Skip to main content

Kerry was Swiftboated.  And, of course, the "Big Dog" was saddled with Whitewater and the death list/Clinton Chronicles.  But the wingnuts are obviously deciding that it isn't too early to start on Hillary.  (Disclosure: I am undecided on who to support . . . except it will be a Democrat.

I learned about this Hillary smear from a wingnut I often debate on another board, it may have been diaried before, but the fact that it is becoming an object to cite in wingnutville means we may need to know about it.  It involves allegations that Hillary has committed a felony and details . . . with links  . . . are below the fold.

The so-called "Hillary Clinton Accountability Project" (HCAP) alleges that Hillary's 2000 Senatorial Campaign took part in "the largest case of campaign fraud in US history."

HCAP is a special project of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF).  From the cases/issues they have been involved with, USJF appears to be part of the extremist, anti-immigrant, pro-political assassination (Pat Robertson?) wing of the GOP.  While Sourcewatch has a LINK for USJF, there is little information on their sources of funding.

Anyway, the allegations they are pitching have been picked up by the usual suspects in the smear train, for example World Net Daily.

The gist is this . . . A convicted felon named Peter Franklin Paul (he currently awaits sentencing after pleading guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing his control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held Stan Lee Media stocks and for certain transactions in mid-November 2000 to keep the stock from losing value) claims that he has videos (which appear to be of him sitting listening on speaker phone) that his lawyer calls "smoking-gun evidence" of the her commission of a series of felonies, each punishable by up to five years in prison.

From the World Net "article":

Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fund-raiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.

Sen. Clinton has claimed through her spokesman Howard Wolfson that Paul gave no money to her campaign, and her supporters have denied she had any anything to do with coordinating the August 2000 event or soliciting contributions directly from donors. Doing so would make Paul's substantial contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than her joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit "hard money" contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Furthermore, knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

Anyway, back when the article was first published (April 21, 2007), this convicted felon was saying he would make the entire video public within 30 days.  My guess is the "leaks" about its existence are to build some legitimate media interest and give the story legs.  (And I am truly sorry if I am helping.)  

But, in perhaps yet another example of Gonzales' DoJ incompetence, according to the article:"The tape was one of 90 Paul was ordered to turn over to the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York in 2001 as part of the investigation in a related securities case against him."  If these tapes are SO damning . . . why no indictment.  Anybody hear Swiftboats in the distance?

Originally posted to foolrex on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:26 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  *YAWN* (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCDemocrat, Alegre, lorelynn, pioneer111

    Old news. Peter Paul has been claimign to have the goods on Hillary for about seven years now and nothing. This is going no where.

  •  Big Dog and Wingnuts! I can smell (0+ / 0-)

    the sexual overtones

    If the Republicans promise to stop telling lies about us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them..

    by Romaniac on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:23:24 PM PDT

  •  Hillary is a magnet for this stuff (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alegre

    They have 15+ years of fabrications & they'll dredge 'em up, over & over & over ...

    To be expected. Ignore it.

    Molly Ivins wanted WHO for President? But WHY?

    by Positronicus on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:24:05 PM PDT

  •  This is why she'll never get elected. (7+ / 0-)

    There is way too much conspiracy theory on the right in which she is supposedly involved.

    •  If only daily kos could persuade half of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, Duccio

      Hillary's voters to go over to Obama, we could be rid of this plague.

      If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party wins.

      by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:32:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  give it time (5+ / 0-)

        I think Hillary is very much like the John Edwards or Howard Dean of 2004, the early frontrunner who (while influential) will not be the nominee.

        Plus, not enough Dems are really paying attention. I think once they do, they will see Barack Obama and John Edwards as they are and Hillary as inadequate.

        I truly think it will happen, I just think it will be a while.

        I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.

        by jkennerl on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:38:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  poof (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jkennerl

          up like smoke.  once people get to know her, she will evaporate from the scene.

          If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party wins.

          by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:40:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No one with Hillary's massive resume is (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jkennerl, DCDemocrat, dannyinla, KnowVox

          inadequate.

          •  Let me rephrase (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Duccio

            She is inadequate for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. I value her work in New York.

