Are Susan Estrich, Al From and The Times on the same "Get the clintons off the stage!" page?

5.17.03 | Mia T

[Mia T]

Are Susan Estrich, Al From and The Times on the same "Get the clintons off the stage!" page?
And desperately seeking Susan.... Who spiked her, anyway?

by Mia T, 5.17.03

 

Get the Clintons Off the Stage
St. Petersburg Times ^ | 5/15/03 | Susan Estrich

The Clintons are back.

Sidney Blumenthal-much hated former Clinton aide, ethically challenged former journalist-$850,000 advance in hand, has a new book out on May 20, attacking everyone who ever attacked him or the Clintons, rehearsing once again the old right wing conspiracy, every attack on them, answered. The right wing conspiracy revived, answered, again.

Hillary's book is next.

Could somebody please tell these people to shut up? The Clintons suck up every bit of the available air. Nothing is left for anyone else. They are big, too big. That's the problem.

The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention, to rise to Clinton's level, which they never will do as long as the likes of Sidney Blumenthal are playing into the hands of conservatives in insisting on debating the scandals of the 1990's. The Republicans shouldn't have impeached him for it, but he shouldn't have given them the ammunition. And we shouldn't still be discussing it.

Why are we? Or more accurately, why are they?

Not because it serves the interests of the Democrats of the future.

It doesn't help Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt. It gets Sidney on TV shows. If the issue is ethics, no one has less than Sidney Blumenthal. He used to call me during the Dukakis campaign, which I was running and he was supposed to be covering, to offer covert advice, which if I accepted might result in better coverage. Much later, when I criticized him, he tried to get me into trouble with my editors. All the while, I was defending his boss. That's Sidney. He's Hillary's best friend. No wonder the Republicans are delighted to see him return to the spotlight.

It raises money for their causes.

The Bill and Bob (Dole) show has proven to be a collossal bore. The ratings have fallen. Is anyone getting the message? I fear not.

Let's not mince words.

Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women don't. Even Democratic women. Even working women. Not to mention nonworking, independent, non political women. She can be a great senator. She's smart, hard-working and effective. She is much respected among her peers.

But the more people who talk about her as a future president, the less attention the current candidates, who might win, receive.

Revisiting the scandals of the past does no service to the Democrats of the future.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man. But the more attention he gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it weren't about him.

Enough with the Clintons. Please. Not for the sake of the Republicans. But for the Democrats.

Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent

Mia T, 5.5.03

 

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003.

by Mia T, 4.6.03

 

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

 

Mia T, THE ALIENS

 

Al From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime

 

My question for Pinch (him, he's dreaming) Sulzberger:

Mr. Sulzberger... Shortly after 9/11, VERY shortly after 9/11. you admitted to Brian Lamb (C-SPAN, Washington Journal, 11.30.01) that The Times' endorsement of clinton was based on clinton "policies, not achievements."

When you made that admission, were you following Abe Rosenthal's sage advice, ("When you're wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do. And that is get right as fast as you can."), mindful of:

• the clintons' utter failure to protect us from terrorism,

• The Times' willful failure to protect us from the clintons, and

• The Times' prior "failure to connect the dots during the Holocaust,".

.. or were you merely covering your own corrupt, nepotistically-enabled, feckless rear?

 

 

 

 

 

CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

the movie

 

[Mia T]

Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent
CLINTON-WAS-AN-UTTER-FAILURE Containment Team Scheme _{FICTIONAL TRILOGY}
Q ERTY8^BUMP

 

It's up to us to "unspike" Estrich.

My suggestion:
Post the Estrich thing everywhere. Post it in venues that archive.

I will do my part and create all manner of bloggery on the original piece as well as on the spiking.

The Ds didn't have to be told this, BTW. They know. Doubtless, talks of coup dominate D circles... and squares. clinton antipathy does extend leftward.

THE INTERMINABLE clintons
It's time to take out the trash...
A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE...

NEW AUDIO! Hear the Bill Bennett (PARDONGATE) epilogue .

