[According to "Her Way," by Jeff Gerth and Tom Van Natta] after Bill's election in 1992, he and Hillary were already plotting two terms for her in the White House....Oh, my! Who to believe! I'm in a tizzy over this! Did Hillary have political ambitions all along or not? I am going to be racking my brain. Too bad Blair passed away and we can't probe her with follow up questions.
[Carl] Bernstein reports that according to [Hillary's best friend Diane] Blair, Hillary had repeatedly confided to her that aside from a brief flirtation with running for Governor of Arkansas in 1990, she had no interest whatsoever in running for elected office up until 1999, when she started eyeing a New York Senate run....
Of course, it's conceivable that Hillary was privately scheming to run for President while telling her best friend she had no interest in elected office. And as Hillary's best friend, Blair (who has since passed away) might have been expected to deliver an account that was partial to Hillary. But again, this account is a firsthand on-the-record one, while the Gerth-Van Natta one was second hand -- and disputed by the key firsthand witness.
३० मे, २००७
When Hillary books collide.
Greg Sargent detects a discrepancy:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६८ टिप्पण्या:
This does seem important. I wouldn't mind a woman president, but I'd hate to imagine our country being led by an uppity woman president.
I am starting to feel some degree of sympathy for the Clintons. I know they are public people, and I understand they tend to be polarizing, but geez--they should also have some modicum of privacy.
OK, if she had no intention of running for any President, just when did she change her mind? And, what changed her mind?
Hillary prefers that we all live as a village rather than "on our own." It sounds neat, except that it contradicts 2000 years of liberal thought that the individual is supreme. One would think the media would be all over her for spouting a collectivist (anti-American) policy position. How is she able to get away with it?
I still don't entirely understand the hostility to the Clintons. I can understand Ann's feminist critique of Bill. But for a pretty moderate character, he is such a villain to the right. Remember the frenzy? People were saying that he murdered Vince Foster (and Hillary was in on it, somehow, if I remember correctly). That he was a cocaine smuggler!
Sloan, is that what a MSM free of "liberal bias" would look like? It would attack the author of "It Takes a Village" as un-American? It would be "all over her" for the subversive ideas therein?
Hillary's an organ donor, no doubt.
So's Bill.
Sloan, is that what a MSM free of "liberal bias" would look like? It would attack the author of "It Takes a Village" as un-American?
That is the way I would say it. I suppose a non-biased press would at the very least analyze her ideas and compare them to the way things are and have been.
Traditional America is a land of individuals with individual rights doing individual things for individual purposes. It is the hallmark of the liberal west.
Hillary's argument of us doing things together is a radical change from this. Where is the coverage?
Soldiers in the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, and Iraq did not fight so that we can do things "together" - they fought for the rights of individuals to live free.
Of course, it's conceivable that Hillary was privately scheming to run for President while telling her best friend she had no interest in elected office.
Gee, ya think?
Roost on the Moon: You don't have to be a feminist to be offended by Bill Clinton's sexual escapades in the White House. You don't have to be a prude, either. You only have to view the Office of President with respect.
Regarding: "People were saying that he murdered Vince Foster (and Hillary was in on it, somehow, if I remember correctly). That he was a cocaine smuggler!". Not very many people. It's a big contry, so you're always going to find a few nuts on any side of an issue.
Interesting point, Sloan, and I think you are right to say that it would be unamerican to legislate coerced communities into existence. I haven't read the book, but I don't think that's what she's suggesting.
On the other hand, if you think that 2000 years of thought and the dreams of the founding fathers was that we should live as hermits, forsaking specialization and interdependence for the sake of personal freedom, you're way off. Traditional America is a land of communities. Think Norman Rockwell. How many loners in those pictures?
Even your romanticized rugged individual, your all-american cowboy, your rancher, is impossible without a pretty advanced system of distribution and public consumption.
Why the hostility to Hillary? Did I express any? Or do you just see it everywhere? So why are you doing that? So many questions! Hillary presents an endlessly complex situation, and I'm not going to shrink from calling attention to whatever detail of it amuses me. In fact, I'll be happy is she wins, because it will be fun to blog.
Traditional America is a land of communities. Think Norman Rockwell. How many loners in those pictures?
