For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

It's genius, this shtick.

No shtick? Or no genius?

 

[chauncey]

Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better version of Hillary, if you're into that sort of thing.

She also brought a false rape accuser (aka the mattress girl) to a State of the Union Address. She either hates men or is an idiot. Gillibrand is as bad as that Rolling Stone writer.

 

[rockaction]

Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better version of Hillary, if you're into that sort of thing.

She also brought a false rape accuser (aka the mattress girl) to a State of the Union Address. She either hates men or is an idiot. Gillibrand is as bad as that Rolling Stone writer.

Nice timing.

 

[squistion]

It's genius, this shtick.

No shtick? Or no genius?

Neither.

 

[mr fancypants]

If you guys want another 8 years of feminism, multiculturalism, and homosexuality jammed down your throats... then by all means vote for Hilary Clinton and enjoy watching the country your forefathers helped build be destroyed.

I think we just found Jim11's apprentice.

 

[The Commish]

Remember the GOP talking point from back in '08 intended to vilify Obama as a radical by saying how much more of a moderate Hillary is than Obama?

Looking forward to seeing those clips again when the GOP crazies start the anti-Hillary fear campaign.

She is much more moderate. That doesn't mean she'll be a good president.

However, now more than ever, we need a strong conservative to start the process the incredible amount of damage that has been done over the last 7 years.

Damage goes back waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay further than "the last 7 years".

 

[joffer]

So the liberal fbg has the keys to Em's account this week? Nobody is really buying the extreme racist/sexist/homophobe shtick anymore. Please move on to something more creative.

this week?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Remember the GOP talking point from back in '08 intended to vilify Obama as a radical by saying how much more of a moderate Hillary is than Obama?

Looking forward to seeing those clips again when the GOP crazies start the anti-Hillary fear campaign.

She is much more moderate. That doesn't mean she'll be a good president.

However, now more than ever, we need a strong conservative to start the process the incredible amount of damage that has been done over the last 7 years.

Damage goes back waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay further than "the last 7 years".

The last 7 years have been a Godsend compared to the previous 8 before that.

 

[Apple Jack]

at damage the last seven years.

 

[Apple Jack]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Remember the GOP talking point from back in '08 intended to vilify Obama as a radical by saying how much more of a moderate Hillary is than Obama?

Looking forward to seeing those clips again when the GOP crazies start the anti-Hillary fear campaign.

Just a reminder - that campaign started with Sid Blumenthal, and he'll have a front row seat to power when Hillary gets in.

A reminder? You bring up Sidney at least 3 times a day. You're obsessed with him. Even his own mother doesn't bring him up as much as you do.

So true.

I doubt Tommy is aware. It's always worth pointing out that Wright, Dorn, birth certificates and race were first circulated by Blumenthal, the main difference being he was able to use his mainstream press credentials to get them into wider circulation. So much so they almost pulled off a comeback.

 

[timschochet]

No I don't think that's true. Sean Hannity was talking about Rev. Wright months before that story blew up and he still takes credit for it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would love to know what Hilary and Elizabeth warren discussed during their meeting last month. I thought Warren would run for sure with her book out and all her tv appearances. She is adamant that she isn't running and I am guessing that's because she's already been offered the #2 job by HC. we will find out in next year.

Liz didn't exactly endorse Hillary last week on CBS, when asked if Hillary represented the future for America Liz just went .

This interview? She said she just wanted to know what she stood for. I didnt think she dissed her. More evasive than anything.

Warren is everywhere these days pushing her book. She sure sounds like someone who is running for something but every time she has been asked if she will run she has said flatly no. Not "I have no plans to" or anything like that, just a flat out no. Then you read about these groups who are urging her to run. Why the media blitz if she is not running? Is it going to be an 11th hour move that depends on Hillary's polling numbers?

I hope she listens. Would be nice to see Betsy take a chunk out of Hillary during the primaries.

She already knows what she's doing. There's some grand plan already in place.

A book and a book tour is itself interesting, that's usually Step 1 when a candidate runs. It allows them to get there and campaign without "campaigning." Hillary's been doing it for 8-9 months.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No I don't think that's true. Sean Hannity was talking about Rev. Wright months before that story blew up and he still takes credit for it.

