Today at Hillary Is 44:

Hillary Is 44

because Democrats want to be just like the Republicans!

(The general election is going to be interesting!)

You seem remarkably enthusiastic about the slime.

I tell you -- 2008 is going to be a looooong, nasty campaign.

is very proud of it.

I should pretend this site doesn't exist? Should MyDD not have written about it? You're questioning my ethics? Why the hell are you so quick to make this about me?

Give me a friggin break!

:rofl:

I answered your question. You just didn't like it.

with well written, well researched and well documented topics. They are among the best on DU.

BTW that website belongs to a DU member.

that Tellurian had the site in his/her sig line. But when asked, said that he/she had not started the website.

Hillary, her team and supporters like the owner of this site are made for each other

I am proud to know all of them!

Carville defended Libby! Be proud!

He's his own man. And it seems all the poeple that I get associated with are all doing just fine. More power to them all.

this act to the Democratic Party in general - but primarily he's attempting to delude our liberal base.

I'd give it back to that DLC loving thug:

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." :evilgrin:

IMO, Carville's a snake who has sold his soul to the highest bidder, i.e., the DLC and HRC.

Thats gotta say something.

But you'll get over it.

You people can't be bothered with that. And THAT is the truth.

Since true Independents and Liberal Democrats are about as easy to herd as cats, you're doing JUST FINE. However, I'd suggest you get yourself some Border Collies instead of the present ranking of sedate, overweight, ankle snapping Pekingese. :P :evilgrin:

People in glass houses...

So is Mark Penn and Rove and O'Neill. That statement doesn't say a lot. Carville is despicable. JMO.

Everybody has one.

see George Bush Presidency. ;)

:evilgrin:

Check out the Hillary pages, when I last looked they were under construction - shows the site's priorities.

My concern is that just as the public comes to rejectthe politics of personal destruction, the one doing it will be the Democrat. (I think there was blowback in 2006 to those swiftboating the Congressional vets - who won, after being defended by the Patriot group, Wes Clark and John Kerry.)

is more than just himself. The very presence of a charisma challenge is a big threat to the frontrunner momentum and blooming flower of Hilary's presentation. it will make her fall short and not just vulnerable to Obama. So it is not just perosnal, it is desperately tactical on both sides. Obama makes her vulnerable to Gore and Edwards and the GOP. Her negatives need to be swamped and overcome. This is dragging that baggage into a possible quagmire of primary discontent. Unfortunately, one sure sign that is happening already is the descent into rough politics so early. Why not let Obama go his own course? Because he is doing damage to Hillary's long range camapign.

edwards was hurting kerry the same way when by the numbers in actual primaries it was pretty clear there was no chance except that Edwards would simply cost Kerry and the party. So he stepped aisde eventually.
This early however there is no question of Obama backing down and the same rash of early primaries that would quickly seal Hillary as the candidate before the people knew what hit them encourages him stay in for a large number of states and build his status at least. His gambit will leave him little or no time to decide whether backing out is even and option as his followers would consider calculations in the midst of quick, large voting, a betrayal. The frustrations in both camps must be mounting, to the joy and benefit of any others in the wings. Hillary is used to the long grind but this time it is not all on her side.

As to dirty politics, fodder for the GOP spin media, Dems should not participate except to knock the candidates on their heads for the useless gamble and waste. Hurting your opponent here, where it will NOT finish them off, no election in sight, is hurting yourself, courtesy of an attentive press. All such petty small potatoes compared to hitting and exposing the stuffed lame duck and his ventriloquist in the WH.

the seemingly short-short cut she SPORTS now? And "the soft pastel pink" is nauseating save for use as a paint base "in the baby's room." :P

Provide a single shred of evidence that Hillary's campaign has anything to do with this...

You are quick to defend Obama when it is shown conclusively he not only received contributions from an indicted developer, but also wrote letters on his behalf, aiding him in landing a building project...

Yet, without a micron of evidence, you assume the Clinton campaign had something to do with setting this up...

Obama advocated for housing for the elderly, not that Rezko specifically be awarded the project.

