Posted on 02/22/2007 10:24:55 AM PST by Mia T
So right on! When I hear Hillary decry "the politics of personal destruction", I always laugh.
Haven't check out the NYPost article, but note that they labeled her 'THE WRONGED WOMAN.'
In other words... 'THE VICTIM,' which makes one wonder about the Post's agenda.... --me
As Clinton Runs, Some Old Foes Stay on Sideline By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, The New York Times (EXCERPT) WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- Back when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was first lady, no one better embodied what she once called the "vast right-wing conspiracy" than Richard Mellon Scaife.... But now, as Mrs. Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Scaife's checkbook is staying in his pocket. Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, "Both of us have had a rethinking." "Clinton wasn't such a bad president," Mr. Ruddy said. "In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today." ... As a senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton has built an alliance with some former critics like Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation. He has raised money for her, and his New York Post has grown respectful in its coverage. COMMENT to Ruddy, Scaife, Murdoch et al.: Huh?
... Many Republicans, meanwhile, say her candidacy is the best hope to reunify their party at a time when many conservatives are unhappy with the ideological credentials of the front-runners for the Republican nomination.... Many conservatives still consider Mrs. Clinton the Helen of Troy of direct mail, the face who can launch a thousand donations. Richard Viguerie, a direct mail pioneer who worked on former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's short-lived Senate campaign against Mrs. Clinton in 1999, said he had not had such success in four decades of fund-raising. "We couldn't mail enough," Mr. Viguerie said. "The money was just coming in in bucketloads from all over the country." ...Still Mr. Viguerie, speaking by phone from a meeting at the office of a founding father of the conservative movement, Paul Weyrich, said they would attack Mrs. Clinton with everything they had. "The vast right-wing conspiracy lives," he said.
Since leaving the WH, the clintons have been hard at work flipping some of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.'
What have the clintons promised them?
We must be aware of the new alignment when planning our strategy.
HAVE RICHARD MELLON SCAIFE, RUPERT MURDOCH AND CHRIS RUDDY REALLY JUMPED SHIP?
(AND WHAT ARE THE CLINTONS PROMISING THEM, ANYWAY?)
bump
The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
Most any one truly is more than a match for Hillary.
She used the NO ONE CAN CRITIZER HER campaign when she ran for the senate, Lazeo(sp) would destroy her in any debate,but the media would not hear of it. They waited and when he approached her it was all over. I would say she is an empty pant suit, but damn those pants are stretched to the limit. Besides it's what fills the pants in her case nothing more than $hit.
|
Too bad Republicans don't get this.
The rape took place while Bill was running for governor. Hillary came bursting into the room to talk to two people, one of whom I personally know. She said "You won't believe what this [expletive] did now. He tried to rape some b*tch."
doug from upland to Sean Hannity, "Crucial to this protective wall was the secret police, a group of private detectives hired to protect hillary and 'Saturday night bill.' Their tactics included digging up dirt on women who might be linked to bill in order to cow them into silence. There is even some evidence of possible physical intimidation."
Talk-show host Tom Scott of Clear Channel Broadcasting, New Haven (WELI 960) asked Shays about the mysterious impeachment "evidence room," prompting the GOP moderate to say that Broaddrick "disclosed that she had been raped, not once, but twice" to Judiciary Committee investigators. Shays, who is often hailed by the New York Times for his independent judgment and good sense, found the evidence compelling: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick." HEAR CHRISTOPHER SHAYS "Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America. Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too. Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness. Richard Poe Given the silence from the West Wing, Mrs. Broaddrick this week sought answers from Hillary Clinton, whose telescopic feminism apparently sees injustice to women everywhere except the kind which occurs closer to home. In a letter to Mrs. Clinton recalling their meeting shortly after the reported assault occurred, she wondered about the significance of Mrs. Clinton's words to her at that time. Thank you, Mrs. Broaddrick says Mrs. Clinton told her, for "everything you do for Bill." "What did you mean, Hillary?" her letter continued. "Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to keep quiet?" The not-so-subtle implication of the letter is that Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, her husband's enabler. Dealing with her husband's promiscuity and worse might keep her from dealing with the important issues facing the people of New York, namely her candidacy. One might call it a Faustian bargain except that even Mephistopheles might not lower himself to sign such a deal....