Blumenthal helped escort that theme and Ayers/Dorn into the GOP playbook. He was there first with it.

Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.

From 5/9/08

 

[TPW]

Dont worry, she has a zero pct chance

now it's a lock

Yep. The only realistic chance any Republican candidate has is if Clinton's campaign implodes from within. But with a friendly press actively running cover for her that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Get ready for at least 16 years of single-party control of the executive branch for the first time since FDR/Truman.

 

[Apple Jack]

are you paid by the blumenthal?

 

[timschochet]

No I don't think that's true. Sean Hannity was talking about Rev. Wright months before that story blew up and he still takes credit for it.

Blumenthal helped escort that theme and Ayers/Dorn into the GOP playbook. He was there first with it.

Are you sure of this? What's his name again?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack ObamaAfter this idea had bounced around the media echo chamber for a few days, the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America, run by David Brock, posted a summary on February 8 of the sudden outbreak of "cult" references about Obama. It was headlined: "Media figures call Obama supporters' behavior 'creepy,' compare them to Hare Krishna and Manson followers." The next day, Blumenthal sent the Media Matters piece to his email list. A few days later, the New York Times' Paul Krugman, a Clinton supporter, weighed in with a column, "Hate Springs Eternal," in which he wrote, "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to a cult of personality." Nor would he be the last. Four days later, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, an arch conservative, penned a column entitled, "The Audacity of Selling Hope" in which he simply quoted Klein, Tapper, Stein, and Krugman.Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama

Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.

Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.

These attacks sent out by Blumenthal, long known for his fierce and combative loyalty to the Clintons, draw on a wide variety of sources to spread his Obama-bashing. Some of the pieces are culled from the mainstream media and include some reasoned swipes at Obama's policy and political positions.

But, rather remarkably for such a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal, a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative, and The National Review.

To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.

The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii. That writer, Frank Marshall Davis, was, Kincaid wrote, a member of the Communist Party. Supported by no tangible evidence, Kincaid claimed that Obama considered his relationship to Davis to be "almost like a son." In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote about meeting, during his teenage years, a writer named "Frank" who "had some modest notoriety once" and with whom he occasionally discussed poetry and politics. From this snippet, Kincaid weaves an incredulous tale that turns Davis into Obama's "mentor."

Kincaid's piece had been previously circulating within the right-wing blogosphere, but Blumenthal sought to inject the story into more respectable opinion circles by amplifying it in his email blast.

In the same piece, Kincaid, expanding his guilt-by-association tactics, also wrote that Obama "came into contact with more far-left political forces," including former Weather Underground member William Ayers. Until a few weeks ago, Obama's tangential connection with Ayers -- whose 1960s anti-war terrorism occurred when Obama was in grade school -- was echoing among right-wing bloggers.

Some Clinton supporters who also knew about Ayers have been discreetly trying to catapult the story out of the right-wing sandbox into the wider mainstream media. On April 9, Fox News' Sean Hannity interviewed fellow right-winger Karl Rove, who raised the Ayers-Obama connection. The next day, ABC News reporter Jake Tapper wrote about Ayers in his Political Punch blog. The following week, on his radio show, Hannity suggested to his guest, George Stephanopoulos, that he ask Obama about his relationship with Ayers at the upcoming Philadelphia presidential debate. Stephanopoulos, who was Bill Clinton's press secretary, replied, "Well, I'm taking notes." The following night during the April 16 nationally televised Presidential debate, Stephanopoulos dutifully asked Obama about Ayers, who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

One can only speculate how much influence Blumenthal did or did not have in elevating the Ayers story into the mainstream media and into the national political debate. What is certain is that Blumenthal sought to keep this classic red-baiting controversy alive.

Blumenthal's April 24 email dispatch featured a two-year old article by Sol Stern, published in City Journal, sponsored by the right-wing Manhattan Institute. The article, from the journal's Summer 2006 issue, doesn't mention Obama. Why would Blumenthal resurrect it now? The article, entitled "The Ed Schools' Latest--and Worst--Humbug," was, instead, a frontal attack on Ayers' views on educational theory and policy. Blumenthal obviously wasn't trying to offer enlightenment on educational policy or Obama's positions on school reform as much as he was presumably trying to keep Ayers' name, and his controversial past, in the public eye.

