Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (official)

[CookyPuss]

Ready on day 1?

This stuff makes the whole Rezko ordeal look like a total joke. I had heard that there was a "swift boat" style documentary about Hillary, but I assumed it was just a rehash of the same old garbage. These are allegations from a civil case against Bill Clinton. The trial date could is scheduled to be set in April. LINK Some of the accusations seem totally outrageous, but at the very least the Clintons enlisted an extremely shady character to put on one of the all-time largest political fund raising events... and they filed false FEC reports and didn't exactly return the $$ they got as a result. The most entertaining part to me was the sworn deposition where Stan Lee (yes, the Stan Lee) admits to a felony (laundering $100,000 in donations) to benefit Hillary.

FOXNews.com - Hillary Clinton Accuser Claims New Evidence of Fraud in Documentary - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Salon.com Politics | Peter Paul and Chelsea

Hillary Clinton Accountability Project

YouTube - Spider Man Stan Lee Swears Hillary...

Granted, Lee's deposition does not appear to jive with testimony from the criminal case for Hillary's former chief fund-raiser.

In a brief appearance, Mr. Lee described the gala, at which he was host, as "the biggest moment of my life; I was on stage and introduced President Clinton."


And he told the jury that in connection with the gala he had made a $225,000 loan to Peter F. Paul, a co-founder of the now-defunct Internet company Stan Lee Media and the man who paid for the gala. Mr. Lee said the loan was never repaid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/21/po...21clinton.html

['BusNative]

Some sense out of TSUN...

Democrats risk losing a generation | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Democrats risk losing a generation

BY RON DZWONKOWSKI ? FREE PRESS COLUMNIST ? March 16, 2008


If -- and it's still an if -- the numbers just don't add up for U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic presidential nominee, but the party, through its arcane rules and superdelegates process, gives it to her anyway, Democrats will pay dearly, for a generation or more.

Instead of re-establishing themselves as the party in power for perhaps the next 20 years, Democrats could be effectively handing the White House to Republican John McCain and alienating up to 30 million young voters who have gotten engaged in politics this year for the first time because of Barack Obama. If these voters feel that Obama has been cheated out of a chance to run for president, they and the hordes more of them becoming eligible to vote in the years ahead, will not easily return to the Democratic fold. Even if they like the party's principles, they will distrust its processes.
In this scenario, Clinton mitigates the damage only somewhat by choosing Obama as her vice presidential candidate -- a role he has said he doesn't want anyway.

More likely, young voters sit out the election (as they have in the past) and McCain wins and Democrats dissolve again into their bickering, finger-pointing ways while an emerging generation that desperately wants to see a stronger, safer and better America backs out of the political system.
This is truly a nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party, which has on its hands a much closer battle for the presidential nomination than anyone, especially Clinton, expected when the race took shape last fall. It seems as if it can be avoided only if in the weeks ahead either Clinton or Obama emerges with an indisputable command of the contest and the loser delivers a strong, convincing endorsement of the victor. Given the way they've been going at each other for weeks, the convincing part may be difficult...

[BuckeyeMike80]

It seems as if it can be avoided only if in the weeks ahead either Clinton or Obama emerges with an indisputable command of the contest and the loser delivers a strong, convincing endorsement of the victor. Given the way they've been going at each other for weeks, the convincing part may be difficult...

I can see Obama giving that type of endorsement, but I don't think Hillary is capable of it.

[cincibuck]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

Some sense out of TSUN...

Democrats risk losing a generation | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

It's not just the young they risk losing. There are a lot of us unhappy campers out there who remember Chicago 1968 and the great betrayal by the "party professionals."

Fool me once....

[tibor75]

If Hillary wins the nomination despite losing by 100 pledged delegates, and loses the election to McCain, it will take 20 years for the Dumbs to recover from this. if she wins, then at least the feelings will subside, but if she loses, no way.

[ORD_Buckeye]

My fear with Bill and Hillary is that, in their worldview, it's far more important for Obama to lose the general election (so they can say to the party, we told you so) than it is to remove the Republicans from the White House.

That's why they've shown so little hesitation in trying to destroy Obama. If he wins the nomination, they don't want him to win the general election anyways. From their point of view, there is no downside to what they're doing.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

That's why they've shown so little hesitation in trying to destroy Obama. If he wins the nomination, they don't want him to win the general election anyways. From their point of view, there is no downside to what they're doing.

And from the interactions I've had with brain-dead Hillary supporters, this is perceived by them as her "strength."

['BusNative]

I can't wait to hear the Clinton campaign's reaction to this.


No Revote For Florida Dems - Politics News Story - WESH Orlando

No Revote For Florida Dems

The Florida Democratic Party has decided there will not be a revote in Florida.

In an e-mail set to be distributed to Florida Democrats Monday night, Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen L. Thurman wrote that the party has ?researched every potential alternative process ? from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections ? but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida.?