It's a land of communities made up of individudals who have the freedom to choose which communities they want to live in. This is not romanticizing the rugged individual, it is the core basis of freedom that this Country stands for.
I think the leftist impulse that Hillary portrays is different than this. Her wish is to push the community onto the individual because in her mind individuals are better off this way; i.e., they will be more secure in things like food, clothing, shelter, and health care. The problem with such a society is that the individual loses personal freedom. The freedom is exchanged for the security of the community.
Ann,
I didn't mean you are hostile to Hillary. I was seconding roger's point, and trying to understand why the right have picked the Clintons to be their boogeymen.
I'm not a Clinton fan and don't perceive criticism of her all around me. But she is widely despised. It's not my imagination. And I rarely hear substantive criticism. Usually its just intimations that she is a cunning bitch.
Of course, we generally accept that politicians as a type are ambitious and cunning. Huh.
--
Mike,
You don't have to be a feminist to be offended by Bill Clinton's sexual escapades in the White House....You only have to view the Office of President with respect.
And a magnifying glass for the semen stains. And you wouldn't even need that if you had an exceptional sense of smell and some soiled panties. But it does take a little more than respect for the office.
But she is widely despised.
She's a socialist.
Yeah, but Fen, but by your lights, name a democratic candidate who isn't. So that isn't specific to Hillary.
Oabama, Edwards, Lieberman, et al.
Hillary is a socialist - the kind that builds dachas on the Black Sea while muscovites burn their own furniture to survive the winter.
Socialists are about slavery. They should be tarred & feathered and then hung in the public square.
[...]
That and her corruption. As I said a few days ago: I think Americans are prejudiced re that - they won't tolerate corruption from females that they would ignore from men.
Fen, What is it that makes Hillary a socialist but lets the others off the hook?
Mike, I suppose it depends on your definition of a "few." According to the man who produced the "Clinton Chronicles" video, 150,000 copies were sold, with twice that number in actual circulation. That makes at least three hundred thousand nuts who posessed copies. I think we can safely assume that many more believed it.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/cov_11news.html
It was pitched by none other than Jerry Falwell on his television show. I remember it being given general approval on a number of local talk radio shows of the time. Heck, I've even heard the Vince Foster murder theory proposed recently.
Where I grew up in the central part of Illinois, many people in my very conservative neighborhood believed it completely. My mother-in-law still does.
You're right that both the left and right has it's nutjobs. The left currently has its 9/11 conspiracy crowd. But don't minimize the Clinton conspiracy freaks. They were far more numerous than you think, and were represented by some very prominent conservatives.
sloan says: "One would think the media would be all over her for spouting a collectivist (anti-American) policy position."
people helping one another...is "anti-american??"
is this guy for real?
fen syas: "Hillary is a socialist - the kind that builds dachas on the Black Sea while muscovites burn their own furniture to survive the winter."
wow.
i suggest you find yourself a good doctor.
or at least replenish the meds.
Ann Althouse said..."Why the hostility to Hillary?"
the women are jealous.
the men are terrified.
Lucky: wow. I suggest you find yourself a good doctor. Or at least replenish the meds.
It actually happened Lucky. Some even froze to death. Look it up yourself. The politburo diverted lumber resources meant for Moscow so they could build Edwards-like mansions on the sea coast and lounge in luxury.
"wow" indeed.
Socialism always leads to corruption and then tyranny. Are you a socialist Lucky?
Lucky: people helping one another...is "anti-american??
Yes, because its government helping people, not people helping each other. Studies have shown that person-to-person charity falls the more government intervention rises. People shrug off the impulse to donate time, energy and money because they assume the government has it covered.
fen says:
"It actually happened Lucky."
WOW...again.
whether it happened or not...what in the wide world of sports does it have to do with...hillary???
hatred and jealosy are not attractive, fen.
newmann said: That makes at least three hundred thousand nuts who posessed copies. I think we can safely assume that many more believed it.
I possess a copy of Worlds in Collison. That doesn't mean I actually believe Jupiter expelled Venus.
But don't minimize the Clinton conspiracy freaks. They were far more numerous than you think, and were represented by some very prominent conservatives.
I'm sincerely curious which prominent conservatives (Falwell doesn't count).
Fen said...
Lucky: people helping one another...is "anti-american??