As a follow-up punch, Blumenthal again dipped directly into the "vast right wing conspiracy" by retrieving and circulating an article from the current issue of National Review -- the staunchly conservative opinion journal founded by William F. Buckley. The piece, titled "The Obama Way," was penned by Fred Siegel who, like Sol Stern, is a former 60s leftist who has moved to the opposite end of the political spectrum, serving at one point as a political advisor to Rudy Giuliani. Siegel's piece links Obama to corrupt Chicago machine politics, observing that "Blacks adapted to both the tribalism and the corrupt patronage politics" of Chicago's Democratic Party. In the process, he manages to throw in as many spurious ad hominem attacks on Obama as he can, calling him a "friend of race-baiters" and a "man who would lead our efforts against terrorism yet was friendly with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist."

When Blumenthal worked in the White House, a big thorn in Bill Clinton's side was the Weekly Standard, the right-wing magazine edited by William Kristol and owned by Rupert Murdoch. But in mid-February, Blumenthal's email attack featured an article, "Republicans Root for Obama," written by Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News talking head Fred Barnes. That same month, Blumenthal also offered up a piece by Scott McConnell, titled "Untested Savior," that appeared in The American Conservative (a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan) claiming that Obama "would probably lead them [Democrats] to disaster in November."

When Blumenthal isn't relying directly on anti-Obama smears from the extreme right, he's pumping up more traditionally sourced material, from the Washington Post, New Republic, and other publications, to question and damage Obama's character and electability. On several occasions, Blumenthal has circulated articles from the Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune about Obama's ties to developer Tony Rezko, a relationship Obama has said he regrets. In one email, Blumenthal wrote: "The record on Obama's fabled 'judgement'? So how would he conduct himself in those promised summits without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro, and Assad? Let's look at how he did with Tony Rezko."

Earlier this year, one theme pushed by Clinton supporters and buoyed by Blumenthal's efforts, was that Obama's appeal was similar to that of a messianic cult leader. Obama's capacity to inspire people was reframed as a kind of malevolent force, as though his followers would somehow willingly drink poisoned Kool-Aid if Obama so demanded. In his February 7 Time magazine column, "Inspiration vs. Substance," writer Joe Klein, who, like Blumenthal, worked on the Boston alternative paper, The Real Paper, in the 1970s, wrote: "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism -- 'We are the ones we've been waiting for' -- of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign." That same morning, Blumenthal sent the Klein column to his email list. Later that day, in his Political Punch blog, ABC News reporter Jake Tapper wrote, "The Holy Season of Lent is upon us. Can Obama worshippers try to give up their Helter-Skelter cultish qualities for a few weeks?" (Update: In response to OffTheBus, Tapper is categorical in denying that he in any way relied upon Blumenthal or was influenced by Blumenthal in the production or in the writing of this story or his reports on William Ayers or the Obama "cult")

The following day, in the Los Angeles Times, columnist Joel Stein wrote: "Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he is a politician."

One of Blumenthal's associates scoffs at the notion that there's anything vaguely conspiratorial about these emails and that a number of the people on the list-serve are also the authors of the pieces he sends out. "They're just Sid's friends," he told me. This is, in fact, the very definition of an echo chamber. People in the opinion-shaping business also seek to influence other opinion-makers, who then bounce their ideas through their overlapping outlets -- newspapers, magazines, talk shows, websites, blogs, and social and political fundraising circles. The connections are so incestuous that it's hard to untangle where the "feedback loop" begins and ends.

Among those whose names show up as recipients of Blumenthal's emails are writers and journalists Craig Unger, Edward Jay Epstein, Thomas Edsall (Politics Editor of the Huffington Post), Joe Conason, Gene Lyons (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist and author of The Hunting of the President: The Ten Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton), John Judis, Eric Alterman, Christine Ockrent, David Brock, Reza Aslan, Harold Evans, and Josh Marshall; academics and think tankers Todd Gitlin (Columbia U sociologist), Karen Greenberg (NYU law school), Sean Wilentz (Princeton historian), Michael Lind, William M. Drozdiak, and Richard Parker; and former Clinton administration officials John Ritch, James Rubin, Derek Shearer, and Joe Wilson.

Not all of Blumenthal's recipients, or those who, like me, receive the emails second-hand, are Clinton supporters.

Before and after his service in the Clinton White House, Blumenthal wrote for the New Yorker, New Republic, Washington Post, the Guardian, and Salon, where he was often accused of engaging in partisan journalism.

In the Clinton administration, Blumenthal was primarily a behind-the-scenes strategist, but often found himself speaking in front of the cameras and on the record. In both roles, he was known as a committed Clintonista who played hardball. He's demonstrated those same traits since joining Hillary's campaign as a senior advisor last November.

Presidential politics can get down and dirty, and Blumenthal is a master at the game. Some Obama supporters might even wish that his campaign would resort to similar tactics. If it did, there would be no shortage of anti-Hillary screeds by the "vast right-wing conspiracy" activists and writers, such as surfacing the photo of Rev. Jeremiah Wright with Bill Clinton at a prayer breakfast at the White House in 1998

 

[The Commish]

Remember the GOP talking point from back in '08 intended to vilify Obama as a radical by saying how much more of a moderate Hillary is than Obama?

Looking forward to seeing those clips again when the GOP crazies start the anti-Hillary fear campaign.

She is much more moderate. That doesn't mean she'll be a good president.

However, now more than ever, we need a strong conservative to start the process the incredible amount of damage that has been done over the last 7 years.

Damage goes back waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay further than "the last 7 years".

The last 7 years have been a Godsend compared to the previous 8 before that.

not really

 

[The Commish]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

so, basically anyone voting Dem/GOP the last 40ish years? I'm good with that

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No I don't think that's true. Sean Hannity was talking about Rev. Wright months before that story blew up and he still takes credit for it.

Blumenthal helped escort that theme and Ayers/Dorn into the GOP playbook. He was there first with it.

Are you sure of this? What's his name again?

Since you constantly harp on the dirty tricks issue yeah I think it does merit especially pointing out for your acknowledgement.

 

[timschochet]

I count 34 mentions of Blumenthal in that article Saints just posted. Nice job! Benghazi might have real competition soon.

 

[timschochet]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

I think Hillary has been a fine Secretary of State, but it should be noted that she played a significant role in bringing about this catastrophe you mention. She was the most prominent Democrat to support the war, and basically made it a bipartisan action.

 

[Apple Jack]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

I think Hillary has been a fine Secretary of State, but it should be noted that she played a significant role in bringing about this catastrophe you mention. She was the most prominent Democrat to support the war, and basically made it a bipartisan action.

No she didn't. The vote was based on the intel. The intel was manipulated bull####.

 

[timschochet]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

I think Hillary has been a fine Secretary of State, but it should be noted that she played a significant role in bringing about this catastrophe you mention. She was the most prominent Democrat to support the war, and basically made it a bipartisan action.

No she didn't. The vote was based on the intel. The intel was manipulated bull####.

there were good arguments made not to support the invasion long before we learned the Intel was manipulated. Barack Obama was among those who made those arguments back then. Clinton was not. She bears some responsibility. It's probably the main reason she lost in 2008. You can forgive her errors in judgment but let's not rewrite history. She herself acknowledges that it was a mistake.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

I think Hillary has been a fine Secretary of State, but it should be noted that she played a significant role in bringing about this catastrophe you mention. She was the most prominent Democrat to support the war, and basically made it a bipartisan action.

No she didn't. The vote was based on the intel. The intel was manipulated bull####.

That's quite simply inaccurate, she went out of her way to drag her husband's administration's knowledge on events inside Iraq to provide additional cover for the administration and vouchsafe what they were saying. Her floor vote and speech were very influential.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

I think Hillary has been a fine Secretary of State, but it should be noted that she played a significant role in bringing about this catastrophe you mention. She was the most prominent Democrat to support the war, and basically made it a bipartisan action.

No she didn't. The vote was based on the intel. The intel was manipulated bull####.

there were good arguments made not to support the invasion long before we learned the Intel was manipulated. Barack Obama was among those who made those arguments back then. Clinton was not. She bears some responsibility. It's probably the main reason she lost in 2008. You can forgive her errors in judgment but let's not rewrite history. She herself acknowledges that it was a mistake.

People in the Senate floor at the time matter more than state politicians who had no stake in the fire. A good number of Congressional Democrats and IIRC 1 Republican voted against it.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Forward, into the past!

 

[timschochet]

Both Hillary and Obama also must share the bulk of the blame for how our occupation of Iraq ended, and for the manipulation of the last Iraqi election which allowed Maliki to stay in power. Just because we never should have invaded in the first place doesn't absolve them from making the situation even worse and leading to the rise of ISIS.

As I wrote, I think overall she has been a good Secretary of State and Obama has been an excellent foreign policy President. But these are very real issues that can be the basis for legitimate criticism, not bogus conspiracy stuff like Benghazi.

 

[squistion]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

I think Hillary has been a fine Secretary of State, but it should be noted that she played a significant role in bringing about this catastrophe you mention. She was the most prominent Democrat to support the war, and basically made it a bipartisan action.

No she didn't. The vote was based on the intel. The intel was manipulated bull####.

Exactly. To say otherwise is revisionist history. I (among other Democrats) held Hillary's vote against her at the time, but never felt that she was a major player in bringing about the war and to claim that is just silly.

 

[DrrDetroit]

She has my vote!

 

[mquinnjr]

She has my vote!

Who owns this alias?

 

[mquinnjr]

DrrDetriot, please update the stealth via the avatar for this to work correctly: http://euthanasia.procon.org/files/1-euthanasia-images/dr-jack-kevorkian-pictured-on-the-may-31-1993-cover-of-time-magazine.jpg

 

[rockaction]

She has my vote!

Who owns this alias?

It liked a TV listing of mine the other day. Twelve hours after it happened. Huh?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Exactly. To say otherwise is revisionist history. I (among other Democrats) held Hillary's vote against her at the time, but never felt that she was a major player in bringing about the war and to claim that is just silly.

I know the issues are not connected - I'm just curious how people view these things - what are your views on Sandy Berger's motivation for stealing and destroying the Clinton era Al Qaeda memos?

 

[squistion]

Exactly. To say otherwise is revisionist history. I (among other Democrats) held Hillary's vote against her at the time, but never felt that she was a major player in bringing about the war and to claim that is just silly.

I know the issues are not connected - I'm just curious how people view these things - what are your views on Sandy Berger's motivation for stealing and destroying the Clinton era Al Qaeda memos?

We don't know what exactly Berger stole/destroyed for sure. He was only convicted of a misdemeanor and the punishment was a fine and probation, so it wasn't viewed that seriously at the time And it was initially stated by The Justice Dept that he only stole copies, not originals, which may or may not be true.

Anyway, with so much missing information as to what was taken and why, I can't make the leap that somehow this implicates Hillary.

 

[tdoss]

Things start to look bad...Hillary announces Bill as VP and this is a done deal, right?

 

[rockaction]

Righteous humor: Ready for Hillary? Take Our Quiz and Find Out!

 

[timschochet]

Righteous humor: Ready for Hillary? Take Our Quiz and Find Out!

I'd vote for Jimmy Webb. I love Jimmy Webb.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Exactly. To say otherwise is revisionist history. I (among other Democrats) held Hillary's vote against her at the time, but never felt that she was a major player in bringing about the war and to claim that is just silly.

I know the issues are not connected - I'm just curious how people view these things - what are your views on Sandy Berger's motivation for stealing and destroying the Clinton era Al Qaeda memos?

We don't know what exactly Berger stole/destroyed for sure. He was only convicted of a misdemeanor and the punishment was a fine and probation, so it wasn't viewed that seriously at the time And it was initially stated by The Justice Dept that he only stole copies, not originals, which may or may not be true.

Anyway, with so much missing information as to what was taken and why, I can't make the leap that somehow this implicates Hillary.

He also lost his law license. The Justice Department did not say he only stole copies, they said they could not prove what he had destroyed, because he had destroyed it and then hidden the pieces - and they also could not say if he had stolen more than he revealed.

Presumably whatever he stole would have been in preparation for the 9/11/01 Commission and supposedly IIRC it related to Al Qaeda.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16304450/ns/us_news-security/t/agency-says-ex-clinton-aide-took-classified-docs/#.VSwVUJOOvW8

Berger is again working for Hillary Clinton of course.

 

[Eephus]

Righteous humor: Ready for Hillary? Take Our Quiz and Find Out!

I'd vote for Jimmy Webb. I love Jimmy Webb.

Wichita Lineman alone makes him more qualified for the Presidency than all the declared candidates.

 

[Jackstraw]

Things start to look bad...Hillary announces Bill as VP and this is a done deal, right?

I'm curious as to the constitutionality of that. With him having exhausted his two terms. Honestly don't know.

 

[timschochet]

Things start to look bad...Hillary announces Bill as VP and this is a done deal, right?

I'm curious as to the constitutionality of that. With him having exhausted his two terms. Honestly don't know.

We covered this a while back. Yes, he can run as VP and be elected. She could resign one minute after taking office. It's all perfectly Constitutional.

 

[bigbottom]

Things start to look bad...Hillary announces Bill as VP and this is a done deal, right?

I'm curious as to the constitutionality of that. With him having exhausted his two terms. Honestly don't know.

We covered this a while back. Yes, he can run as VP and be elected. She could resign one minute after taking office. It's all perfectly Constitutional.

Well, there is a compelling argument that it would be constitutional (one that I agree with), but I wouldn't consider it a slam dunk.

 

[Clifford]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

I think Hillary has been a fine Secretary of State, but it should be noted that she played a significant role in bringing about this catastrophe you mention. She was the most prominent Democrat to support the war, and basically made it a bipartisan action.

No she didn't. The vote was based on the intel. The intel was manipulated bull####.

there were good arguments made not to support the invasion long before we learned the Intel was manipulated. Barack Obama was among those who made those arguments back then. Clinton was not. She bears some responsibility. It's probably the main reason she lost in 2008. You can forgive her errors in judgment but let's not rewrite history. She herself acknowledges that it was a mistake.

If you were in the government at that time watching all this happen and you didn't know 100% of everything that came out of the Bush admin's mouth regarding Iraq was 100% bull####, you have no business being there.

To me, claiming you thought they were telling the truth is more damning than admitting that you were just a coward and voted for the ROMF out of fear it would cost you your seat if you did.

I'd rather have a self-interested spineless ******* than someone so stupid they couldn't see through that bull####.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

people who elect in people who do damage (see Iraq catastrophe) should be forbidden from opening their mouths for four election cycles.

I think Hillary has been a fine Secretary of State, but it should be noted that she played a significant role in bringing about this catastrophe you mention. She was the most prominent Democrat to support the war, and basically made it a bipartisan action.

No she didn't. The vote was based on the intel. The intel was manipulated bull####.

there were good arguments made not to support the invasion long before we learned the Intel was manipulated. Barack Obama was among those who made those arguments back then. Clinton was not. She bears some responsibility. It's probably the main reason she lost in 2008. You can forgive her errors in judgment but let's not rewrite history. She herself acknowledges that it was a mistake.

If you were in the government at that time watching all this happen and you didn't know 100% of everything that came out of the Bush admin's mouth regarding Iraq was 100% bull####, you have no business being there.

To me, claiming you thought they were telling the truth is more damning than admitting that you were just a coward and voted for the ROMF out of fear it would cost you your seat if you did.

I'd rather have a self-interested spineless ******* than someone so stupid they couldn't see through that bull####.

People in the UN and in Congress voted against it, I've yet to hear a good reason why these people knew enough or thought they did to make that decision but Hillary, Biden and Kerry did not.

 

[NCCommish]

Hillary is more of the same. She will hire the same people as Obama, his admin is full of Clinton retreads. She will have the same policies more or less. Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

 

[Scoresman]

Hillary's new logo is terrible.

It's either a depiction of the twin towers with direction on how to fly into them with a red arrow or its an indicator that she's leaning right.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's new logo is terrible.

It's either a depiction of the twin towers with direction on how to fly into them with a red arrow or its an indicator that she's leaning right.

Well at least it's replaced the avatar where she's reading emails behind dark glasses. Uh yeah.

But you can tell the Obama advisors have taken over her campaign.

 

[lod01]

Things start to look bad...Hillary announces Bill as VP and this is a done deal, right?

I'm curious as to the constitutionality of that. With him having exhausted his two terms. Honestly don't know.

We covered this a while back. Yes, he can run as VP and be elected. She could resign one minute after taking office. It's all perfectly Constitutional.

If that was the plan I would vote for her just to watch the republicans go ballistic.