Thurman also blamed the state?s initial decision to move up their primary before Feb. 5?s Super Tuesday ? the decision that led to the sanctions from the Democratic National Committee which prevents Florida?s delegates from being seated at the convention ? on state Republicans acting over the objections of the Democrats.

?Our Democratic legislators in Tallahassee tried to set the Florida primary on Feb. 5, instead of Jan. 29,? Thurman wrote. ?But of course, their proposed amendment to House Bill 537 [to keep Florida?s primary on Feb. 5] was greeted with laughter and derision from the Republicans who control the state government.?

The major problem with the mail-in revote that was proposed last week was that there was no system in place to handle such a vote. Mail-in ballots would have been due June 3rd, and all 1-2 million votes would have to be counted and certified by a signature inspector one week later.

Some counties do not have tabulation machines or staff members able to verify that many signatures in so short a time.

?The party had no way to get to voters' signatures so that they could do the signature verification,? Orange County Election Supervisor Bill Cowles said. ?I think that was the key component that became the key stumbling block, along with the other issues.?

It now appears Florida will be the only state not represented at this summer?s Democratic convention. Michigan is the other state facing similar sanctions, but officials there appear close to agreeing on a revote.

With support from Sen. Hillary Clinton ? who won the popular vote in Florida?s primary in January ? some Florida leaders are calling for the original vote to count. But many Democrats say that would be unfair, as all of the major candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida prior to the election.

A Tampa Democratic voter was in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta Monday, arguing that Florida's primary votes should translate into delegates at the national convention. The court has agreed to a quick review of the case, but has given no word on when a decision will be handed down.

Regardless of the outcome, some political experts say this prolonged battle over Florida?s delegates could hurt the Democratic nominee?s chances in the critical swing state in November.

?I think this is really going to hurt Florida Democrats come the general election,? Rollins College Political Expert Dr. Rick Foglesong said. ?They never had a primary here, or developed a ground game to develop the votes. And Independents, those votes may be lost. So I think this will hurt.?

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

I can't wait to hear the Clinton campaign's reaction to this.


No Revote For Florida Dems - Politics News Story - WESH Orlando

It will be the seat as originally voted line. That's not going to happen. Clinton should be happy with 50/50 split. She'd still gain in delegates due to the supers.

Chuck Todd on NBC just had a good point as to why Hillary has a major problem with the supers. Bill was a good President, but a lousy leader of the Dem party. The Dems lost seats every time he was on the ballot.

[tibor75]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

The Dems lost seats every time he was on the ballot.

Not quite, they gained in 1998 as the public (rightly) realized that sometimes a blow job is just a blow job.

but you are right. There's a reason Bore didn't want ClinTon's help in 2000. Just look what happened this year in South Carolina. He's no good as a cheerleader for somebody else.

[sandgk]

The DNC should extend the same deal in FL that the Republican party extended to their errant and out of schedule primary - half the delegates is better than none.

At minimum that should defuse all hysteria other than from the Clinton campaign.

[CookyPuss]

With all of the heaviness in the this campaign, it's refreshing to read something fun:

Why does Hillary Clinton wear such bad clothes? | Experts | Life and Health

[jlb1705]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

I can't wait to hear the Clinton campaign's reaction to this.


No Revote For Florida Dems - Politics News Story - WESH Orlando

From what I've heard the pundits say tonight, the Clinton campaign opposes the Florida re-vote alongside the Obama campaign if it were to go forward as proposed - mostly as a mail-in vote. The fear is that the ass-backwards Dem Party in Florida would just eff it up and rehash all the nightmares and negative perceptions of the 2000 general election.

I am somewhat skeptical however that this analysis is true. When was the last time the Clinton campaign exhibited that kind of foresight or regard for the party's collective chances of defeating the Republicans in November?

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by jlb1705

From what I've heard the pundits say tonight, the Clinton campaign opposes the Florida re-vote alongside the Obama campaign if it were to go forward as proposed - mostly as a mail-in vote. The fear is that the ass-backwards Dem Party in Florida would just eff it up and rehash all the nightmares and negative perceptions of the 2000 general election.

I am somewhat skeptical however that this analysis is true. When was the last time the Clinton campaign exhibited that kind of foresight or regard for the party's collective chances of defeating the Republicans in November?

They're still planning to use the Jan vote to make their "popular vote" argument. They don't need those delegates until the convention and will hope she can win enough supers by then that the credentials committee will just seat "as is."

I also had heard that they were planning to replace all of the voting machines after that primary and many of the "old" touch screen machines have been dismantled with no replacements readily available... so a full primary would also be problematic.

[CookyPuss]

Hillary steps into the Iraq brier patch again:

Hillary talks Obama, MI, records - First Read - msnbc.com

"My plans are not a best case scenario or a promise I do not intend to keep. The work I have done in the Senate has laid the groundwork for what I will do as president," she said.

Wasn't there another politician who was so resolute in not changing his Iraq strategy that he wouldn't change it even when the evidence on the ground was to the contrary?

What work did she do in the Senate? Voting for the authorization for the war?