            I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.

            by jkennerl on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:46:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  nor is it possible (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jkennerl, KnowVox, icebergslim

            that people do not know her.  The assessment of Mrs. Clinton that has led to her consistent, relentless, and dominating position on the polls reflects 15 years as a high profile figure on the national scene.  It is utterly improbable that "getting to know her" will result in Dr. Dean's fate.

            If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party wins.

            by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:49:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Again, this is early in the campaign... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DCDemocrat, cpresley

          everytime everyone has a good week, or month, the attack is on.  If Hillary did anything outright, illegal, the MSM would have a field day.  That is a fact.  People will start paying attention to politics after Labor Day, hell, they are not even paying attention to polls.  And if any of these candidates want to "mess up, make a snafu", now is the time, not later.

          •  I am realistic enough to acknowledge (0+ / 0-)

            that she could conceivably not get the nomination, but I don't think it is more than an expression of hope that her continual domination of the polls for the last three years is simply a whim of careless and inattentive voters.  It is certainly possible it is the case, but it does not seem impossible to me that a group of voters that size in this country wants to make history and sees this woman as the way to do it.

            If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party wins.

            by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:38:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  What? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCDemocrat, anastasia p, cpresley

        Sorry I'm not a big Hillary fan, but any Democrat is going to have sleeze thrown at them.  World Net doesn't care what they say as long as it generates hits and income and hopefully smears the democrats along the way.  This idea that Hillary is some how more vunerable to all of this is just plain silly.  Say you hate her because of her politics or because you find her personally grating, but if anything she is more vetted as being able to stand up to the slime machine than anyone else we have running.

    •  Hillary hurts more than she helps... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      voltayre, londubh, icebergslim

      With all the ethical problems on the right at the moment Hillary gives them a perfect opportunity to deflect..and empowers their base.

      Her run is a constant source of frustration and wonderment to me.

      •  Deflect? How? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cpresley

        That's nonsensical.

        They've tried for fifteen years to tag her as unethical... and have failed.

        •  Failed? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          icebergslim

          Is that why a majority of people won't vote for her as of two recent polls.

          She may poll high among Democrats but that is the limit of her support.

          38% of Democrats aren't going to carry her in the general.

          •  Bah! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cpresley

            We've all seen a multitude of polls (over a year before the general election) - and despite 15 years of attacks on HRC she still has strong numbers in the primaries and general.

          •  And as for the "majority" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cpresley

            The winning candidates in three of the last four prez elections have won with less than 50% of the vote. A majority of the people don't need to vote for her... or any other candidate.

            •  This time it will be different... (0+ / 0-)

              many on the left want an anti-war candidate and Mrs. Clinton does not fit that shoe well.  Many on the right want a christian conservative candidate and many do not like what is presented.  If Clinton wins the nod and Giliulian wins the Rep nod, I think Rudy will win.  They both are pretty much the same in thinking.  I can see some Dems voting for Rudy out of all those republican candidates.  I won't, but matched up to Hillary, I think he can beat her.

          •  And they won't vote for her (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dannyinla

            because of . . . her actual wrongdoings?  Or because of the smears?

            What did she do wrong, here?

            "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

            by LithiumCola on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:51:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  failed? (0+ / 0-)

          What did Bill say in 1992? With the two of them, you get a "package deal"? They ARE a "package deal" and what one does wrong rubs off on the other because of this "package deal". There was a diary at the top of the recommend list the other day called "Red to Blue" were the diarist claimed he voted for Bush Jr because of Bill's sexual mis-conduct and lies. Now multply that by millions turned off from the Democratic Party and the loss of the House and Senate, and the majority of State Governorships because of it, and you're gonna tell me the Repubs failed? People who think the Clinton's have been untouched and unhurt (and the Democratic Party because of it) by the Republican slime machine against them have got to be dreaming.

          http://www.google.com/...

          "Victory means exit strategy and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --GW Bush, Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999

          by William Domingo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:41:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are legitimate reasons to favor (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dannyinla

            other candidates instead of Clinton.

            This is not among them.

