Democrat Presidential nomination

[X.P. Alidocious]

that's just a pipe dream of Republicans who love attacking the Clintons because they don't have anything else to complain about.

Would you like a list?

The Greens ought to dump Nader and run Biafra.

 

[5stringJeff]

The Greens ought to dump Nader and run Biafra.

They're already forming behind Kucinich! Nader better watch his back!

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
They're already forming behind Kucinich! Nader better watch his back!

Nader is backing Kucinich, though he may still run if Kucinich drops out.

XPA
The Greens ought to dump Nader and run Biafra.

Jello Biafra? The ex Dead Kennedy!?!?!? To put into the parliance of today, he is a warrior gaurding the gates of Democracy. Careful what you wish for, XP. Jello is on a mission to rock the faithful and I think he has your name on his list.
Just an observation guys, but the political pendulem swings back and forth in this country. Right now, the political center in DC is to the right of the nation in general (look at the polling numbers). People want health care, they want affordable housing, the want functional public schools, they want economic racial equality, hell a little economic equality across the board wouldn't be a bad thing. They took a look at the dog an pony show in Iraq and bluntly, they are not impressed (38% support GWBs' strategy). Now we have GWB pushing a "rebuild the ME in our image" strategy, a plan that will put all these social concerns on hold for another generation, and for what? What do the american people get? Haliburton gets contracts, the it's raining money on the military industrial complex, elected republicans are floating on a sea of money contributed by these groups so we know what they are getting. What about you and me, what are we getting? Lower oil prices? Don't hold your breath....
The elephant in the room for those who argue that we're doing it for the Arabs is the fact that the oil under the ME is going to run out in a couple of decades (maybe sooner). What will they do then? We sucked their only natural rescource out from under them and the lions share of the profit went to multi-national corporations...What do we tell them.
"I hope you have some profitable uses for sand cause otherwise your screwed Haji. But hey, cool democracy" (if we manage to accomplish that).

 

[ajwps]

What will the Democrats do next to circumvent the law they passed so strongly?

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/11710.htm

November 25, 2003 -- THE Democratic Party is being replaced by a new group called "Americans Coming Together," which has been launched with two $10 million donations from financier George Soros and Peter B. Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corporation. The new organization wants to raise $94 million to finance a massive campaign against Bush - all with soft money.

The Democratic Party, which is only allowed to raise hard money (donations limited to $2,000 per person) by the McCain-Feingold law is unable to amass the resources necessary for a national campaign, so it is ceding the main role to Americans Coming Together.

Hypocrisy in American politics at least provides material for humor. How else are we to view the attempts of Democratic Party leaders to circumvent the McCain-Feingold prohibition on the use of soft money in campaigns after their party insisted on its inclusion in the bill?

As the campaign-finance-reform bill went through Congress, Democrats demanded a ban on soft money donations to political parties. They succeeded in including it as the reform's centerpiece.

But it turns out that Republicans are raising twice as much as Democrats are in hard money: $158 million for the GOP vs. $66.5 million for the Democrats. So the Democrats have resorted to a loophole in McCain-Feingold and worked to maximize soft money contributions to phony political committees, allegedly independent of the party apparatus and thus not covered by the soft money ban.

The Democrats have always found hard money hard to come by. In the last election cycle, they financed 56 percent of their campaign costs with soft money while the Republicans used soft money for only 39 percent.

Americans Coming Together, a supposedly independent campaign committee, is reportedly one-third of the way toward its fund-raising goal. Its nominal independence from the Democratic Party, required by McCain-Feingold, is paper-thin.

Harold Ickes, President Bill Clinton's former deputy chief of staff who helped orchestrate the soft money fund-raising that financed the 1996 Clinton campaign, is working closely with Soros to fund Americans Coming Together.

Ickes has not always honored the boundaries between supposedly independent expenditures and political campaigns required by the Federal Elections Commission.