"Yes, because its government helping people..."
Uh, you must be referring to things like...the veteran's administration?
No, I'm talking about welfare and redistribution of wealth.
And public schools. You're a perfect example.
Fen,
would this also fit your "socialist" mode?
Supplemental Security Income is a monthly stipend provided to the aged (legally deemed to be 65 or older), blind, or disabled based on need, paid by the United States Government
Lucky: whether it happened or not...what in the wide world of sports does it have to do with...hillary???
Because Hillary is really not much different than the corrupt members of the poltiburo. She'll play the same game, force you to sacrifice "for the children" and then invest it all in her a private account in Japan [like Chirac did].
No, Fen...this is what you said: "Yes, because its government helping people..."
articulation is not exactly your forte.
Fen wants to "pick and choose" which of our fellow Americans get help from the "government."
Now that's..."anti-American."
Fen says: "...Hillary is really not much different than the corrupt members of the poltiburo."
You are one sick puppy.
No, I said:
"Yes, because its government helping people, not people helping each other. [you crafted a strawman] Studies have shown that person-to-person charity falls the more government intervention rises. People shrug off the impulse to donate time, energy and money because they assume the government has it covered"
Learn to read Lucky. If your cause is just, you shouldn't need to take my words out of context.
Fen,
You're a on-trick-pony.
Buzz off.
Lucky: Fen, You're a on-trick-pony. Buzz off.
Oh I get it, you're still ticked that I outed your aluminum tube comdedy. Where you revealed your ignorance by claiming Bush invaded b/c he believed the aluminum tubes were for missiles, not enriched unranium.
So flame away, I'm not going to respond or derail the thread further by engaging your stupidity.
Bill Clinton got the hostility because he was the guy in the White House -- just like George W. Bush got the hostility just because he was in the White House. (Look back to January through August 2001. Compare to January to August 1993.)
Hillary got a good share of the hostility because of things like Bill's "two for the price of one" remark and her policy role on health care, which cast her as a co-president.
fen-fen: "aluminum tube comdedy"
like i said...a one-trick-pony.
*and what exactly is a "comdedy?"
Mike,
The list of players is quite large. It'll take me a while to assemble the links, but I'll try to have it to you by tomorrow.
In the meantime, has anybody else just noticed that Fen has (hyperbolically, I assume) used this thread to call for the public execution of Hillary Clinton.
"She is a Socialist." "Socialists are about slavery. They should be tarred and feathered and hung in the public square."
Doesn't that syllogism strike anybody else as, well, UNHINGED?
Doesn't that syllogism strike anybody else as, well, UNHINGED?
Having a "conversation" with Lucky will do that to you.
Newmann, I'm not asking you to do a lot of work. I'd just like to know which conservative voices I should put in the nutcase category(assuming they were serious, not tongue-in-cheek, when they expressed support for such a notion).
In the meantime, has anybody else just noticed that Fen has (hyperbolically, I assume) used this thread to call for the public execution of Hillary Clinton.
Not just her, all socialists. They're vermin.
mike,
i don't recall ever having any "conversations" with you.
but i appreciate the recognition.
newmann,
fen is so hysterically jealous of bill and hillary it's actually become rather funny to read the posts.
Fen: I love you man--but why do you interact with LOS--unless you have a some kind of masochistic streak that I normally don't attribute to marines. Come on, man--You know better!
Just my two cents
oh, roger...how could say such horrible things?
you two aren't...you know...
And from the other side:
Lucky,
What on earth do you hope to gain from a discussion with someone who says something as ignorant as "All socialists are vermin"?
Lucky, I avoid you, but I was one of the guys you declared gutless because we didn't think it was necessary to beat people up if they dissed our womenfolk.
mike,
ohhhhh, now i remember you.
you're the one who said: if someone walked up to a table where you were having dinner with your mother, sister or wife...and called one of them a whore...you'd let THEM handle it themselves.
and i said: if anybody said something like that to my mother, sister or wife...i'd do what i could to knock their teeth out of their head.
i realize we're all raised differently, but under those circumstance, if i didn't do something, i'd be ashamed of myself, as would everybody else involved...and when my father found out, he'd be even more so.
to each his own, mike, but i find it hard to believe that even you and you best pal, fen would allow someone to say something like that.
mike,
oh...and your use of the term; "womanfolk" tells me exactly where you're coming from.
roost,
i just love aggravating right wing misogynists like fen.
