I didn't think the crying was faked. If it was, she wouldn't have stumbled and made that strange comment: "You know, I have so many opportunities from this country, I just don't want to see us fall backwards." It was a slip. She has had so many opportunities from us. And we're not going to fall backward; she will.
I try and hide my hatred for the Clintons. It turns some people off in my blue state (N.Y.), and I have bigger fish to fry. But now and then I have to trot it out, especially now that Hillary has announced her surge strategy for the nomination...
She said that the voters were finally seeing who she is the other day. That's weird. She's been in our public life for over 16 years now, and we don't know who she is. It says something. She's afraid to show us who she really is, or, beneath the calculating shapeshifter, she doesn't have much of an inner life. It's like we finally figured Nixon out in '74, after 20 years.
The simple reason I can't vote for her is because I don't trust her. I can't believe a thing she says. Not since she said on "60 Minutes," during the Gennifer Flowers business, in 1992, "If you don't like the answer, then don't vote for us," about her private life. I loved her for that, it was real. Baking cookies was real too. The Travel Office was real. And people never have liked the real Hillary. She's an operator. So she tried to hide that and come up with a persona. But there's nothing else there. No values, no political convictions, no vision. Politically, she's an establishment centrist, she might as well be Rockefeller. Stem cells and abortion--she's right on them.
She's a liar. When I asked my friend Dan Swanson why he hated the Clintons today, he said, "Utter and complete insincerity. Mendacity of Brobdingnagian proportions. It took a while for me to figure it out. The hatred took years." Mendacity. The most revealing moments for me in the Hillary story are all the calls she made the night that Vince Foster died. To Maggie Williams and Bernard Nussbaum, before someone rifled Foster's office. I think someone wanted Hillary's divorce file, or Travel Office stuff. Who knows. She was on it that night, with endless phone calls, and she'll never tell us the truth about it. Just as she'll never tell us the truth about the $100,000 she made in commodities trading. Pure graft. Run her in the general and people will bring it all up again.
Has she been cleaner and more straightforward the last 6 years? Yes. But it's because she's struggling to overcome her negatives. Never forget what these people did to the White House. They sold the Lincoln Bedroom to their meritocratic big-donor friends, and they looted the place when they left. They pardoned a bunch of corrupt people at the last minute. When Hillary clucks that we have to get rid of the "two oil men" in the White House, it's a blue-state neolib delusion. Those two oil men didn't get us into the Iraq disaster on their own, Hillary did it too, and she did it for the Israel lobby, which is her financial base; and when she says she'll take on the lobbyists, she won't take them on.
As my mother constantly reminds me, I helped get Bush in by supporting Nader in '00 (though I was in New York, which Gore won handily). I thought, What could go so wrong, and boy was I wrong, huh. I feel bad about that, though I also wonder what Big Al Gore would have done. The reason I voted for Nader is that Gore had the Clinton stink on him, and he wouldn't distance himself enough for me. I wanted to trust my president. That's one thing about George Bush. He's stupid and he's stubborn, and he's made a gargantuan error in the Middle East, with Hillary supporting it all the way, while I was demonstrating against it; but I know who he is. With her I haven't got a clue. All she believes in is herself. Her opportunities. Nominate her, and it will happen again: a lot of us will sit on our hands or go to a third party candidate, or hold our noses for McCain. Don't you want to get past all that bad feeling? Let's nominate someone we can believe in...
FU for not voting for Gore and promoting his candidacy. You and Nader forced him to run Left in the election and cost us the centrist votes that would have clinched the election for Gore. Look what it got us!!
Don't let yourself off the hook so easy. Your mother is right.
Gore ran left in the election? Must have missed that. Seriously, though, this isn't about Hilary's pysche. Of course we don't know who she is. We don't know who Obama or Edwards or McCain are either. We don't know these people! They're not our friends! Talk about their inner selves mistakes the purpose of electoral politics, which is to hire people to do jobs, not to reveal their inner cores. And don't vote for McCain–that's just asking for it.
Gore who is he? Do you mean Lieberman? Was Cheney that bad? Then imagine what Lieberman would have done.
Phil correctly supports the Palestinians as they are weak and without a voice. However, Phil has no empathy for the unborn, although the unborn are truly the weakest and voiceless.