I almost fell through the floor of the White House early in 1996 when I attended a meeting chaired by Ickes of representatives of the political action committees of major American labor unions. Gathered in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, they each recounted their plans for "independent expenditures" against the Republicans in the coming election campaign. The meeting, quite illegal in many ways, represented exactly the kind of co-ordination forbidden by the campaign-finance laws.

Ickes is about as independent of Hillary as Bill is. He is her chief advisor. His photo graces her memoirs. He was her key operative in securing the Senate seat in New York. To pretend that anything he would do is independent of Hillary is like saying that the left hand is independent of the right hand.

One motivation for the Clinton move to circumvent the Democratic Party and establish a lifeboat in the form of Americans Working Together is that they view with alarm Howard Dean's rise to the Democratic nomination.

Dean, upon copping the prize, is likely to fire Terry MacAuliffe and take control of the Democratic National Committee. No longer will its coffers be available to the Clintons to use as their private fund, channeling donations to candidates and causes they favor or that favor them.

So, before the hand-over of party power from Clinton to Dean takes place, they are working on stripping the Democratic Party of its central role and giving it to the more pliant Americans Working Together, instead.

The Clintons' efforts to sidetrack Dean haven't worked. Wesley Clark is collapsing in most national polls and has yet to find a primary to his liking to enter in force. John Kerry, whose campaign staff quit last week, is having difficulty raising funds even though the Clintons and the Kennedys have sent him their top operatives to try to bail him out.

Dean seems destined to win the nomination and with it control of the party. So the Clintons are moving out.

* HILLARY GOES LIBERAL: It's official. Hillary is a liberal. For those who doubted whether she was a "new" Democrat or an old one, her vote yesterday to continue the Kennedy filibuster of the president's Medicare prescription-drug benefit should settle the question. In the most important vote of the decade, so far, she voted with 25 other liberal Democrats against 22 moderates who voted for closure. This vote separated the left from the center of the party, and Hillary opted to go left. Big mistake.

 

[green lantern]

i dont see any democrat beating bush in 04. if i had to pick, i would say dean or clark would stand the best shot, although a slim one, at ousting george w. bush. dean because he will be the only one that will be able to stay in the same galaxy fundraising wise with bush, and he will still lose that battle by over a hundred million dollars. people will respect clarks military background, but not enough to put him in office. as far as hillary goes, she has done nothing but ride bill clinton to the top, any self respecting woman would have dumped him a long time ago for all his extramarital activities. instead, she rode his coattails to the senatorship of new york. she traded on the clinton name. the woman has not earned anything. heaven help us if she ever becomes a candidate for president and wins. i may have to buy the island next door to eric. would not have a problem with her if she had held other offices besides being senator, actually had some experience, not just using the clinton name for political gain.

 

[MtnBiker]

As the campaign-finance-reform bill went through Congress, Democrats demanded a ban on soft money donations to political parties. They succeeded in including it as the reform's centerpiece.

But it turns out that Republicans are raising twice as much as Democrats are in hard money: $158 million for the GOP vs. $66.5 million for the Democrats. So the Democrats have resorted to a loophole in McCain-Feingold and worked to maximize soft money contributions to phony political committees, allegedly independent of the party apparatus and thus not covered by the soft money ban.

The Democrats have always found hard money hard to come by. In the last election cycle, they financed 56 percent of their campaign costs with soft money while the Republicans used soft money for only 39 percent.

Aren't the Democrats suppose to be the party of the small guy?
Why are the having a hard time collecting hard money from individuals?

 

[ajwps]

Green there is a long time between now and the November '04 election. The Democrats are now in general disarray because Bush has trumped them with their own issues and now out-staging them without having to bring himself to the level of name calling or revising events with the help of their mainstream media.

Mtnbiker asks why Bush is getting three times the amount in individual small donations than the democrats are raising with their own law's loophole violations. It seems obvious that the American people (for the most part) are obtaining their information from non-traditional news sources (radio and FOX News). What our friend dijetlo has found to be so offensive is the fact that the population has a mind of their own. This single fact is an oxymoron in the totalitarian form of government that he seems to desire.