            "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

            by LithiumCola on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:52:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  favor other candidates instead (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LithiumCola

              The post above has nothing to do with "favoring other candidates instead". It just gets kinda tiring having Hillary supporters insisting both of the Clintons are "untouchable" and "unslimable". If she does become the nominee, Dems are gonna have a tough row to hoe and need to understand that and go into this election with their eyes wide open, not living in some fantasyland of their candidate being invincible. If Hillary does become the nominee, I would hope that she find a way to counter-act these problems she has rather than try to ignore them and pretend they don't exist. Isn't that how John Kerry lost? By trying to ignore the swift-boating and hoping it would just go away?

              "Victory means exit strategy and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --GW Bush, Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999

              by William Domingo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:18:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  So, we should... (7+ / 0-)

      ...make sure we nominate a candidate without any existing conspiracy theories from the right.  

      Because they'd never, you know, make shit up.  

      I mean, seriously, where do you think all the Clinton conspiracy theories came from?

    •  Right - The Nutters Hate One of Our Candidates (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM, lorelynn, dannyinla, Lobsters, KnowVox

      so we ditch them.

      That's how we win elections right?

      Right?

      /snark

      SaveDarfur.org WH 800-671-7887 Cong. 800-828-0498

      by Alegre on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:38:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you think Hillary is a good Democrat? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        londubh

        All I see is a triangulator who cares about herself. Not as craven as Lieberman, but not far off. We need a populist, and Hillary is not the one.

        I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.

        by jkennerl on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:40:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Triangulator (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DCDemocrat, cpresley, londubh

          You forgot to call her a DLC Dem and a Vichy Dem.

          To answer your question - go look at her voting record and you'll get your answer.

          (It's yes BTW.  She's got one of the most progressive voting records in the Senate).

          SaveDarfur.org WH 800-671-7887 Cong. 800-828-0498

          by Alegre on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:41:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No question she's a liberal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCDemocrat

            Her bona fides are unimpeachable. But what I want is a progressive who sees issues not from the elite level, but honestly from the level of the people who have to live their lives in America. Hillary oozes a certain calculated smarm, and I think that will rub much more than half the country the wrong way, and I think we can't afford that.

            We need a progressive populist, not a liberal. Ergo Edwards or Obama.

            I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.

            by jkennerl on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:44:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well, chances are better than 50-50 (0+ / 0-)

              that you will get what you deem a certain calculated smarm, and it appears you can live with that.

              If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party wins.

              by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:19:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I guess there is smarm I can live with (0+ / 0-)

                All politicians lie, but I feel like Hillary cheats and coopts the party more than the others would. I remember seeing an article in the Atlantic or something of that ilk discussing how contemptuous and uncooperative many of her staff are with the rest of the party and with party-building.

                Also, I would of course prefer a netroots liar over a triangulating, backstabbing liar.

                I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.

                by jkennerl on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:27:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The things that people claim they do not (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Alegre, cpresley

                  like in Hillary's political style would serve the nominee of our great party very well as the nominee took on the scum-sucking worms who constitute the opposition party.  Frankly, I hope she does exhibit the qualities you dislike when it comes to tangling with The Demon, whoever that will be.

                  If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party wins.

                  by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:33:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  What it it Were a Guy Playing It That Way? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DCDemocrat, aggieric, cpresley

                  Just curious.  I'm starting to get a sense that people's unease where her shrewdness and cunning go stems from her being a she.  As if we women were supposed to play the games nicer than the guys.

                  (Shrewd & cunning by the way would NOT be dirty words for a guy, but for some reason she gets attacked for being effective and successful).

                  I have a hard time believing that Obama or Edwards - or anyone for that matter - didn't get where they are today by not going for a doner or an angle every chance they get.

                  The rest of the candidates get a pass on this becuase guys are expected to play rough & tumble, no holds barred games.

                  I'm not saying you do this - but I'm just starting to notice this in some of the comments in other threads.

                  SaveDarfur.org WH 800-671-7887 Cong. 800-828-0498

                  by Alegre on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:39:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not gender specific (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    icebergslim

                    I just think it's time for a change from her style, which I think favors the continuation of poorly considered CW on policy and politics perpetuated in DC that needs other Democrats as a foil. More, not less unity is the answer and more, not less connection with the people rather than with CW as well.