Vince Foster is just one of a huge pile of bodies gathered around the Clintons. We only have until March to find a 'stink'-free candidate, someone who will represent the potentially massive constituency (hopefully included the Ron Paul supporters, who can then switch) of Americans who want a genuine third-party candidate. That candidate will of course need to be virtually superhuman to resist the temptations, and put his/her life on the line. They'll have to be anti-zionist of course.
Bloomberg and Hagel in 2008!!
Phil was right to vote for Nader in '00. I also voted for Nader and am proud of that.
Why? Because a vote for Nader was a vote against the two-party military-media dictatorship in this country. Nader had a vision and never pandered to anybody. Son of immigrants, self-made man, man of ethics and integrity–what could be more positively American than that?
And since 2000, I haven't voted in any federal elections. I am proud that decision, as well, to join the American MAJORITY that does not condone the two-party hijacking of our democracy.
I'm with you Phil, Nader in 08…Hillary's Deal With The Devil link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
Will Apartheid Israel Extort From Hillary For Bill's Phone Sex Tapes link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
/>
Mondo White Boy
Mondo White Boy – I looked at your blog. Who do I sue to get my 15 minutes back?
Hope you didn't give up your day job for this.
By the way – if you want to be taken at all seriously, identify who you are. Obnoxious blogs written by people too cowardly to give their name say more about the writer than the people they attack.
Sorry Beelzebub the correct Hillary devil link is link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
and Kevin there is no such thing as anonymous blogging. Long before America started spying on us Israel was spying on us. If you read informative blogs like liberal white boy you would know that. The only reason I don't use my real name, Steve Goodman is that I don't like annoying creeps like you writing Norman Finkelstein type letters to me. I don't have Norman's patience for creeps like you.
I voted twice for Nader. I never voted for a Clinton or a Bush. My defense is purely selfish : For me and my situation, neither party had me in mind except to pay taxes for so much that went against my principled grain and, always, ultimately at least, against my self-interest.
Good job, Phil, in defining Hillary's essential qualities: mendacity and greed. How quickly people forget the pardon scandal on the Clintons' last day in the White House. Hillary's brother Hugh Rodham took $400,000 to lobby (successfully) for pardons for two of his clients. When this got into the news, the shocked, shocked Clintons demanded that he return the money.
Thanks to the 'understanding' (something like 'professional courtesy') which exists between the Clintons and the Bushes, nobody was prosecuted for this flagrant bribery. But it ought to be obvious that Hillary's brother couldn't have engineered this lucrative scam without her help.
If naive Americans were as corruption-savvy as the rest of the world, she would be known as "Hillary 10 Percent." Miss Blonde Ambition has been on the take for more than 30 years. That's more than enough.
hmmm? I seem to remember somebody started a Phil Weiss article on Wikipedia not long ago.
Now it's gone again. All I remember are Phil's Clinton inquiries. There seems to be much more beneath the lines in this note …
Anyway now it's gone again:
I'm sure much of what you say is true but why do you think Obama is necessarily more authentic? Check this out. link to noquarterusa.net
And on your special interest, the Middle East, it's hard to see how Obama's views are much different from hers. link to commondreams.org
All of which is to say that if you are fed up with the status quo you SHOULD vote for Nader (although i don't think he has said yet that he is running). Nothing in Obama's history indicates he will stand up to the powers that be. Indeed his 'post partisan' approach may well make things worse. Not for nothing are certain African American commentators referring to him as 'the black Hillary.'
You go to political war with the candidates you have and Obama is the weakest of our choices, in my opinion. If he is nominated it may well cost the Dems the election. If that matters.
I'm sure much of what you say is true but why do you think Obama is necessarily more authentic? Check this out. link to noquarterusa.net
And on your special interest, the Middle East, it's hard to see how Obama's views are much different from hers. link to commondreams.org
All of which is to say that if you are fed up with the status quo you SHOULD vote for Nader (although i don't think he has said yet that he is running). Nothing in Obama's history indicates he will stand up to the powers that be. Indeed his 'post partisan' approach may well make things worse. Not for nothing are certain African American commentators referring to him as 'the black Hillary.'
You go to political war with the candidates you have and Obama is the weakest of our choices, in my opinion. If he is nominated it may well cost the Dems the election. If that matters.
"Bloomberg and Hagel in 2008!!"
