Anti-Hillary dirty tricks war hots up (Observer)

Source: The Observer


Read more: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2104853,00.html

not that she's my pick anyway, I just hate dirty politics. :(

bwaak! bwaak! bwaak! bwaak!

It only looks bad on you.

Cut the shit, IP.

It is only a two-party system. They tend to play this games and I am not amused because they are now old hat.

They play these games. We are supposed to get caught-up in them and act like they are really, really important and matter. After the failure of the Democrats after their last election, (we are still in Irag with no way out, etc.) why are we supposed to get emotional and react and pick a side? Is it going to make a REAL difference? So far, that seems like a pipe dream to me. That is, I mean, if you are looking for real results and that is what is most important to you and your voice.

We have more important and pressing problems than one side slinging mud at another and the expected response. I am not seeing the impending, pressing issues taking precedence. Therefore, I see a time for a flux and a change where We The People take on a new and more self-interested perspective. That is, on where we put what is important first and begin to ignore the pomp and circumstance of the hypnotic show before us. Ah, did I say that we have seen no impact yet in this perpetual game for our attention that yields little in actual results?

You can love and like and vote for who you want based on what is artificially portrayed to you via the various conduits of the matrix of control. Or, you can focus on results and outcomes to date and ask yourself what it is you really intend in this process, for yourself, your family, your children, and your neighbors.

I hope that you, like myself, want results. I am hoping that you will turn this back around on you, me, and the body politic and say ENOUGH. We really have to put the failures and blames in our own pockets and fish out whatever change we can muster in order to assure a better future. Right now, playing status quo is looking very bad for most of us and very good very a small, elite few. Is this our intent and goal as a collective?

Starting with Nixon's Dirty Tricks team (of which Fox "News" director Roger Ailes is a veteran),
the Republicans have always engaged in this kind of stuff (although I don't recall anything
really offensive from Gerry Ford's 1976 campaign). From derailing Muskie in 1972, Reagan and
Iran in 1980, the hugely funded hate-the-Clintons apparatus, 1992-present, and the "Swiftboaters,"
the Republicans ALWAYS engage in hugely funded smear campaigns of this sort, and always against
that Democrat that they fear the most. It's almost a badge of front-runner status to have them do
this. Were it illegal, and carrying a mandatory 30 year prison term, there wouldn't have been one
Republican president elected since Eisenhower.

The only elections since 1968 I can recall where this not used as SOP for the right wing were 1984,
when they knew it was not necessary, and 1996, when they knew they had no chance. Like 2000, they don't
think their chances are good in 2008, but nothing succeeds like success, and the 2000 and 2004 elections
proved that in spades.

:puke:

The Repub strategists supposedly want HRC to win the nomination because they feel she will be easier to beat in the general. Shouldn't they back of on the destructive tactics until then? What's the deal?

Either the claim that the strategists want HRC as an opponent is incorrect, or the VRWC now has a life of it's own and is no longer taking orders from HQ. Or both.

This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354


Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."




http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>>




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg




Wonder why?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html