The last forty years (prior to 1992) of a Democratic dominated Congress seems to have not been a problem for our Dijetlo and the Democratic slow erosion of the personal liberties and freedoms won with the tragic loss of young American's lives and blood.

Hillary is supposed to be the smartest woman in the world. The fact is that there are many very bright people who now reside in American prisons. Our now alien New York Senator continues to be so intelligent that she steps in every pile of dog poop instead of gingerly stepping around them.

Thank heaven for small favors.

i

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by green lantern
as far as hillary goes, she has done nothing but ride bill clinton to the top ......

Thanks alot Green Lantern, thats a visual I could have done without.:

 

[green lantern]

SORRY ABOUT THAT VISUAL MTNBIKER, MAYBE WE CAN SPLIT THE COST OF THERAPY AND RID OURSELVES OF THAT IMAGE.

 

[ajwps]

Actually Hillary has used Bill's 'DNA stained blue dress' to ride to the Senate in New York state, foreign to her Arkansas chicken plucking friends.

Now she begins to show her true intentions by her unique idea of going to Iraq. I wonder why she suddenly got this brainstorm to tell the US troops that she supports Marxism?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by ajwps
Now she begins to show her true intentions by her unique idea of going to Iraq. I wonder why she suddenly got this brainstorm to tell the US troops that she supports Marxism?

Did the voices in your head tell you that, or are you just lying? Don't want to be called a nut or a liar? Then find a source that says she told the US troops she supports Marxism. Reputable source, Major Media. If she had actually said what you claim she said, I think it would be in the papers, now wouldn't it? I could go further back and find more lies, but let's just start with this one.
If she rises to the presidency, in some small part she will have people like you to thank, AJWPS. Everybody feels sympathy for the victim of systematic and determined slander.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Aren't the Democrats suppose to be the party of the small guy?
Why are the having a hard time collecting hard money from individuals?

When you're not the party in power, bribes are harder to come by.

 

[ajwps]

Originally Posted by Dijetlo

"Did the voices in your head tell you that, or are you just lying? Don't want to be called a nut or a liar?"

Again with the last resort to name calling Dijetlo? I readily admit my error in my statement about Mrs. Clinton's Marxism and her inability to publicly admit this to our troops. As such she cannot admit publicly or to our troops that she is nothing but a Marxist or socialist. Did you forget that she tried as her previous co-president seat to socialize the entire US health care system. Are these the actions of an American to everyone's unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or a government takeover of the largest part of American interprise not to mention the health and well being of each and every citizen?

The following reposted article demostrates exactly who is hiding behind the mask while being leftist opportunist. To resort to name calling now would be redundant as you demonstrate exactly who you are by your own words.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20035

Hillary: 'America's foremost leftist'?
Former communist sees first lady's 'religious' devotion to radical causes

By Patrick Poole


Hillary Clinton is the subject of a new broadside by former leftist radical David Horowitz, in which he takes the first lady to task for concealing her radical liberal beliefs in order to appear much more moderate, with the goal of covertly advancing leftist causes.

Hillary Clinton and the Racial Left, published by the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture, is a collection of Horowitz's recent speeches and articles discussing various aspects of "progressive" ideology and politics and their implementation by Bill and Hillary Clinton and their followers.

Horowitz is best known for his autobiography, "Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey," in which he traces his lifelong political journey from being a radical communist activist in the 1960s to becoming a crusader against the effects of '60s leftist policies on modern American culture.

His most recent full-length book, the incendiary "Hating ****** and Other Progressive Causes," has provoked outrage from black activists, culminating in an editorial attack by Jack E. White in Time, in which he charges Horowitz with racism, and a recent critical feature by Scott Sherman in the July 3 edition of the historically left-wing journal, The Nation.