                    I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.

                    by jkennerl on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  corporatist (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alegre, londubh

            NAFTA-loving, anti-union, pro-lifing, cookie-baking Bill Clinton apologist.

            If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party wins.

            by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:58:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Triangulator! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCDemocrat, cpresley

            "Say the magic word and win $100 dollars."

        •  Clearly, you don't know anything about her. (7+ / 0-)

          She has been one of the foremost progressive activists in this country since the early eighties, and has outstanding resume on her own even without Bill. IF you don't see that, then you haven't taken the time to find out what she's done.

          She's got Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund's endorsement becaause of the 30+ years of outstanding, and almost entirely pro-bono action, on behalf of underprivileged families and children in particular.

          This is what is so bizarre about this complaint - so many of the Hillary haters know nothing about her, and so assume there is nothing to know.

          While Obama was cooling his heels in the comfy confines of academia, Hillary was putting in 20 and 30 pro-bono hours per week on progressive causes - on top of what she did as First Lady of Arkansas and her law office work.

          Hillary is an exceptionally good Democrat and one of the most effective progressives in our nation's history.

        •  She cannot change the dominant paradigm (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jkennerl

          enough to create a more positive future.

          Many men pleasure the president. Yet he has two wives.

          by voltayre on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:59:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's dead on (0+ / 0-)

            And what's more she cannot and will not be trusted by many Republicans that are beginning to doubt the wisdom of the Dems and are maybe willing to listen to an Obama or an Edwards, but not a blast from the past like Hillary.

            As I said before, I think she is very effective in the Senate, but she should not be the public face of the future of the Democratic party.

            I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.

            by jkennerl on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:20:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is what you guys are saying and getting... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jkennerl

              And what's more she cannot and will not be trusted by many Republicans that are beginning to doubt the wisdom of the Dems and are maybe willing to listen to an Obama or an Edwards, but not a blast from the past like Hillary.

              That is what this campaign cycle is about, not more PAST.  We have had it since 1988.  Sorry, maybe if another person with a different lastname was in office now, we would not have this "elistist" fatigue, but we do.  Geez, we act like there are NO OTHER OPTIONS out there, NO OTHER CANDIDATES out there and there are.  If Hillary had a lock on this, Obama would not have raised 25M+ for the primary, Edwards would not have raised 14M+ for the primary, they just would not have.  People do want a change and I think we will see it in the primaries.  Yes, we give Hillary her respect and due, but we do need a change in Washington.  Finally, I think the young people out there are going to be more critical this election cycle than ever.  Did you see the pre-interview that Chris Matthews gave before the Republican Debate?  There was one young woman who straight up said, "we need a Barack Obama on our side and we don't have it".  That states volumes.  Poll numbers now are early, watch after Labor Day.  Obama and Edwards do have support and raising money faster than Clinton.  Somebody out there is donating to their campaign and it is somebody like US.

    •  I'm not following that logic Yoshimi (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cpresley

      HRC cannot get elected because the right fabricates stories about her?  If it's that easy to keep a candidate from winning, then the Left better get cracking in making up all sorts of stories about Giuliani (who once ate a baby), Romney (not really a Mormon), Fred Thompson (didn't really drive a Red pickup... well that's true), etc.

      Except it's not that easy.  

      •  My logic is that Hillary has a long history with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        icebergslim

        the right.  It isn't just an attack here and there, the right actually have a false reality wrapped around Hillary and Bill.  56% of people will not vote for her in the general.

        I predict a repeat of the last election.

        •  That figure means nothing. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cpresley

          What your 56% figure misses (and, for the sake of arguement, I'll concede that percentage) is the number of previous non-voters who WILL come out and vote for HRC. Single women are among the biggest non-voting bloc in the country. As are African-Americans. If she can get just a small percentage of these traditional non-voters to visit the polling place in Novermber 08, then your 56% figure becomes irrelevent. Ditto, if Obama is the nom - you'll see the African-American vote increase dramatically.  Now, just imagine what happens to your polling data if it is a Clinton/Obama ticket?