And I have no idea whether or not HRC's campaign has anything to do with that site and we'll probably never know. Even if her campaign wasn't involved, it sure speaks volumes to the level her supporters are willing to stoop to to get her elected. The same applies to the site's cheerleaders.

To slime Hillary with....nice...

The arrogance and hypocrisy of many Obama supporters is astounding...

and when there were SO MANY serious battles going on - but, instead, they seemed to have saved their skills to use against other Democrats.

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."


Here's Clinton helpfully defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq in June 2004.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.




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

the state of rezko? i thought obama was from illinois well at least i voted for him in illinois...i`m confused

You might learn something. Just saying.

i guess it`s not major news until the times or post finally decide to print this old story about his problem with resko. i`m pretty much up to date with the obama story since i live in this state and read the trib and the sun times.i`ve been following illinois politics for 40 yrs and something like this does`t surprize me at all.

We saw "Sicko" last Saturday at a 'sneak preview'. It was excellent!
I laughed...I cried....I laughed....& cried again. I cried for us all. I cried for our country.
For what could have been. We did set up a table & got lots of signatures for our
California SB840 Universal Healthcare for All campaign. http://www.healthcareforall.org /

And Bart there was the pharma contribution exposé of Hilary et. al. however, several scenes
before that was an incredible montage of Hilary in all her iterations showing how hard she fought
for her healthcare ideas only to be shot down by BOTH sides of the aisle. The bastuds!
Ultimately she is accurately portrayed as a fighter for the people!
~M

http://www.bartcop.com /

our beloved DLC can, once again, blame us "liberal leftists" who, for different reasons, dislike her almost as much as the republicans. ;) :hi:

I realize the circumstances are not identical. This site has Clinton's name attached to it. I would rather it be called "obamacrit.com" or something of that nature.

But still... it isn't too far removed from any number of "progressive" sites that butter their bread with daily anti-Clinton diatribes.

I think the howling coming from certain sectors on this site is that it is using the same tactics the netroots have employed for several years. So deal with it.

Evidently, the post at MyDD and this one is doing just that!

Evidently, the post at MyDD and this one is doing just that!

Certainly is a bunch of whining going on.

need quotations) are very transparent. Hello? Markos Moulitsas, Jerome Armstrong, Chris Bowers, et al. We know who owns the sites. This new one came out in a shroud of mystery. And I don't see regular smearing of Hillary Clinton on those sites, by the way. Those sites are not slime machines. Hillaryis44.com is.

None, really. The fact that the site owner of hillaryis44 isn't known just robs people of the chance to attack the owner instead of addressing the content of the site. Even now, no one is disputing the accuracy of the site's content.

A platform under construction and a hangman's noose swinging from the top of a 2x4?

Just because I bear the logo- the mob mentality here addicted to circular conversation are as prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman!

Alls, I can say is, no wonder this group consistently fails miserably at viewing evidence and forming concrete conclusions.:

Team Jordan posted the information on mydd..last night.. As if there was a huge expose on Obama Smears to uncover.. Get one thing straight. They're NOT Smears. Are the people here incapable of handling the truth? Obama is damaged goods. He never should have run until this entire Rezko case was put to bed and Obama spend 5 more years repairing his image and building up a stellar resume.

Here is his/her post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3336461&mesg_id=3341126

And my response..

I posted articles as I saw fit..Your own crowd has sealed Obama's fate by hyperatively getting all the dirt out to the mainstream. And NO, this is not my site, another fatal error on the part of the Obama Team that Can't Shoot Straight.

A pitiful Thanks to a pitiful group that has no idea how to run a successful campaign.

ps..ProSense, I believe, is a Kucinich supporter but Loves a smear and believes all posters posses the same "smear" mentality as he/she does...

HILLARY IS 44 WOW! is Right!

The point was that those sites are operated by people who do full disclosure. There are many commenter's at the site, but this was about the blog operators. Beyond that those are not blogs set up for the expressed intent of smearing candidates. So what is your point in asking that question?

Edited typo in title.

I could see some uproar if the site itself was regularly cited, had become a media sensation or something of that nature like the Hillary1984 video or the Obama Crush song.

