.

Thomas M

I have no doubt that Obama has a lot of big donors and most of them cannot be disinterested rich people who just want to give their money to him. Of course there are explicit or implicit quids pro quo. It just looks like from the data that Clinton has fewer donors and more of them give more money than is the case for Obama.

I thought the text of the letter some of the "big Democratic donors" wrote to Pelosi was outrageous. I understood them to be saying, "Hey, lookee here, we give you (the Party) a lot of money and if you don't let the superdelegates go for Clinton we're going to be p oed."

Here's the text as it was posted on Alternet.

"March 26, 2008

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

“I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Sincerely,

Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn Forester de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay and Tracy Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner"
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80642/

I think it would be good for democracy and Democrats if these kind of donors lose influence. They seem to think they should push the interests of the voters to one side.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

Money, Money, Money!

Submitted by Thomas M on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 3:32pm.

I have noticed some comments here, about Obama only taking donations from small donors. I myself have heard him many times say that. Well folks because he says it, doesn't mean it's true. He's a Politician just like most of them. I assume you all have computers since you're posting here. Why not use your computers to investigate what's fact & what's fiction. The point of his campaign (as someone said) is only taking money from small donors. Well that's a lie! This site below will point that out. If you investigate deeper, there are other sites that will show you, it is much worse than this one points out. If you don't know what bundling donors is, it's just a form of money laundering. We are electing a President, I would assume we wouldn't believe & pass on as fact, anything either candidate would say. And before you come back with some Hillary bashing, she has at least said she has taken money from Lobbyists. As for me, I'm still trying to investigate how many shots were fired on her by that sniper. http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/

Number of donors and average donation per donor

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 4:45pm.

Thomas -

That website has no information, or none that I could find, on the total number of donors per candidate. The point I made, or rather posted what I read or saw on TV, was that the average
donation to the Obama campaign was $109 and that he had a much greater number of donors than Clinton. This is not the same as asserting that he has ONLY small donors. If you know where to get this information many of us would be glad to check it out.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

Kicking This Defeatist Attitude

Submitted by crackerjack on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 1:33pm.

The what went or is going wrong and who's to blame mixed in with the he says she says and the horse race. What instead? We elect a president who ends the Iraq War, negotiates with Iran plus turning things around here at home. And then what sort of world? It'll be up to us.

Buzzflash has been taken over by Republicans

Submitted by jan2008 on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 11:33am.

I can't tell Obama supporters from Republicans. If Obama supporters really believe he will win the nomination they better start thinking more about November. Do they really think Hillary supporters will vote for him and will all the Republicans who voted for him in the primaries still support him in November? If Obama gets the nomination McCain will win.

horseshit

Submitted by elbajoeste on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 6:43pm.

If Obama gets the nomination he will win. Dear jan2008 who is only saying what she thinks will help 'the party'... Put this in your feedbag and eat it. As for Dickipedia, Bill is busy using his on all of us. Tell me, again, o wise jan2008, what did Bill and Hill ever do for us? One more time please for those of us who always thought the two of them were a peach of a pair... out for themselves. I need help. I can't see the Grand Illusion.

Post News

Submitted by Copperhead on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 11:01am.

I have not made up my mind who I would rather see as the Democratic nominee, but I will vote for either Obama or Clinton. However, I do feel that Buzzflash has become repetitious to the point of just not being interesting anymore. I have been an avid Buzzflash reader and have circulated dozens of breaking stories that you have posted in the past. Now I regularly delete your emails as they are full of the same old thing; bash Hillary over the same items. Whether she did certain things or not, I get sick of reading the same thing over and over and over again. Try to post some news, please.

WHY I WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE TO BUZZFLASH

Submitted by BBF on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 9:56am.

Your continual Hillary Clinton bashing. Talk about feeling betrayed. I agree with many of your previous supporters in that I also feel betrayed by BUZZFLASH.

I will donate a hundred dollars a bash,

Submitted by elbajoeste on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 7:49pm.

What else is there to do when the bashee is so destructively arrogant and intransigent? Nada. Bash away till they go away, Seems fair to me. So, tell me o wise and betrayed one...just who is betraying who? Hill and Bill. We know them now like we never will.

After the "Kitchen Sink" Strategy

Submitted by wisdom0055 on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 4:15pm.