Bloomberg is a Lieberman-esque Jewish Zionist Israel-firster, and a money-worshipping megalomaniac to boot. If somehow elected president, he would be an unmitigated disaster for America. I have no idea why the usually sensible Hagel is flirting with this sleaze ball.
Citations from a Salon article by Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/31/bloomberg/index.html
'Bloomberg's pro-war rhetoric dutifully echoed the White House line connecting Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida and 9/11, almost as if Karl Rove had programmed his brain. "I'm voting for George W. Bush and it's mainly because I think we have to strike back at terrorists," he said in September 2004. "To argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist is ridiculous. He used mustard gas, or some kind of gas, against his own people."'
Bloomberg's speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention:
'I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism.
Michael Bloomberg Press Release, July 17, 2006, as the Israeli bombing of Lebanon proceeded:
'Israel rightly continues to defend itself from unprovoked attacks on innocent civilians, and the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Let there be no doubt: Hamas and Hezbollah must return the Israeli soldiers they abducted and cease their attacks against Israel.'
'I have said time and again that you cannot negotiate when there is a gun to your head. The international community needs to send a clear message to these terrorist organizations — and the countries that fund and support their reign of terror — that these kinds of attacks on peaceful, democratic nations will not be tolerated. . . . .'
'I commend President Bush and his cabinet for their continued support of Israel and its right to defend itself…
The only reason I don't use my real name, Steve Goodman is that I don't like annoying creeps like you writing Norman Finkelstein type letters to me. I don't have Norman's patience for creeps like you.
Posted by: liberal white boy | January 13, 2008 at 07:34 AM
Dude – Off topice here, but what kind of idiot are you? I thought your blog was pretty funny, but I'm betting Jews won't. I wouldn't. Took me all of 2 minutes to learn your real name, which is not Steve Goodman. If you're going to try to be sly, don't be an idiot.
-Chase Stevens
Bloomberg, all four foot whatever of him, is totally transparent–it's just possible he would be even worse for average Americans than Lieberman–it would be a close contest.
Charles,
Bloomberg has been a wonderful mayor for NYC. Not sure if he would make a good president at all, but I don't think anyone can really claim he is failed at his endeavors. Unlike Bush, Bloomberg was not born into privilege, and he made his billions by being smart, innovative, shrewd and ballsy. I didn't vote for him – voted for Mark Green instead, but have been pleased with Bloomberg's performance. Again, I'm not sure if he would make a good President, but he certainly seems more capable than the incumbent.
Regarding voting for Nader:
I didn't realize the American citizen was required to vote for one of only two virtually indistinguishable (one right-wing, the other center-right) major parties. I thought this was the land of freedom and choice.
As for Hillary:
I could not take four to eight more years of that cloying, artificial voice, her newfound and feigned interest in the "invisible" citizen. To recycle a phrase used by many of her party in '04, if she wins, I'm moving to Canada!
Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Philip – I was looking for the piece you wrote on the censoring of the exhibit by the Israeli group that took you around Hebron. I can't seem to locate it. I can't believe the senility is kicking in this early. Can you please direct me to it. I hadn't had a chance to finish it earlier.
Thank you.
Nancy
You are right Dude. That was easy. Nice photo.
Liberal White Boy – describes himself as "one of the most prolific writers of our time"
Have you ever seen a more attention starved individual? I mean, besides Brittany.
While Obama and Clinton wrestle and the four Republican candidates face one another, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s shadow increasingly falls over their playing field. Armed with as much money as he could possibly need to run, this Democrat-turned-Republican could throw the entire race into chaos.
Bloomberg can wait and watch the primaries unfold before making his move. A byproduct of the front loading of the primaries in both parties is that t he nominees will probably be chosen with plenty of time for a third party candidate to enter the field. The New York City mayor could either get himself nominated by the Green Party, formerly the vehicle for gadfly Ralph Nader, or set up his own party by petition in the 50 states. His massive financial resources make it possible for him to wait until early Spring before he has to begin collecting signatures if he goes the petition route.
The increasingly bitter nominating contests in both parties seem likely to offer an ample supply of disgruntled voters from whom Bloomberg could draw. Hillary and Obama are girding for a take-no-prisoners battle and the Republican fight seems likely to get equally acrimonious.
