PDA

View Full Version : Destroying Hillary ClintonPart two ,And Randi Rhodes calling Clinton a "f*cking whore



megimoo
07-02-2008, 04:04 PM
Destroying Hillary ClintonPart two - How a bitter primary campaign saw the right's discredited smears gleefully revived and reused by the left

"Horse Pucky's,The San Francisco Maoists destroyed Hillary and Numb_Nuts because they weren't radical enough to suite them,End of story !"

It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren't even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work.

There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them.

Not content to merely destroy the entire Democratic party single-handedly, Hillary Clinton was hell-bent on murder. Evidently having failed to satiate her bloodlust after murdering Vince Foster - or such was the claim of her ideological enemies, a charge still being chanted like a demonic incantation by rightwing pain-maker Rush Limbaugh - now she was openly lusting for the assassination of her opponent, Barack Obama.

(That is not to suggest there were no legitimate concerns about her statement.) And Randi Rhodes - a "progressive talk radio personality" - fresh from calling Clinton a "fucking whore," fanned the same flames when she announced fearing for her life after delivering the insult to someone who routinely has her enemies whacked.

"Billary", the two-headed monster created by the rightwing to demonize the "two-for-one" presidency of Bill Clinton and his feminist, advisor wife Hillary Clinton, also stumbled out of its grave, given new life by liberals who defended the Clintons against the very same attack when it was her being used against him during his administration, but now found it politically expedient to use him against her.

Billary was back in vogue, and infamous Clinton-haters in the media like Maureen Dowd or Chris Matthews (who remains as fixated on Clinton scandals, especially the Lewinsky matter - the scandal that made his career - as ever) accused Hillary of being nothing without her husband, only having come within inches of the presidency because her husband had cheated on her.

The progressive blogosphere largely remained silent, or, worse, acquiesced by suggesting there was some truth to the categorisation.

Even the architect of many of the most significant smears against the Clintons during the 1990s, Richard Mellon Scaife, had apparently dropped his campaign against them.

Indeed, Scaife, the publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, inserted himself into the paper's editorial board's interview with Clinton while she was campaigning in the crucial state of Pennsylvania and walked out impressed - so impressed that the paper endorsed her.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/hillaryclinton.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

ConJinx
07-02-2008, 04:19 PM
#1 the Guardian is read by Americans about as much as Guns and Ammo is read by Liberals. #2 Hillary is A Fucking power whore. #3 Randy Rhodes is spinning in his grave.

Odysseus
07-05-2008, 11:17 PM
Destroying Hillary ClintonPart two - How a bitter primary campaign saw the right's discredited smears gleefully revived and reused by the left
"Horse Pucky's,The San Francisco Maoists destroyed Hillary and Numb_Nuts because they weren't radical enough to suite them,End of story !"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/hillaryclinton.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Or, it's entirely possible that the Democratic Party finally admitted what they always knew, which is that every charge brought against the Clintons was true.

megimoo
07-06-2008, 12:07 AM
Or, it's entirely possible that the Democratic Party finally admitted what they always knew, which is that every charge brought against the Clintons was true.Why would the Democrats all of a sudden develop a conscience ?In order to deceive America in the past they have used every dirty trick in the book.If the Clinton's met their vision for a new America they would have helped them to win but they were not far enough left to suit the San Francisco crowd .

Obama is an unknown quantity as a candidate where as the Clinton's are old hands at it with a proven track record.No the only reason that I can find is the Clinton's hadn't been radical
Maoist/Socialist enough to fill the bill with the money people who drive for Americas downfall !
They need someone malleable and far left in the White House to drive their weaken America agenda !

Odysseus
07-08-2008, 01:04 AM
Why would the Democrats all of a sudden develop a conscience ?In order to deceive America in the past they have used every dirty trick in the book.If the Clinton's met their vision for a new America they would have helped them to win but they were not far enough left to suit the San Francisco crowd .
Obama is an unknown quantity as a candidate where as the Clinton's are old hands at it with a proven track record.No the only reason that I can find is the Clinton's hadn't been radical
Maoist/Socialist enough to fill the bill with the money people who drive for Americas downfall !
They need someone malleable and far left in the White House to drive their weaken America agenda !

It's got nothing to do with developing a conscience. It's about power. Look at all of the Democrats who denounced Bill when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Joe Lieberman even said that if the allegations proved to be true, Bill should resign. Well, the allegations did prove to be true, and then some, and ol' Joe voted with the rest of his party caucus in the senate to keep Bill in the White House. The Democrats have always known what the Clintons are. They just didn't care because they shared a common agenda, but now that the Clintons are interfering with the installation of the next Democratic administration, suddenly everything that we knew about them has been repeated by their pundits, not because they suddenly realized that it was true, but because they want to win, and they don't care how they do it.