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. The "Kitchen Sink Strategy" did not work. Now they have decided to use the "nuclear option". They are preparing to completely destroy Senator Obama, his entourage and his supporters. They've already attacked governor Richardson by calling him "Judas". Also, twenty of Hillary big donors have threatened Speaker Pelosi and plan to withdraw future contributions to DNC. Democrats all over the country must all repudiate the Clintons. Democrats in PA must massively vote for Senator Obama to send a message to the Clintons that we can't allow them to destroy our party.

Bill and Hillary are a competent team but

Submitted by anagitator on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 2:05pm.

There's no doubt that the Clinton's are a smart team and would be far superior to what we currently have in the Whitehouse. However, pause for a moment to imagine what might have been had Bill Clinton simply behaved responsibly instead of creating a situation where he was pushed into lying about having sex with that woman. What would have been the outcome of Al Gore's election? Would he have been elected by a landslide and would we currently be in Iraq? The Clintons have had great opportunity to affect our lives and they have done some positive things, but I don't see where we owe them anything.

We owe them just what they're getting. Outrage and disgust.

Submitted by elbajoeste on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 7:55pm.

After that...we'll all feel a lot better being finally done with them. Barack Obama is a real mensch and will bring us back together after all this sturm and drang.

Scaife

Submitted by Casam on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 2:01pm.

Do you think it's possible that Scaife has something big on Hillary Rodman or Bill Clinton that he was going to print and she was blackmailed into doing the interview? Not defending her because I think she would sink that low without a threat but just wondering. Leahy thinks she should concede and Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania endorsed Obama. Lovely.

Bill Clinton on Rush Limbaugh show

Submitted by felinetta on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 1:52pm.

Just to add insult to injury what the hell was Bill Clinton up to when he was on the Rush Limbaugh show on the day of the Texas and Ohio primaries? They are absolutely pathetic!

He was never on the Limbaugh show ...

Submitted by Yman on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 2:51pm.

A local Texas host (Mark Davis) took a pre-recorded, canned "interview" and replayed it when he acted as a guest host for Limbaugh. See my post below for details and links.

Rush Limbaugh

Submitted by dbaragona on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 3:29pm.

Good for you, Yman..Mark Davis interviewed Bill Clinton, then later on when he was subbing as host for Rush Limbaugh, played the tape...I can understand felnetta getting the facts wrong, but you would have thought Buzzflash would have come to Hillary's defense...Yeah, right...

Rush Limbaugh

Submitted by Thomas M on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 4:32pm.

This was a telephone interview with Mark Davis in Dallas, Tx. Davis then played the tape when subbing for Limbaugh later on in the day. When I googled this I could not believe the pages & pages of articles, blogs & posts proclaiming Bill Clinton was on the Rush Limbaugh show. The hatred & rush to judgement for the Clintons by some, is amazing!!! If you listen to the interview, I don't know how anyone can hate him. He made a terrible judgment thing with Monica & I whole hearty agree with everybody on that. But to try & destroy his whole Presidency as meaningless & worthless is really over the top. History will show he gave us some of the best times this country has ever known. Copy & paste the link so you can know the truth about the interview. http://rope.wbap.com/audio/clinton_interview.mp3

Not even a real interview with Davis ...

Submitted by Yman on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 4:40pm.

Read my post below. Essentially, Clinton sent out a pre-recorded tape of statements supporting Hillary to a bunch of local radio stations in Texas (very common for campaigns and in advertising). The host then comes up with questions to make it sound like they're getting to interview the ex-President, and splices together an interview. Davis took it and replayed it on Limbaugh's show.

Not that facts matter with the Clinton haters.

Just one of many ...

Submitted by Yman on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 3:56pm.

... lies about the Clintons that have been eagerly gobbled up by the Clinton haters. As for BF ... they're a lost cause at this point........ reduced to grabbing propoganda from Drudge, Newsmax and Dailykos. Try Talkleft, Bartcop, Taylormarsh or Noquarter for a touch of sanity.

How the Clintons betrayed us.

Submitted by andyod on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 1:42pm.

I just love the use of the word "us". It seems to me that we betrayed the Clintons.

Grow...

Submitted by marlow on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 3:25pm.

...up.