"Womenfolk" was meant to mock you, Lucky.
Vintage Lucky, everyone:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/04/ive-dished-it-out-for-long-time-and-now.html#comments
The fun starts about 1:00 pm in the comments.
mike,
like i said; you can handle situations as described any way you want, but i come from a background where men do their best to handle things like as men should...i "personally" never felt i could just leave it up to the "womanfolk."
again, this is MY opinion, but i feel that any man who would allow such an occurance, without responding...is gutless.
What on earth do you hope to gain from a discussion with someone who says something as ignorant as "All socialists are vermin"?
Who said this. It's brilliant.
How about all socialists are scum.
Well, yes, LOS, the VA is a socialist endeavor. hence it's total crappiness was inevitable.
Fen's right. Hillary is a socialist. And now that Obama has come out for national health care, he exposes himself as one as well.
yes, I know the new new term is "progressive", but socialists they are. And what a misnomer: bowing to failed socialist policies isn't progressive, it's regressive, ...reactionary, even.
Socialists have had kind of a bad run recently. Look at some of the more famous socialists: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Hussein, Chavez....
The funny thing about socialism is that it's hard to avoid the totalitarian dictator thing if you want to move further into socialism.
Whoever heard of a market-economics democracy guy mass murdering his own people. I haven't heard of one?
I guess socialism could work if you had the perfect person as your leader, such as Jesus or Al Gore. But anyone else would be limited by those prickly human traits.
Lucky, I'm not commenting on your manner of protecting your women. I'm commenting on your manner. You are abusive, rude, unthinking, and, well, just about everything you call everybody else here. You've made this a much less fun place to visit.
OK, Mike, if you don't mind not having the links.
First, I don't know why I'm not supposed to include Falwell, since he was obviously a very prominent conservative. However, I will assume you mean to have a larger list.
The next obvious prominent conservative would be Richard Mellon Scaife, who was the primary financier for the tape After him, Paul Weyrich.
Many sources claim the video was advertised on Rush Limbaugh's show. I haven't been able to find any independent verification of this, so I'm doubtful. However, when Bob Dornan subbed for Rush, the show became an outlet for some pretty outlandish conspiracy theories--In particular the so-called "Clinton Body Count," including the theory that the Clinton's had Vince Foster murdered.
There were two major conspiracy theories that were portrayed in the "Clinton Chronicles." The first was the theory that clinton was involved in drug trafficing. The second was the CBC, or Clinton Body Count, which is essentially the notion that Clinton had dozens of people, including Ron Brown and Vince Foster, murdered. The drug trafficing charge was briefly expounded in the Wall Street Journal Editorial page, which also spent a brief period fixated on conspiracy theories regarding the Vince Foster suicide. In an act of extreme disingenuousness, the WSJ editorial page actually published the 800 number where the "Clinton Chronicles" could be purchased, simultaneously denying any knowlege of the tape's veracity (or lack thereof.)
Other propogators of Clinton Body Count theories include Joseph Farah, G.Gordon Liddy, Dick Morris, and Representative William Dannemeyer.
The only conservative voice I've read that denounced these conspiracy theories was Pat Bucchannan, who said on Hardball that he used to receive copies of the "Clinton Chronicles" all the time, and he believed the tape was "beyond the pale." Unfortunately he made this denunciation at least a decade after the fact, and there was no explanation as to why he didn't speak up at the time.
I have been unable to find any citings of conservatives denouncing the "Clinton Chronicles" or its various conspiracy theories at the time they were being propogated. I'm not suggesting that it didn't happen. Bucchannan's comments indicate that these tapes were pretty widespread in the conservative movement and being pushed strongly. How many actually believed them is impossible to say, but apparently many gave them their tacit support.
Your point regarding "Worlds in Collision" is a decent one, but I just don't buy it in this case. We're talking about tapes marketed pretty much strictly through far-right media sources at a time before the internet was really big. I doubt that many of the purchasers were just curiosity seekers. Also, the video is still available, with updates, on many sites, and a quick google search will locate a shocking number of sites where people still believe it. Some of these sites, Farah's for example, are quite large.