But a third party candidacy must gain its traction and impetus from discontent with the other two candidates. It is only frustration with the outcome of the Democratic and Republican nominating processes that would make a Bloomberg candidacy attractive.
Beyond the obvious difficulty Bloomberg would have running against Giuliani, both McCain and Obama would seem to pose obstacles to a viable third party candidacy. Political androgynous candidates, they draw well among both Democrats and Republicans and, so far, seem to alienate relatively few voters. Obama’s charisma has set much of the country ablaze a nd he appears to have done so without making a lot of enemies.
Boomberg's drawback — inexperience — is not likely to enflame enough voters to power a third party. John McCain may not win the Republican nomination precisely because his ideology and record is so appealing to those outside his party. He is the Democratic Party’s favorite Republican. If he wins the nomination, he can probably count on sufficient popularity on both sides of the race to make a Bloomberg candidacy problematic.
But if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination and either Huckabee or Romney gets the Republican nod, it is easy to see Bloomberg emerging as a very strong alternative. Hillary has a unique ability to make enemies and to polarize the electorate. If she wins the Democratic nomination, tens of millions of Democrats and Independents will want to look elsewhere in the general election. If she wins after a bitter fight with Obama, she might well alienate enough African American voters to make a third party candidacy successful, particularly with Bloomberg’s excellent record in attracting minority support in New York City.
If Huckabee is nominated by the Republicans, he may not be able to escape the evangelical ghetto and might have limited appeal to mainstream voters. Romney would also leave a lot of voters cold if he were to be nominated. The limited national security credentials of both Republicans might also open the door to Bloomberg, who has had extensive experience in fighting terrorism in New York City.
So Bloomberg needs to wait and watch as the other parties choose their nominees. If Hillary is the Democrat and either Huckabee or Romney wins the Republican nomination, he will find enough running room to make it worthwhile to take the shot.
Who would he help and hurt? He’d probably help Hillary more than the Republicans, alth ough he’d draw votes from both parties. But, above all, he would help himself. Bloomberg could win. His money combined with his political savvy acquired facing the second toughest press corps in the nation might make it possible for him to pull it off if the other parties nominate the right people.
Nancy from Philly, that piece is now part of the not-so-occult knowledge. This comment from Mr. Haber sealed it's destiny:
"The story on which the above post is based on a misunderstanding and has been retracted by me. Jerry Haber – Posted by: Jerry Haber | January 12, 2008 at 11:39 PM"
But if you want to finish reading it and also the excellent comments by Cogit8 and Kevin here you can find it:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Fr4XdBqAtyAJ:www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/01/progressive-zio.html
Catch up Phil
http://www.slate.com/id/2165717/&#obamapastor
Old CW: Not Black Enough; New CW: What's All This Black Business? Tom Maguire wonders why Jodi Kantor's front-page NYT piece on Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, hasn't generated more controversy. Having now read it, I tend to agree. I'd certainly be more comfortable with a presidential nominee whose main spiritual man 1) hadn't visited Col. Qaddafi (even back in '84); 2) talked less about "oppression" and "this racist United States of America;" 3) when discussing the solution to poverty, talked more about individual achievement and less about the role of "community"–including maybe even celebrating "middleclassness" instead of using it as shorthand for selfishness; 4) in general wasn't so obsessed with race–as evidenced most negatively in talk of "white arrogance" and derogatory reference to the "Great White West." … I suspect Rev. Wright is going to be a bigger problem for Obama's campaign than has been conventionally perceived. When Obama declared "we worship an awesome God in the blue states," were voters expecting this?…
P.S.: The attack on "the pursuit of 'middleclassness'" referred to by the NYT and in this Freeper post doesn't seem to appear on the church's web site. At least doesn't appear to be where bloggers once said it was. Has it been expunged? I don't know. … Update: Several emailers point to this Web Archive site. …
P.P.S.: Obama's views aren't necessarily his pastor's, as he points out. But Obama himself seems to have embraced the idea that poverty is "rooted in societal indifference and individual callousness"–reflecting Wright's Disturbing Tendencies #2 and #3. Do you think poverty is rooted in "individual callousness"? I don't. …
[How does Wright's "Black Value System" talk differ from the parallel semi-tribal sentiments you might hear, say, in a synagogue?--ed Relevant question. Further discussion required. I don't think many synagogues rail against "gentile arrogance," for one thing. But I haven't spent a lot of time in synagogues.] 2:15 A.M. link
Arrogance is always attributed to those in power. Once in power, any group sees itself as beneficient in tandem with its own economic and political security.