The church in politics in the US

Submitted by jbloggz on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 1:29pm.

jbloggz Is'nt it about time that the church in the US and it's members get back to the spiritual aspect and leave politics alone? Who cares what these wasters who punt out their ridiculous views from the comfort of their pulpits, have to say. None live in the real world, except that they like to spend money, or in some cases abuse children. Do you care about them? Well.. if you do, don't go on about Islamics, because their fundementalist rhetoric is no different. In the UK churches are closing down, some used as climbing frames, there was a time when the church spoke everyone HAD to listen. But not any more. People have got other things on their mind, like survival. So grow up and get real.

Yes, but the First Lady

Submitted by republicanSScareme on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 2:31am.

Yes, but the First Lady insisted it was not real sex.

Thanks, Buzzflash...

Submitted by marlow on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 10:09pm.

...for sticking to your guns. There is no other word than betrayal to describe Hillary's actions. I wish I had a five-spot for every time I went toe-to-toe with the reichwingnuts on sites like this, many times defending Clinton against the kind of crackpot charges that Scaife would have reveled in. Appearances with Rush? Interviews with Richard? Fundraisers with Rupert? Are you fucking kidding me?? Thank GOD a few dems can recognize that the warm yellow liquid running down their backs is NOT rain.

Right wing-left wing

Submitted by andyod on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 1:47pm.

Frankly I don't see much difference between the hatred spewed from either side.

Answer to a Prayer?

Submitted by i2x4i on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 7:06pm.

I wonder if Richard Mellon Scaife, Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch or any of the other "surprising" bedfellows of the Clintons are prayer buddies in the secretive Fellowship headed by Douglas Coe? Is Bill also a cell member? How about Ted Olsen and Ken Starr?

They're crap

Submitted by bettysdad on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 4:47pm.

When I read, a few months ago, that Bill had an over 2 hour meeting with Scaife, it confirmed my belief that they are simply players. They want power and the ability to hang with rich people. That's all. Neither has any hard and fast beliefs about America, and will say and do whatever it takes. Let's send them both back to some outhouse in the Ozarks, never to be heard from again.

America cannot afford another lying president

Submitted by deepseas on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 4:50pm.

Every 4-year election for the past 30 years, I have carefully analyzed the agenda and platform of the candidates, regardless of their party. Why? Because I vote for the person -- not their looks, race, status, how Aunt Vera said to vote or popularity. I learned some time ago candidates will switch to the party that seems favorable at the time, or - as in the case of Lieberman - betray their party altogether, as a wolf in sheeps clothing. In this case, I think Hillary has switched to the dark side.

So this year was no different. In doing my homework, I found:

McCain was definitely out: he supports the war - indefinitely. This illegal, tragedy of a war that has killed thousands of our soldiers, thousands of innocent Iraqis, trashed their country and crashed our economy. Some 70,000 US soldiers deaths and over 1 million disabilities are attributed to the nuclear waste exploded in Iraq. This fallout is traveling worldwide. Could this be the reason the bees, bats and other animals are disappearing rapidly? We're next. No, no, no. McCain is out. Not another Bush.

Clinton on the other hand "says" she wants out of Iraq, yet she voted for it. She says she didn't support NAFTA, but the facts clearly show she did - in a big way. She said she avoided bombs in Bosnia, but she has simply told another lie. Like the little boy in the fairy tale who kept crying "wolf," I don't know when she is telling the truth. No, no. no. Not another Bush.

Obama seems to be the best candidate. He is the only one out of the 3 who never supported the war. He had the foresight to know this war would be self-destructive for the US, it would bog us down, cost an incredible amount of money, blood and our international standing. He was right: this war is a horrible failure. He also understands America is less safe. Not only from foreign terrorists created by Bush, but from the anti-American policies of Bush (who is a terrorist himself) that have all but wiped out the middle class. We are a nation of 2% wealthy and 80% poor. He also understands the deeper problems of America and has fresh, realistic solutions that will protect the citizens, rather than favor big business and lobbyists.

While the majority of blacks support Obama, they represent only 12.4% of the population. It's interesting that the majority supporting Obama are white, educated and men. That means the majority against Obama are ignorant, uneducated whites - the very people who are being hurt greatly by the Bush policies. By the way, just because you have a job, home and an SUV, doesn't mean you are middle class. If you don't have a 3-6 month savings in case of emergency, you are living paycheck to paycheck...one paycheck away from broke...and are poor.

If America is to survive the disastrous actions of Bush that have bankrupt our ancestors for years to come - and created monsters of us all - we need to educate the masses on how to discern who are the honest candidates, and how to weed through smoke and mirrors propaganda by the complicit media, republican party and big business.