What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question. Yes, I can answer Brit Hume's question. You are the same Hillary that you were twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton is not an honorable or an honest person.
|
(That operant definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, is attributed to Einstein.)
Geffen got so close, but sadly, missed the bullseye. The clintons always stand for what they genuinely believe in--themselves.
WHY THE GEFFEN IMBROGLIO SIGNALS CLINTON'S END
'HILLARY'S STRATEGY--NOBODY GETS TO CRITICIZE HER' -- CHRIS MATTHEWS
with a WARNING FOR DAVID GEFFEN
A similar thesis from Bill Kristol:
|
We know from the philosophers that a true statement is true without regard to the reliability or sagacity of the person who utters it. We have it on good authority that the truth shall set us free. David Geffen spoke truth to Maureen Dowd last week. And he may have triggered a series of events that will set the Democratic party free from its Clinton captivity. Here is what the Hollywood mogul told the New York Times gossip columnist: I don't think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is--and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton?--can bring the country together. Obama is inspirational, and he's not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. . . . There it is, in black and white. Will it set the Democrats free? It could. Hillary Clinton was cruising along, raising big money, triangulating on Iraq, rounding up supporters who felt they had little choice but to sign on. And then Geffen spoke up. Suddenly Democrats all over the country may be thinking to themselves, "Well, what about that? Why exactly do we have to be for Hillary anyway? Shouldn't we consider some alternatives?" Once unleashed, this series of thoughts is subversive. So much of the Hillary Clinton candidacy depends on an aura of inevitability, supported by oodles of money and a fear of retribution if you're not on board. But what if she's not inevitable? And what if the retribution isn't so all-powerful? That's what is now being tested. Now that it has been raised, the thought that Hillary isn't the ideal nominee might spread. Hence Team Clinton's need to enforce omertà. Hillary's attack dog, Howard Wolfson, couldn't even take the time to do some basic fact-checking before rushing out an attack email demanding Obama denounce the remarks of Geffen, "his campaign's finance chair." But Geffen is not and has never been Obama's finance chair. He has no official role in the Obama campaign. Obama's aides pointed out the falsehood. Obama himself commented, "It's not clear to me why I'd be apologizing for someone else's remark." (Notice he didn't exactly disavow the remarks.) And Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs fired back: "The Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when [he] was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom." Then the next day, Obama convinced a credulous Adam Nagourney of the New York Times that he personally hadn't been aware of his aide's statement. After all, he got himself quoted saying on page 1 of the Times, "I don't want us to be a party to these kinds of distractions because I want to make sure that we're spending time talking about issues. My preference going forward is that we have to be careful not to slip into playing the game as it customarily is played." Nicely done. Geffen's comments get repeated in three days' worth of stories--because how can you report about the spat without reporting the remarks that started it?--and Obama gets to rise above the fray. And consider the original response by Gibbs. He went out of his way to respond not to Hillary Clinton, and not to Howard Wolfson, but to "the Clintons": "We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons. . . . The Clintons had no problem . . . " Very nicely done. Is Sen. Clinton not her own person? Are we again getting two for the price of one? Hillary Clinton's popularity soared after the Monica affair, when she achieved a kind of political separation from her husband. That's what made her Senate race possible, and her current presidential candidacy plausible. Relinking her to Bill makes her political life more complicated. Obama is running an impressive campaign. But if he ultimately falters because voters think him too inexperienced--then the experienced, antiwar-from-the-start, and environmentally prophetic Al Gore is waiting in the wings. It was a bad week for Hillary. --William Kristol |
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved. |
Here is what the Hollywood mogul told the New York Times gossip columnist~William Kristol
Bill Kristol really knows how to hurt a lady. ;)
That was no lady, that was the rodhamster on her wheel.
Kristol called Dowd a gossip columnist.' Ouch.
This is a signal that even slight criticism of the beast and Master Bill will not be tolerated, even in the most loyal, liberal, Democrat circles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.