          •  Many non-voters will vote for HRC? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dannyinla

            The candidate who is bringing disenfranchised voters and the young to our party is Barack Obama.  Do you know that people in the hundreds are just showing up to volunteer at his offices all over, just out of the blue.  Need to look at that.  Many know about Hillary, as everyone else does, and many have their opinion.  If anything, Hillary will definately need Obama's support if she wins this nomination, he has the new blood on his side.  And African Americans, I am one, and we love Clinton, but are looking at Obama HARD.  That is why, if Hillary is the nom, she better have Obama on her ticket?  Why?  He can and will difuse her negative numbers and people will come out strong, yes for her, but more passionately for him.  He has the juice now, the passion, she does not.  Read through the Newsweek polling.  She has the numbers, but not the passion, which does make some of these polling numbers questionable for "stong support" of her.  And that is just the truth.

            •  I don't disagree (0+ / 0-)

              Obama will bring in disenfranchised voters. I believe Hillary will bring in women voters. I also agree that, if she wins the nom, she will NEED support from the bottom half of the ticket. No disagreements from me and she is also not my choice in the Dem primary.

    •  Tsk. Tsk. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi

      With that kind of attitude you'll never defeat those evil machines.

    •  No, it's why she's totally electable (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cpresley
      The stuff has been trotted out so often it's lost its power. Those who are going to hate her already do. There aren't many minds left to change on Hillary. Anything new they trot out will have to be a. fabricated and b. so absurdly wingnutty that the accusers will look worse than she will. She's unswift-boatable, probably her biggest asset.

      A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

      by anastasia p on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:32:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it has lost its power to us... (0+ / 0-)

        the Democrats, but not to Independents (which she is soft in the polling) and Republicans.  If the Republicans put up a "Rudy G" who is comparable to Hillary, then she is going to have a tough time winning.  But if they put up a McCain or Romney, they are going to exaserbate her past with her husband and make this a "non-issue" campaign, based on The Clintons.  No, we don't want that, nor should we have to deal with it.  But that is what will happen.  That is why, I see the Repubs getting another candidate in there, but we will see.  But, we can not difuse or ignore her negative polling numbers.  Numbers that are higher than her poll numbers.  That is something to worry about, because you have 1/2 of America that just won't vote for her.  She needs to peel off some of that half to vote for her.  The question is, "can she"?  I don't know.  Some of the ppl I talk to on a daily basis just will NEVER VOTE FOR HER, that there bothers me with her being the nominee.

  •  the largest case of campaign fraud in US history? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkennerl, berith, NYFM, Alegre, lorelynn

    Hillary stole Florida from Gore and gave it to Bush.  Well, that does it.  Who can believe this woman?

    If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party wins.

    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:30:39 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure someone here will diary it as if (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, dannyinla, cpresley, KnowVox

    it were the truth.

  •  So predictable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, William Domingo

    Why do you think Newt was encouraging her to run?

    Cuz he knew the Fox et al Smear Machine would do its job.

    I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

    by gabbardd on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:46:45 PM PDT

  •  That headline was oddly erotic (0+ / 0-)
    •  Your roots are showing! (0+ / 0-)

      Only a former GOP lover would eroticize that!  LOL

      When a whole nation is roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and the purity of its heart. - Emerson

      by foolrex on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:29:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just the beginning, folks- (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, William Domingo

    The GOPig smear machine has tens of millions of gullible voter-sheeple who will believe ANYTHING that Rush, Sean, etc. spout on the air. They've been smearing her with lies for years as a communist/socialist, a lesbian, a felonious commodity trader- you name it. She's got a rough road ahead. I will vote for her if she's the nominee, but prefer Richardson as the best candidate to deal with the smegma about to ooze from the suppurating boil of wingnut fanaticism.

    Everybody over the cliff? Let's do it together, then!

    by waltoon on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:52:52 PM PDT

  •  This explains why she will win. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCDemocrat, NYFM, cpresley

    If I were a Republican strategist, I would leave Hillary to her own devices. Pay her absolutely no  attention, and she may be the source of her own destruction.

    Alas, I'm not. And when I see or hear that these people gearing up to sabotage her, I know that they will end up sabotaging themselves. the more they attack, the stronger she becomes. Thing is their hatred is so overpowering, they cannot help themselves. I am picturing Ricky Lazio biting his lower lip and stabbing his finger, demanding she respond to some bullshit.