Terming Hillary Clinton "America's foremost leftist" and the "First Lady of the Left," Horowitz likens Clinton's commitment to radical causes to a "religious missionary zeal," which eventually drives followers astray.

"The first truth about leftist missionaries, about believing progressives, is that they are liars. But they are not liars in the ordinary way, which is to say by choice. They are liars by necessity -- often without realizing that they are. Because they also lie to themselves. It is the political lie that gives their cause its life," he writes in "Hillary Clinton and the Racial Left."

According to Horowitz, this political "faith" covers up a multitude of sins.

"This is the cross the Left has to bear: The better world is only achievable by lying to the very people they propose to redeem."

In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Horowitz charged Americans with failing to recognize leftists' religious devotion to progressive causes, especially in trying to compromise with their political adversaries.

"Conservatives look at leftists as well-meaning, but misguided. Leftists regard conservatives as the party of Satan. It's a big difference, and most conservatives aren't able to make the leap," he said. "Conservatives are evil in the leftist eyes because they stand in the way of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven -- in other words, socialism -- on earth."

He also said that he attempts to provide a differing view of the first lady from other accounts, particularly former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan's "The Case Against Hillary Clinton."

"I try in this pamphlet to define as precisely as I can the difference in the way I see Hillary and the way someone as perceptive as Peggy Noonan does," he told WorldNetDaily.

He says that the real issue in deconstructing Hillary is her socialist idealism, not her narcissism, which leads many analysts to miss the mark in their psychological analysis.

"The focus of Noonan's book is not Mrs. Clinton's kitsch Marxism or perverse feminism or cynical progressivism. Instead, it is her narcissism in which Noonan finds the key to Hillary Clinton's persona. It is almost as though Mrs. Clinton's politics were merely instrumental to her career, as changeable as her famous hairstyles," he writes in the booklet. "Noonan's psychological characterization is surely correct. There are many unprincipled narcissists in politics. But there has never been a White House so thoroughly penetrated by the political left."

In the first and largest essay in the booklet, entitled, "Hillary Clinton and 'The Third Way,'" Horowitz dismisses her use of Third Way ideology as a course of centrist moderation, but rather as a cover for her commitment to socialist ideals and political action. He notes the use of this political tactic by the Nazis in their rise to power during the 1930s, the Trotskyists to distinguish themselves from Stalinists, and the New Leftists of the 1960s to distance themselves from the horrors of the Soviet gulags.

Addressing the modern incarnation of Third Way dogma in the Clinton administration's policies, he determines that the history of Nazism, Trotskyism and the New Left demonstrates that there is substantively no Third Way.

"There is a capitalist, democratic way based on private property and individual rights -- a way that leads to liberty and universal opportunity. And there is a socialist way of group identities, group rights, a relentless expansion of the political state, restricted liberties and diminished opportunity," he states. "The Third Way is not a path to the future. It is just the suspension between these two destinations."

In light of Hillary Clinton's efforts in the health care and education arenas, Horowitz challenges her motives and the effect of her actions "for the children." One of the booklet's articles, "The Democrats' Solution: Screw the Children," recounts Hillary's support of a national milk cartel -- which has raised the cost of milk by as much as 43 cents a gallon for poor families -- and her failed education reforms as first lady of Arkansas.

He states that as head of then-Gov. Clinton's education reform program, Hillary developed a program to test all Arkansas teachers on their basic knowledge and skills. Yet, when the test results showed that 30-50 percent of all teachers in the state could not pass the test, the Clintons bowed to pressure from the teachers' union. Following advice from political advisor Dick Morris, they publicly announced that only 10 percent of the teachers failed, resulting in very few teachers actually losing their jobs for poor performance.

"This decision -- to screw the children rather than buck the teachers' union -- is one that Democrats like Hillary Clinton make every day in America, as they have done for the last 50 years. Most of the failing schools are in urban areas controlled by Democrats, so poor and minority children are the principal victims of these decisions," Horowitz states.