We also need to look within, check our egos, realign our priorities, appreciate what we have, protect what is left, live a simpler life and do no more damage to the planet and humanity. We've never been here before, and we might not get a chance to return.

Reverend Wright had it wrong when he said, "God damn America."

He should have said, "America has damned itself."

http://premiere.whatcounts.com/t?ctl=162A3B4:D7BF19D19B6B31B4C5B61F884DCADF36EDC3615173C7E546&

ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23726367#23726367

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/03/21/02286.html

It is what it is

Submitted by phred42 on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 4:40pm.

Isn't it interesting that when you simply report what Hillary had done - to her cult members - you are trashing her. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that Hillary would rather see McCain win in November than Obama. She is doing everything she can to make that happen. After Hagel's appearances on CNN today suggesting a third party and A Bi-partisan Ticket in November - I expect to see Hillary take the final step and announce that she is running with McCain. The Adults in the Democratic Party (if there are any left) need to either get her under control or kick her OUT of the Party. ASAP!

Why not change the name?

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 2:10pm.

Have you considered changing the name of Buzzflash to Hillarytrash? This seems to be your new mission. I have had Buzzflash as my home page for quite some time because you used to post links to news articles that were of interest to me. And I have supported you as best I could (on a fixed Social Security income) by buying books and other items in your shop. This new trend you have taken of channeling Karl Rove to attack a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination ad infinitum is truly disturbing. Have you, at long last no decency, sir? Will you shill for McCain if Clinton is the nominee? The damage you have done is immeasurable. The Gallup Daily tracking poll shows that the race is still on.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105724/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-48-Clinton-44.aspx

Either candidate can win in Denver. Obama is ahead by a mere 167 delegates, and there are more than 650 delegates yet to me named -- not to mention 800 super delegates. Look how close the race is today after months of a shrill dirt campaign from all the progressive/liberal blogs against Clinton, balanced by nothing but boosterism for Obama. Big whoop! The 4% point spread between them is statistically insignificant.

elbajoeste

Submitted by elbajoeste on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 3:08am.

who...who...who...was it that STARTED the dirt? who...who...who was it that PERPETUATED the dirt? who...who...who is it that has THRIVED on dirt? Obama tried to maintain the 'high road' but when everything coming from Dirty Hillary was racism and dirty innuendo (better in her endo that yours), then just who can take the 'credit'. Show me ONE filty bomb that was dropped by Obama without his having to duck a Clinton doody bomb. When you sit down with pigs.....

Addicted to denial

Submitted by askolnick on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 3:43pm.

It's hard for truth tellers to please anyone who is so desperately addicted to denial. RobertJones would not be pleased unless Buzzflash swears off telling the truth about the Clintons and their party-wrecking fight for the Democratic nomination.

"Obama is ahead by a mere 167 delegates."

"Look how close the race is today..."

"The 4% point spread between them is statistically insignificant."

To make such ridiculous statements, Robert continues to deny what virtually everybody has already recognized: Obama's delegate lead is all but insurmountable. Clinton's only remaining hope is to convince enough superdelegates Obama is unelectable -- using every dirty trick in Karl Rove's detestable book.

And on top of all the denial, Robert accuses Clinton's critics of "channeling Karl Rove."

Now that's one real foul mixture of chutzpah and denial.

Ignorance and Venom: The Media's Deeply Ingrained Sexism

Submitted by BBF on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 10:05am.

http://www.now.org/news/note/021408.html?printable

NOW

Ignorance and Venom: The Media's Deeply Ingrained Sexism

Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy

February 14, 2008

My email runneth over. I can't tell you how many people have emailed or called me, outraged by the sorry display of sexism in the media these days. Much of this venom is currently directed at one woman -- Sen. Hillary Clinton -- though as we have pointed out before, no woman in the public eye, from Nancy Pelosi to Michelle Obama, is exempt.

For the first time in our nation's history, the idea of a woman president is no longer limited to the fantasy world of TV or movies. Possibility could become reality this November, and some folks are just having a hard time dealing with it. That many of those people have high-profile jobs at major news outlets is a cryin' shame.

We've been down this road before –- yes, NOW called out the media's bad behavior several times last year, and thousands of women and men demonstrated their agreement by signing our petition demanding serious and fair election coverage. Well, we're barely into 2008, and already we have plenty of fresh examples of the media's failure to clean up its act.