But its influence seems even more limited than people doing attacking of candidates here on DU so why this urge for disclosure when many of us would be reluctant to disclose the our own identities just to prove we weren't operatives. A bit too McCarthy-esque I suppose.

The dirty Truth, that IS!

Who obviously is better at this game than the anti-Hillary jackanapes who ate it up looking to settle the score after Obama got his ass handed to him with the Punjab memo.

notion that this comes from the Right has been obliterated. This is plain and simple dirty campaigning, and it makes me sick.

I say this as not a Clinton supporter: her opponents' supporters would be smart to model sites after it. Negative criticism is not the end of the world. It just needs to be based on public information. Talk up your candidate and knock the hell out of everybody else's. That's what primaries are all about.

If that's what you call bareknuckled political brawling, I'm all for it! If Obama can't come through this sort of thing now, the GOP will make mincemeat of him in the general.

If this is the tone people are comfortable with, then no more whining. Just like Republicans, let the smearing begin.

From The Carpetbagger Report:

"show" was a scumbag spam email address. who and why this was planted who knows but the "show" was sold out .

used that Craigslist posting as a source. I am not surprised that it was a phony email.

If it tells me nothing, then I don't use the site for reference.

And I say this as someone who is undecided as to who I will vote for in the primary (although I lean Edwards), but will vote for Clinton if she ends up our nominee. Yeah, I know, politics is dirty, etc., but really... I don't see the site as being helpful to anyone except those who are already in the Clinton camp who want a place to find dirt on the other candidates and be in an atmosphere that acts as if a Clinton presidency is inevitable. If that is the point of the site, then it succeeds on that level. But the tone of its attacks on the other candidates just makes me feel too much like I've stumbled on to a right-wing site or something, and I don't think it's helpful to people's perceptions of Clinton, whether her campaign actually has any connections to it or not.

It's setup with the same ISP as the RNC websites that rove uses for his e-mail: <http://whois.domaintools.com/hillaryis44.org>


Meta Keywords:
hillary clinton, clinton, hillary clinton, bill clinton, progressive, politics, blogs, republicans, democrats, hillary clinton, chris matthews, greens, nader, kos, pundits, bush, starr, right wing conspiracy, left wing conspiracy, conosen, obama, barack, barack obama, john edwards, edwards, richardson, moderate, president, vice president, senate, new york politics, 44th president, 44, bill clinton, huffington, talking points, propaganda, conservative, liberal, experience government, presidency, al gore, iraq, mark penn, penn, patti doyle, white house, healthcare, bosnia, kosovo, wesley clark, bill richardson, christopher dodd, mike gravel, dennis kucinich, joe biden, rudy giuliani, fred thompson, tommy thompson, john mccain, 2008 elections, 2008, elections, mitt romney, jim gilmore, sam brownback, 2008 campaign, white house, democratic primary, republican primary, democratic nomination, hillary clinton for president, hillary rodham clinton, mike huckabee, duncan hunter, ron paul, tom tancredo, chuck haget, newt gingrich, jim webb, gore, ohio, 2004 elections, senate, government, experience

.

Why would Schumer attack Kerry in 2006? That makes no sense.

to 2006 candidates and then praised Hillary for her donation. It completely ignored the FACT that Kerry donated WAY MORE MONEY and raised more money for Dem candidates than anyone else. The site mysteriously got tons of mainstream press it's first day up. It was eventually tracked to a person working in Schumer's office.

..."mainstream press" years ago. Life's just too short to watch the RW Propagandist spin their lies.

I use to love watching CNN/HLN, but now I can't watch it for more than a few minutes without getting really angry and frustrated at how BAD they've made it over the last 6 years.

What's really sad is, I'm in the T.V./Video Production industry, and I really need a new job somewhere here in Atlanta, but about the only places hiring here are CNN and Wal-Mart and I just WILL NOT work for Wal-Mart, and every time I think about going to work at CNN...it hurts just to think about it.

I had a cool music industry related career in LA and NY and now I'm a mommy in NC. ;))))