For the past few months most libertarians have been pleased to see Ron Paul achieving unexpected success with his presidential campaign’s message of ending the Iraq war, abolishing the federal income tax, establishing sound money, and restoring the Constitution. Sure, some of us didn’t like his talk about closing the borders and his conspiratorial view of a North-South highway. But the main themes of his campaign, the ones that generated the multi-million-dollar online fundraising spectaculars and the youthful “Ron Paul Revolution,” were classic libertarian issues. It was particularly gratifying to see a presidential candidate tie the antiwar position to a belief in a strictly limited federal government.
And so it’s understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.
Ron Paul says he didn’t write these newsletters, and I take him at his word. They don’t sound like him. In my infrequent personal encounters and in his public appearances, I’ve never heard him say anything racist or homophobic (halting and uncomfortable on gay issues, like a lot of 72-year-old conservatives, but not hateful). But he selected the people who did write those things, and he put his name on the otherwise unsigned newsletters, and he raised campaign funds from the mailing list that those newsletters created. And he would have us believe that things that “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed” appeared in his newsletter for years and years without his knowledge. Assuming Ron Paul in fact did not write those letters, people close to him did. His associates conceived, wrote, edited, and mailed those words. His closest associates over many years know who created those publications. If they truly admire Ron Paul, if they think he is being unfairly tarnished with words he did not write, they should come forward, take responsibility for their words, and explain how they kept Ron Paul in the dark for years about the words that appeared every month in newsletters with “Ron Paul” in the title.
Paul says he didn’t write the letters, that he denounces the words that appeared in them, that he was unaware for decades of what 100,000 people were receiving every month from him. That’s an odd claim on which to run for president: I didn’t know what my closest associates were doing over my signature, so give me responsibility for the federal government.
But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for president, and he never hoped to be. He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, he became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government.
Mutterings about the past mistakes of the New Republic or the ideological agenda of author James Kirchick are beside the point. Maybe Bob Woodward didn’t like Quakers; the corruption he uncovered in the Nixon administration was still a fact, and that’s all that mattered. Ron Paul’s most visible defenders have denounced Kirchick as a “pimply-faced youth”—so much for their previous enthusiasm about all the young people sleeping on floors for the Paul campaign—and a neoconservative. But they have not denied the facts he reported. Those words appeared in newsletters under his name. And, notably, they have not dared to defend or even quote the actual words that Kirchick reported. Even those who vociferously defend Ron Paul and viciously denounce Kirchick, perhaps even those who wrote the words originally, are apparently unwilling to quote and defend the actual words that appeared over Ron Paul’s signature.
Those words are not libertarian words. Maybe they reflect “paleoconservative” ideas, though they’re not the language of Burke or even Kirk. But libertarianism is a philosophy of individualism, tolerance, and liberty. As Ayn Rand wrote, “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” Making sweeping, bigoted claims about all blacks, all homosexuals, or any other group is indeed a crudely primitive collectivism.
Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick. Shame on them.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/
Maybe the sarmatian will perceive why a common man will never be allowed to be an american president. The people is full of crude primitivism and as such every politician comming from the people will be tainted by it. As we see unless you are part of some specific ethnic groups (those who coin phrases like: "such and such are the most crudely primitive form of collectivism") whatever your feelings were when you were younger and had not yet been completely cut off from your roots will be used against you, if only for divide and conquer purposes disguised as statements of principle.
wow
speechless
i vote this post for
best of the web
2008
oh wait, you'll never get in, this post is outside the mainstream
sorry
Gore WON by 500,000 votes. If he had asked for a STATEWIDE Florida recount instead of cutely demanding only a recount in specific counties he'd probably be President.
Nader has no holistic world view. His biggest howler was when he said in a speech that the weather is so unimportant (remember, he's the Green Party candidate in 2000!) that it shouldn't be included in local newscasts. Anyone so benighted as to need a weather report should just watch The Weather Channel. Nader didn't explain that his proposal would change a free service into a FEE service, when many people can't afford pay TV. Nader is so far up his ivory tower that we all look like ants to him.
This is the conversation I had over here on that topic:
http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/2008/01/primarily-i-don.html