The press have been brutal to Clinton, no doubt about it. Whether consciously or not, too many reporters, commentators, pundits and the like appear unable to critique Hillary Clinton without dusting off their favorite sexist clichés, stereotypes and insults. Some of these remarks seem mild, while others are offensive and truly outrageous. Taken together, they create an environment of hostility toward all women, not just Senator Clinton. At this moment it feels like she is a stand-in for every woman who has ever tried to get ahead and be taken seriously by the powers that be.

There are four common themes in media coverage of Clinton's candidacy:

First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based grading system. The media evaluate how she looks, dresses, talks, laughs and even claps. She is held to double standards familiar to working women. A man demonstrates toughness and strength; a woman who behaves similarly is called icy and rigid. His behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness. He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative. He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nit-picky. He thinks through all the options before charting a course; she is calculating. Familiar?

Second, our society still has not come to terms with ambition in women -- it is suspect. Clinton is frequently charged with doing or saying anything to win. But I think it has an extra sharp anti-woman overtone as it is used against Hillary. In other words, everything Clinton does to win the election -- strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and contrasting -- is interpreted as calculating, fake or just plain evil. But when a man campaigns hard, refusing to cede an inch, they call it . . . running for office!

Third, Clinton is presumed to be where she is today because of her husband, Bill. The fact that Clinton has a famous former president for a husband is used to discredit her own achievements and to imply that maybe she couldn't have made it on her own. I’m trying to remember if any of these commentators implied that George W. Bush shouldn't be taken seriously as a candidate because his father had been president. Or that people shouldn't vote for a certain male candidate because he clearly got a leg up from his powerful family's money and legacy? Or, say, from the advantages bestowed by his wife's fortune? Who's to say that if Hillary had taken the fast-track first, instead of Bill, she wouldn't have risen to the top before him?

Finally, when all else fails, belittle the voters. Women voters are irrational and biased, and voting only on the basis of gender, the press are happy to intimate (at least about the women who are voting for Hillary), and they not so subtly imply that all voters are stupid and shallow. When the pundits try to mind-read the general public to guess why they cast their ballots one way or another, they often conclude that voters make decisions based on the same superficial traits that fascinate the talking-heads themselves -- like who seems "comfortable in their own skin" or who strikes them as annoyingly nerdy.

Hillary still has time to redeem herself

Submitted by cagey on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 1:38pm.

This picture is so sad, for Hillary, for the Democratic party, and for the electoral process. I think Hillary was so tormented for so long by the Right that something inside of her died, and by being forced to be so strong and not show any vulnerability she has become hardened and out of touch with her emotions. It seems to be an obsession now to win the presidency, and she is blindly following that obsession wherever it leads. What's sad is that deep down, like all of us, she has an emotional life, and she's shutting it down or compromising it to win. But this time it's only hurting her and her party. But there's always redemption, and if Hillary can somehow see that she's on a path of destruction and regain some of her original idealism, she can turn this thing around and become a true hero. She can withdraw from the race, support Obama, work for him if he's elected, accomplish some of her long-held progressive ideals, regain herself, and put the ghosts of her past behind her.

Maybe Obama should withdraw

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 3:18pm.

The tracking poll for March showed Clinton ahead (49-42%) just 10 days ago.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105724/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-48-Clinton-44.aspx

Did Obama consider withdrawing at that point? Did you post on any blog that he should resign and just let her have it? Try to grow up and realize that politics is a contact sport -- and both sides are playing it. Do you see any Clinton supporters on these websites trashing Obama viciously on a daily basis. You idealistic and unrealistic Obama cult supporters need to get a grip. It ain't over yet. There are still more than 650 delegates to be chosen and 800 super delegates to be heard from.

And don't assume that because I don't support Obama that I must support Clinton. That is a Rethuglican tactic to avoid hearing the truth.

Warning! Republican Troll Crossing

Submitted by askolnick on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 3:56pm.

Robert the Troll asks:

"Did Obama consider withdrawing at that point? Did you post on any blog that he should resign and just let her have it?"

Why would the candidate who is so far ahead in delegates won, popular vote, states won, money raised, and number of Americans who gave small contributions, withdraw? Now this is what I would call a classic Troll argument.

He asks: "Do you see any Clinton supporters on these websites trashing Obama viciously on a daily basis."

Not on a daily basis. Buzzflash is a progressive web site. When the neo-cons and Repugs come here, they get their big elephant asses kicked and they crawl off to lick their wounds.

Finally, he says: "And don't assume that because I don't support Obama that I must support Clinton."

Not a chance. I long ago assumed you're a Repugnican Troll. You haven't posted anything since to change my mind.

change your mind ???

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 4:11pm.

It is clear from the fact that you never post anything that makes any sense that you don't have a mind to change, assholenick. I suggest that you seek psychiatric help at once before you hurt yourself or someone else. I know you are out of work and poor, but help is available even to someone of your low position.

it's not about polls

Submitted by cagey on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 3:48pm.

Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote and everything I've read and heard concludes that it's mathmatically impossible for Clinton to win UNLESS she games the PLEDGED delegates and superdelegates and/or wins by overwhelming margins in the remaining primaries. Why would the frontrunner withdraw?

facts

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 4:20pm.

Regardless of the misinformation that rules the conventional wisdom, there are 650 delegates yet to be chosen and 800 super delegate yet to be heard from. That totals more than 1450 delegates still out there. Obama is ahead by 167 delegates and about 2% of the popular so far. You do the math. In mid-March (10 days ago), when everyone was saying Hillary should withdraw, she was ahead in the pols 49-42%. The race is still on -- until mid-June. If you can't stand democracy, go watch baseball until it is over. But, quit making pronouncements when you don't know what you are talking about, please. And, I don't think anyone should withdraw. Let the voters in the ten remaining states have their say. No one can win in Denver unless someone changes their vote to make that happen.

lies and twisted arguments...

Submitted by askolnick on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 8:00am.

...of a dedicated troll.

"You do the math," RobertJones says.

We have done the math as had EVERY political analyst in every political party and in every news medium and we all agree that it adds up to Hillary Clinton's almost certain defeat when all the primaries are over in June.

Then the troll says, "No one can win in Denver unless someone changes their vote to make that happen."

That's nonsense. If Obama just received HALF of all remaining pledged delegates and undeclared superdelegates, he would easily win the nomination.

Obama now needs 363 more delegates to become the nominee. About 600 delegates will be decided in the remaining contests and 247 superdelegates have not yet declared. No one has to change his or her vote for Obama to end this. If half of the remaining delegates go to Obama, he wins with delegates to spare. This troll is truly a shameless one.

"Let the voters in the ten remaining states have their say," he then demands, seeking cover behind a straw man argument.

No one wants to stop the voters in the remaining 10 contests from voting and expressing their choice. But one of the favorite tools of trolls is the straw man argument.

Whether or not Hillary agrees to halt her Democratic party smashing, it won't stop the remaining primaries. The troll knows that. But a troll does what ever it takes to be a troll.

"Robert Jones" is off his meds.

Submitted by elbajoeste on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 3:14am.

Whatever happend to Truth?

Can we have these discussions without the hostility?

Submitted by cagey on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 4:39pm.

and there's no baseball on yet where I live

Hostility?

Submitted by robertjones2001 on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 5:03pm.

What hostility? Is suggesting that you get involved in something other than politics until the primary season has run its course a bad thing? Do you interpret that as hostility?

Reply to Cagey

Submitted by Leslie DeVane on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 3:13pm.

I love the view that Hillary, poor old thing, should just step aside. There are still states left to vote and votes that were not counted as in my home state of Florida. I guess the leaders of the Democratic Party are just upset that the golden boy did not put it away on Super Tuesday which is generally what happens because the leader is already established by Iowa and NH and by Super Tuesday everyone else just joins the conga line. Well this year we have a real contest and I think every vote should be cast and counted before we annoint someone and I guess this is really disturbing to some people. The idea of a democratic process, oh my, how awful. What are you so afraid of? Something bad may knock Obama out of the race like every vote being counted. I think the pile on and bashing of Hillary should stop. The fact is that everyone should have a say in who the nominee is before the campaign is shut down and all this talk of intervention is ludicrous. I think all this civil war in the party talk is an attempt to shut out and disenfrancise the people that have yet to cast their vote and should not be allowed to happen. I have seen a lot of campaigns and they all have to run their course and this should be allowed to happen. It is healthy to have discourse and who knows what events could happen between now and the convention that could change things. Democracy is not always neat and tidy.

Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

User login

The Clinton Campaign Embraces the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to Launch Attacks on Obama

Navigation

Search

Syndicate

BuzzFlash on Twitter