One additional issue that Horowitz tackles in the new booklet is the hot topic of race. Slamming black leaders for "racial shakedowns" and their silence in the face of atrocities committed by the Black Panthers and other radicals devoted to leftist causes, he denounces their actions as a betrayal of the legacy of true civil-rights activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr.

Horowitz eventually links this racial activism back to his primary subject, Hillary Clinton, saying that the race for New York's U.S. Senate seat has provided her with the opportunity to use the race card in her campaign against her Republican foes.

"The race card is the McCarthyite accusation/implication that Republicans and conservatives are racists. She has already used it in her Senate race," he told WorldNetDaily.

In his final analysis, Horowitz identifies a cult of personality surrounding the Clintons, causing many of their leftist followers to walk in blind faith as the Clinton administration has been buffeted with waves of scandal, all to the amazement and consternation of the majority of Americans.

"Conservatives are caught by surprise because they see progressives as merely misguided, when in fact they are fundamentally misdirected. They are the messianists of a religious faith. But it is a false faith and a self-serving religion," he concludes. "Since the redeemed future that justifies their existence and rationalizes their hypocrisy can never be realized, what really motivates progressives is a modern idolatry: their limitless passion for the continuance of Them (Bill and Hillary Clinton)."

Aren't the Democrats suppose to be the party of the small guy? Why are the having a hard time collecting hard money from individuals?

Your reply----

When you're not the party in power, bribes are harder to come by.

Bribes of less than a few hundred dollars from millions of Americans who you say BRIBE the party in power. Not thinking very cogently again Dijetlo?

 

[dijetlo]

ajwps
I readily admit my error in my statement about Mrs. Clinton's Marxism and her inability to publicly admit this to our troops.

The fact that you allready knew your statement wasn't true means it's a lie. Understand?

Again with the last resort to name calling Dijetlo?

If I call a theif a theif, that's not an insult. If I call a liar a lair, that's not an insult either.
If you want to debate, you need to stick to the truth. If you want to propagandize, spin and disinform, I think Yahoo maintains a board specificaly for you.

ibid
Did you forget that she tried as her previous co-president seat to socialize the entire US health care system. Are these the actions of an American to everyone's unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or a government takeover of the largest part of American interprise not to mention the health and well being of each and every citizen?

Well, since ya' mention it.
1: She was not co-president.
2: This sentence:
"Are these the actions of an American to everyone's unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or a government takeover of the largest part of American interprise not to mention the health and well being of each and every citizen? "
is gibberish. I don't know how to respond except to say...hmmmmm.
3:The US ranks number 1 with a bullet in cost per user, number 15 in the effective service department, behind every industrialized country with universal healthcare. So if the government is really for the people, why don't we do something that we know will improve the quality and duration of the average americans life? 'Cause it's "socialist"? Buck up little trooper, as long as it works it's money well spent. Capitalism has had its' chance to solve that one and it has failed abysmaly.

 

[ajwps]

“The fact that you already knew your statement wasn't true means it's a lie. Understand?

I admitted to posting in error and in haste. You seem to find deceit and lies in what most people consider the obvious fact that Hillary hides her Marxism under a thin veil of hypocrisy. With your feelings of superiority and exaggerated intellect find yourself above any error. Well that’s great for you up among the gods.

It is much easier to find fault with others, than to be faultless ourselves.

Attribution: Samuel Richardson

“If I call a thief a thief, that's not an insult. If I call a liar a lair, that's not an insult either. If you want to debate, you need to stick to the truth. If you want to propagandize, spin and disinform (sic), I think Yahoo maintains a board specifically for you.”

Your self-righteousness allows you to call me a liar which is not an insult to me but only to yourself.

Enjoy the insult as you deliver it, before you learn its true cost.

Attribution: Mason Cooley

“Well, since ya' mention it.”

1: She was not co-president. (Your statement belies the reality of Hillary and her being the only first lady in recent memory to attempt to legislate and make policy without being an elected official.)

What else would you call her especially when as she left her self-appointed possession of the President's residence did she remove much of the contents from the White House which belongs to the American people?

“2: This sentence: is gibberish. I don't know how to respond except to say...hmmmmm.”

Your non-response is very obvious. What else can you hum?

“3:The US ranks number 1 with a bullet in cost per user, number 15 in the effective service department, behind every industrialized country with universal healthcare.”

You are a genuine genius. Why that is the well healed foreigners, dictators and despots living in their utopian industrialized UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS seek to come to our third world shores for medical treatment? If you find substandard and delayed healthcare, why aren’t you living in Mexico or Canada?

See 1999 world age demographic map below.

“So if the government is really for the people, why don't we do something that we know will improve the quality and duration of the average Americans life? “

So you want to count yourself among the WE who know how to let the all-knowing government (i.e., Hillary Clinton) provide an equal FREE (taxed) distribution of health care to all US citizens. Where then will Americans go to get their healthcare when the government controls health care delivery like they do the US mail while raising their own salaries about 1 a.m. when everyone is usually sleeping?

“'Cause it's "socialist"? Buck up little trooper, as long as it works it's money well spent. Capitalism has had its' chance to solve that one and it has failed abysmaly (sic).”

So your find that Capitalism has had it’s chance but has failed abysmally. You find that the idea of socialism should rear it’s head and deal mankind with it’s tender mercies? For you ignorance must be bliss.

Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt.

Attribution: Oscar Wild, author: The Soul of Man Under Socialism

 

[Batamo]

Since I haven't posted on this issue yet, perhaps I can do so, and return the board to a debatable issue. What do people think of the current parade of debates that the Democrats are running. I haven't watched them very closely, but it just gives me the impression of some traveling circus act.

thoughts?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by ajwps
Your self-righteousness allows you to call me a liar which is not an insult to me but only to yourself.

I called you a liar 'cause you lie. I can demonstrate it. Your circular logic collapses under its' own weight.

1: She was not co-president. (Your statement belies the reality of Hillary and her being the only first lady in recent memory to attempt to legislate and make policy without being an elected official.)

Her title was First Lady, not co-president. As First Lady she can neither submit legislation nor vote on it (unlike her current position as senator.)

What else would you call her especially when as she left her self-appointed possession of the President's residence did she remove much of the contents from the White House which belongs to the American people?

If her actions were so egregious, call a cop. Why you think removing things from the Whitehouse makes her "co-president" deserves a fuller explanation.

See 1999 world age demographic map below.

You're being non-responsive to the data presented. We were talking about life expectancy, not median age.

“So if the government is really for the people, why don't we do something that we know will improve the quality and duration of the average Americans life? “
“'Cause it's "socialist"? Buck up little trooper, as long as it works it's money well spent. Capitalism has had its' chance to solve that one and it has failed abysmally (sic).”

Since you don't seem to be able to identify an error in the above passage, I must assume you agree with it. You must be referring to the spelling.
sic
Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.
I'm crushed...the only error in spelling was the second l in abysmally, I think perhaps your being over critical.

 

[5stringJeff]

Batamo,

You can post wherever you want! But we may not answer!

Just kidding. Actually, I am looking forward to a couple of them dropping out. I am getting tired of listening to the same "I hate Bush" message from nine people.

 

[dijetlo]

Hey Batamo

Originally posted by Batamo
I haven't watched them very closely...thoughts?

Dean is on Mathews right now. That would be a good start.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Batamo,...I am getting tired of listening to the same "I hate Bush" message from nine people.

That's because you're listening to the right wing press, Jeff. Seriously, Matthews is grilling Dean, it's not only funny but it is informative. He just pigeonholed him on "right to work" laws. He did the homosexaul marriage bit, Dean is apparently a fan of Colin Powell. Their talking about N.K. and Iran as a nuclear powers.
They have their own messages, every Monday Matthews has one of them on for an hour of this. Check it out and you'll have a better understanding of the enemy.