 

 

The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime

Personal Agitprop-and-Money-Laundering Machine, Cozy-clintonoid-Interviews-of-the-Colmes-Kind-Scheme
Bury REAL "Living History"

Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent

 

hillary clinton A SECURITY RISK: Removal Calls Begin

 

THE UNSTATED MESSAGE OF THE POWELL EVIDENCE

 

Another mistaken 'conceptzia'
WHY AMERICA (& THE WORLD) CANNOT SURVIVE ANOTHER CLINTON
(INDEED, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WE ARE GOING TO SURVIVE THE FIRST ONE,)

 

WAS AL QAEDA THE TARGET OF A TAKEOVER BY IRAQ?

 

Utter-Failure clintons Concoct Left-Wing-Radio Scheme FIG LEAF
Flower Children Fall for the 2 Self-Evident Thugs & Opportunists Yet Again
(Liberals have always had problems figuring out causation)

 

THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER: Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992

COMING APART: What clinton was REALLY saying... and why... when he bashed Bush in Canada

the logic of pathologic self-interest

The only thing that can stop American power now

Yet More RapeLies: CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

 

Mrs. clinton's REAL virtual office update

 

 

[Mia T]

And desperately seeking Susan.... Who spiked her, anyway?

Hillary Clinton goes to a primary school to talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand, and the Senator asks him what his name is.

"Billy"

"And what is your question, Billy?"

I have three questions:

First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan?

Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?

Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?"

Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess. When they resume Hillary says, "Okay where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"

A different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and asks him what his name is.

"Larry"

"And what is your question?"

"I have five questions:

First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan?

Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?

Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?

Fourth - why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?

Fifth - what happened to Billy?"

--SuzanneWeeks

THE INTERMINABLE clintons
It's time to take out the trash...
A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE...

[fqued]

Your way of posting things is obnoxious. Tone down the capitals and get rid of most of the supersizing, and the color. Frankly, it's very difficult to read. We are grown-ups and we can tell what's important and what's not without your overblown posting antics.

[Chad Fairbanks]

No one forced you to click on the link to this thread, man.

[firewalk]

Mia puts alot of work into these threads. I like them & no one forces you to read them...

[MeekOneGOP]

Now. Let's COMPARE and CONTRAST the current administration with the previous one, shall we? . . .

[Moonmad27]

It's obvious that she puts a lot of work into them. I usually avoid a thread if it has her "byline", however, and only clicked on this one to see what the response was to her posting style. She's got good info that would be just as helpful and informative if it was posted in straightfoward, more brief fashion.

[joesnuffy]

As the founder of Childish Combat Vets Inc
I enjoy and appreciate Mia T's art...
rock on baby...
peace on the critics...

[Mia T]

Taste is subjective, of course.... but I would suggest that you look beyond the fonts and try the Flash movies. ;)

[jmaroneps37]

Now, getting back to the subject, all of this shows us once again that the rat media is falling apart. They have been beaten into submission by the 3 legged stool of The Net Talk Radio and FOXtv. Without the ability to lie,that the rat media gave them, the rat party will soon dry out in all but the most America hating districts in this country.

[Mia T]

bump

[firewalk]

She's got good info that would be just as helpful and informative if it was posted in straightfoward, more brief fashion

At least you're polite...

[Let's Roll]

To get back to the secondary subject:

I hope the Clintons stay in the spotlight. Please, please, please let Shrillary give monthly, if not weekly, speeches like she did a couple weeks ago when she was exposed as both vicious and out of control.

[SuzanneWeeks]

Take it easy there fella....one to many cups of joe this morning?

Suz

[fqued]

Open apology.

very sorry. I was out of line.

[Mia T]

no problem. ;)

[Howlin]

Lighten up.

Mia is a "legend" here.

Click on by if it bothers you.

[firewalk]

thank you

[fqued]

Uh, I take it you didn't read my open apology before you wrote your comment. I did, indeed, "lighten up". But I draw the line at ONE apology. I am not a Trent Lott, I refuse to go on and on and on and on. I posted my apology, and that is it. (I think it was post #15)

[Howlin]

I am not a Trent Lott, I refuse to go on and on and on and on.

Okay, for that you get mucho points!

And you're right.....I hadn't read on down the thread. Noted.