    Americans are doing one thing in Iraq . . . Dying.

    by Lords on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:55:08 PM PDT

  •  Oy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    markw, DCDemocrat, dannyinla, cpresley

    We have got to get over this idea that all of the Rethugs are nine-foot-tall monsters who can only be defeated if we find a candidate so pristine that he or she cannot be attacked.

    The wingnuts would smear Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, Mother Thersea, and anyone else you can name who ran for office with a D after his or her name.  And Clinton will draw no more of a shitstorm than anyone else will.  

    The thugs realize they're balanced on the precipice, and thanks to recent election results, the looming disaster of 2008, and the endless unfolding scandals like USAgate and election rigging, they're staring into a generation-long electoral abyss.  They will fight like the cornered rats that they are until we find a way to kick them into that abyss, regardless of who we run.

  •  Man, I hope you're right-EOM (0+ / 0-)

    Everybody over the cliff? Let's do it together, then!

    by waltoon on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:59:09 PM PDT

  •  Meh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCDemocrat, dannyinla, cpresley

    This crazy off-the-wall stuff I'm far, far less worried about than other things.  It only plays to the 28% who still think GWB is doing a fantastic job.

    I think the far more damaging stuff is the subtle (and not so subtle) sexism that is and will continue to be thrown her way in the media.  I have the same worry with Sen. Obama WRT racism.  

    Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

    by Sinister Rae on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:22:48 PM PDT

    •  And the not-so-subtle craziness (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCDemocrat, cpresley, pioneer111

      of Chris Matthews and MSNBC. It was Matthews who complained that HRC had "a dead person's eyes."  

      People would do better worrying about MSNBC's role in the attacks on the Dems than the wingers'. It was, after all, the mainstream media that took down Gore, Dean and Kerry... even though people would like to blame it on the wingers.

  •  Why are we doing the Republicans work for them? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dannyinla

    I am getting so tired of people taking great glee in cutting down Hilary Clinton. Is she my favorite candidate? No, if I could pick anyone I wanted, the ticket would be Al Gore and Wesley Clark. Unfortunately, at the moment neither one of them is running. Is Hilary perfect? No, of course not. But she does bring a lot of plusses to the table. She knows how to work with people not of her party. And, even if we get the presidency and keep both houses of congress, to get anything accomplished, and there is a lot that needs to be accomplished, we are going to have to get everybody working on the same page. She has been in the White House, and knows that not everything is as simple as it may seem from the outside. And she brings Bill with her, and that is a huge plus. I will vote for whichever one of the candidates makes it to the general election, be that Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Governor Richardson or maybe even Wes Clark or Al Gore (hope, hope, wish, wish).

    The Bush administration has made such a huge mess of everything that we need to make absolutely sure that a Democrat wins in 08. We don't help that by cutting down our candidates and giving the Republicans fodder for the general campaign. If you think your candidate is the best, tell us why and what he (or she) would do instead of cutting down some other candidate.

  •  And this is bad because? (0+ / 0-)

    Seriously, it doesn't matter. This vast right wing conspiracy against Hillary won't matter to most Democrats. I listened to a small portion of Sean "Asshat Supreme" Hannity yesterday on the radio (was trying to hear if there was a storm alert) and he was salivating over the idea of Hillary getting the nomination because then the wingnuts could bring out the big guns to smear her.

    So the wingnuts may be gearing up, but they are going to save their biggest attacks on Hillary in hopes she'll get the nomination because that's when it really matters to them. When you set aside all the wingnut talking points, Hillary is not the best presidential candidate. I think she would be far more effective remaining in the Senate.

    "I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed."   —Marvin, The Paranoid Android

    by londubh on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:47:11 PM PDT

  •  There going to smear whoever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cpresley

    is the front runner. It doesn't matter, the Democrats are going to have to deal with it no matter who they nominate.

    I've gone to the conservative blogs, and there campaign against Barack is that he's a "Black Dan Qayle." because he's black and inexperienced.

    But notice the racism. Why do they have to emphasize the term "black?" Why don't they say he's just another Quayle?

  •  Old News (0+ / 0-)

    This is old news.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site