On SAFE's (Stop Abuse for Everyone) website, providing resources for victims of domestic abuse, they list Bill Clinton in the category of "well known domestic violence victims", explaining as follows:

John Edwards yesterday spoke out against the appallingly fraudulent and cynical "inevitability" meme perpetuated by HRC and her minions, incisively stating as follows:

"Did I miss something? Did we already have the Iowa caucuses? Did we already have the New Hampshire primary?" Edwards joked to about 60 people gathered in a machine shed at a farm outside Harlan.

The former North Carolina senator noted a recent New York Times story, in which unnamed Clinton backers explained the political reasons behind her Senate vote to label an Iranian military unit as a terrorist group. They said Clinton was switching from "primary mode," to "general-election mode," in which she would have to court more conservative voters.

Edwards was incredulous. "Have we decided who the nominee’s going to be? Have you decided?" he said. "Instead of having primary mode or general-election mode, how about we have telling-the-truth mode? How about if we actually say what we believe?"

link

This is crazy. In more evidence that HRC employs the same scumbag tactics as GWB/Cheney, and rivals Nixon in terms of paranoia this article on TheHill.com reveals details of Hillary's spying operations.

Taking cues from GWB and Rudy, Hillary shows that she too can exploit the 9/11 tragedy for political gain. According to this article, HRC has a new ad running in Iowa and New Hampshire that would make Rove proud.

There's been much well-deserved disgust in these circles lately regarding the National Enquirer's baseless and slanderous assertions of infidelity against John Edwards.

And also some speculation regarding which of Edwards' competitors might be behind this crap.

Well, surprise surprise, according to Politico.com, here, all roads lead to HRC.

These are the wise words from Kos in an interview on Radar Online excerpted here.

The full quote is as follows:

I personally think Bill Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party. He was a survivor and was under assault by the right wing, but he worked to protect himself at the expense of his party. We lost control of Congress during his tenure. So to me what's dangerous is this notion that having a strong idea about the future of our country is inherently bad, because it's partisan.

Is there really any difference between today's HRC and Hillary the former "Goldwater girl"? Given her pro-war right wing foreign policy sympathies and premature pandering to republican general election voters, it's often difficult to tell. And now, according to the Economist, Hillary continues to proudly reminice about her days of devotion to the wingnut republican icon.

As we enter the most meaningful phase of the pre-voting primary season, and as Hillary consolidates her role as establishment favorite and "inevitable" nominee, it has never been more urgent that all who recognize the danger that Hillary represents to our most cherished ideals as deomcrats now unite to oppose her.

This means no more bickering between pro-Edwards and pro-Obama dems. No more sitting passively on the sidelines, waiting for Al Gore or another savior to emerge. It means a reorganization of our priorities. Oppose Hillary first, back your chosen candidate second. Otherwise, put plainly, your chosen candidate loses, and Hillary wins.

It is widely accepted that HRC is a polarizing candidate unpopular with vast segments of American, such as residents of the Western mountain region. A Hillary nomination would threaten recent inroads made by democrats in that traditionally republican region.  This article explores the phenomenon in greater depth:

Poiticalwire is now featuring the following as its "Quote of the Day":

"I came within a day of announcing, because most of the governors were for me and I had been a governor for six years. And I really didn't think I knew enough and had served enough and done enough to run."

-- Bill Clinton, in an interview on Political Capital with Al Hunt to air tonight on Bloomberg TV, on his near run for president in 1988. Clinton was suggesting that Sen. Barack Obama is not experienced enough to seek the presidency.

www.politicalwire.com

During Wednesday's debate, HRC was asked about releasing the names of donors to Bill's presidential library. Her response was that while she doesn't discuss her private conversations with her husband, she was "sure" he would be "happy to consider" making those names public.

Well I guess he happily considered it before, according to ABC news, predictibly declining to do so.

During yesterday's debate, HRC was asked about releasing the names of donors to Bill's presidential library. Her response was that while she doesn't discuss her private conversations with her husband, she was "sure" he would be "happy to consider" making those names public.

Well I guess he happily considered it before, according to ABC news, predictibly declining to do so.

The other day Markos "Kos" announced that he voted for Dodd in his straw poll, though he declined to "endorse" anybody this election cycle, saying "I assume you have your own brains to guide you in that process."

Now that's all well and good, and I appreciate Kos' respect for our respective choices, but it's surprising that Kos has failed to date to at least take a more aggressive position against HRC, given that this site was built on zealous opposition to the sort of DLC mentality that Hillary represents.

In the Cheney-like world of HRC, secrecy must be maintained at all costs, and the media spin must be insolubly controlled. A current Politico article documents how she threatened to block access to Bill unless a story she didn't like concerning dissension within her campaign was spiked. Relevant portions are as follows:

Seriously, bro, don't. Hey, I'm not kidding here . . . AHHH! HELP!!!

C'mon, we shouldn't just let this Andrew Meyer / John Kerry thing fade out of our collective consciousness. There are too many interesting angles yet to be explored.

Yes, I am a Hillary-hater, unabashedly. And no, this is not inconsistent with being a good democrat. Rather, it is Hillary's DLC-style background and establishment-centered polical orientation that is inconsistent with the liberal, progressive and populist principles that have brought people together as "democrats" since the founding of the republic. In other words, it is my view that Hillary is an illegitimate heir to the party's leadership, and if she gets the nomination, traditonal democrats such as myself will be left barren and unrepresented.

But let's step away from abstraction. Here are five very real things that will definitely happen if Hillary gets the nomination:

More evidence of Hillary's insincerity:

From Sioux City Journal via PoliticalWire.com:

DES MOINES -- Just a little more than a week after Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign promised Iowa Democrats she would not campaign in states that broke party rules by scheduling early primary contests, Clinton held six events in Florida Monday.

Clinton spokesman Mark Daley said Clinton held six events in Florida Monday, five of which were fundraising events and one public campaign event on senior issues.

Alright, this is to all those who claim that they're choosing their preferred presidential candidate solely based on that candidate's position on the issues. Well surprise surprise, you may be incorrect about precisely which candidate best represents your views.