As I said, there were a lot of people who believed those theories, a lot who propogated them, and not many who denounced them. Not much has changed as far as conspiracy theories go.
mike,
and i'm supposed to care what you and the rest of the right wing crowd here thinks about me...or anybody else who doesn't toe the right wing line?
and when YOU say: "You don't have to be a feminist to be offended by Bill Clinton's sexual escapades in the White House. You don't have to be a prude, either. You only have to view the Office of President with respect."
are you including the current resident of the white house's denial of torture? cheney's continuing to say saddam had WMD or a partnership with osama...or the outing of a covert CIA agent? that's what YOU call "respect" for the office of the president???
and please...you're part of the same crowd who also think anybody who disagrees with bush, his policies, the iraqi invasion, the war, the administration's lack of empathy for those without health care, those who want us out of iraq now, anybody who thinks the american public was lied to regarding the reason for invasion, WMD, intelligence matters, wiretapping, torture and many other issues...is un-american or as fen puts it; anti-american or socialist vermin.
i happen to be a liberal who speaks his mind, something you absolutely hate to hear...because it's not something you already believe to be so.
*and please, don't give that crap that you're not "commenting on your manner of protecting your women"...because that's exactly what you're doing and you know it.
newmann,
mike doesn't want "links." he could give a damn about any of it.
Thank you, Newmann. I don't doubt any of your information. I guess I don't consider most of those names to be important. Richard Mellon Scaife, for example, I would equate with George Soros. Important maybe because he's got a lot of money, but not really a serious voice. Paul Weyrich, I'll give you that. Limbaugh, he probably was just having fun with it, but I don't know, I didn't hear it. I'd be surprised at the Wall Street Journal taking it seriously. I'll do some digging on that.
"Joseph Farah, G.Gordon Liddy, Dick Morris, and Representative William Dannemeyer." Liddy and Morris, who cares? I'll have to look up Dannemeyer to see who he is. Being an elected official, he'd rate as important. I don't know Joseph Farah.
Anyway, if, as has been reported, several tens of percent of people can believe that 9/11 was an inside job (another thing I find hard to believe) I suppose it's possible that a lot of people believe that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster. Every day more evidence rolls in that there are an awful lot of nutcases out there.
Mike,
It's been a pleasure having a conversation with you. I'll be checking out now. I don't hang out on sites where people openly advocate the death of their political opponent. Even if they're kidding. I'm not referring to you, of course, but to Fen.
Newmann,
The pleasure was mine.
I ran into "The Clinton Chronicles" a number of times from a number of sources. It's pretty far out. Not, in my opinion like the 9/11 truthers, since the Clinton conspiracies were all about behind-the scenes stuff. (In other words, you didn't have to discount what millions personally witnessed live in order to believe them.) Snopes has a takedown here. And then there's the fact that Monica Lewisnky lives on.
But Clinton was well and truly despised and accused of things nearly as horrible as W is now. Which says to me, the next President is going to have it even worse.
Just wait. Human sacrifice, cannibalism, slave trading, dogs and cats living together....the accusations will mount.
Newman,
Then you had better stay away from Daily Kos and Huffington since they both want their opponents dead and have said so.
By the way, if Fen wants to kill socialists, he would advocate them being hanged.
I assume them being "hung" refers to literally being hung up in some public square after being tarred and feathered, and thereby subjected to ridicule.
But Clinton was well and truly despised and accused of things nearly as horrible as W is now.
As was Reagan, for that matter. Remember the "Reagan WANTS nuclear war" meme, for example? Then there was Carter, who (unbelievable as this seems today) was even more unpopular than Bush is. And so on, and so on.
Really, Bush Sr, Ford, and Eisenhower are the only Presidents in the last century that didn't inspire crazed loathing in the opposing party.
Whoever heard of a market-economics democracy guy mass murdering his own people. I haven't heard of one?
Democratic he may not have been, but General Augusto Pinochet certainly loved himself some free markets.
Democratic he may not have been, but General Augusto Pinochet certainly loved himself some free markets.
As mass murdering dictators go, Pinochet was kind of a wuss -- the death toll of his regime was around a hundred people a year, mostly Communist dissidents.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा