And the Oscar Goes to… Hillary Clinton!

Published on Thursday, January 10, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
And the Oscar Goes to…
by Cindy Sheehan

…Hillary Clinton! For phoniest display of belated emotion in a Presidential campaign!

Hillary’s recent emotion at the tanking of her multi-million dollar; mass pandering campaign reminded me of a scene in Mike Myers’ Wayne’s World where he, as Wayne, throws water on his face and emotes about something while “Academy Awards Clip” flashes on the screen. Hillary Clinton does not do anything that is not coldly, if not icily calculated. However, seeing her ambitions and life’s work of becoming the first female president go down into the primordial-primary ooze may be something for which she might exhibit a little emotion.

She showed no emotion when I met with her along with another Gold Star Mother, Lynn Braddach from Oregon, whose son Travis Nall was also KIA in Iraq. We poured our hearts and souls out to her and she hardly even blinked, let alone shed a tear for our heartbreak that she had been a major neo-connette chearleader for.

That meeting happened in September of 2005, just a few short weeks after we left Camp Casey in Crawford, Tx on August 31, 2005. Anti-war sentiment was high and the apex was a mass march and rally that hundreds of thousands of like-minded (many for the first time) attended in the belly of the evil empire on September 24th. Since then, the motivation and energy of the anti-war movement has ebbed and flowed with each subsequent fresh assault on peace and democracy by BushCo with the help, support and justification of “Democrats” like Hillary Clinton.

After Hillary was booed at a campaign event in New Hampshire over the weekend, I am sure that there was a high-level meeting of her campaign that came up with the strategy of the new and improved and “emotional, but not too emotional” Hillary Clinton. This is the same campaign that thought Hillary could demonstrate that Senator Mike Gravel (who chastised her in a debate about her vote to sanction Iran) was crazy by laughing at him like she was the insane one with a very bizarre and disturbing cackle. This is the same campaign that told Ms. Clinton that she should under no circumstances apologize to the families of the needlessly and tragically fallen for her support of the war that killed them. This is essentially the same campaign that handed the White House over to Bush again in 2004. Kerry’s campaign was such a resounding “success,” Hillary thought she could run the same careful and calculated one and be victorious…seems to be a disconnect here.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/10/6303/

..perhaps Steve Irwin did it as well, but I cannot recall Cindy on water skis.;)

Published on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Hillary and the Rat

by Joyce Marcel

Now we have a candidate who is a Democrat, and she’s acting like the worst Republican on the block.

Of course, the myth of the “nurturing” female leader exploded almost instantly, or doesn’t the name Margaret Thatcher mean anything to you? We had the dynasty-building Indira Gandhi in India, the corrupt Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan (and welcome home, Benazir!) and a host of others. We’ve also had wonderful female leaders, especially in Asia and Africa.

To no one’s great surprise, good leadership turned out to be a trait defined by character, not by gender.

<snip>

“The first jury trial Mrs. Clinton handled on her own, for instance, concerned the rear end of a rat in a can of pork and beans,” Liptak wrote - and if here you’re thinking, “Go get ‘em, Hillary! Evil corporations are trying to poison us!” you are sadly misled. She represented the corporation, and “she argued that there had been no real harm, as the plaintiff did not actually eat the rat. ‘Besides,’ she wrote in her autobiography, describing her client’s position, ‘the rodent parts which had been sterilized might be considered edible in certain parts of the world.’”

So there’s your warm, caring, nurturing female political leader for you. Hungry? Eat a rat!

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5071/

:evilgrin:

and Hillary didn't even bother to read what was given to her before she made the vote -- allegedly.

Is that last part true?


In unrelated news, Cindy's been accused of being phony, herself. At least she hasn't botoxed herself to death like Nancy 'impeachment is off the table' Pelosi.

Waiter!!.....Check Please!!

Its pretty obvious when you watch the entire "moment" that she had practiced the tearing up, because she went immediately from choked emotion about it not being easy and then slid directly into an attack on Obama.

I actually think she was truly emotional about losing the primary and her shot at the Presidency.

Keith Olbermann did play the entire video.

making a tactical mistake keeping this "crying" incident alive by lashing out.

It's arguably what helped Hillary come back in New Hampshire, and keeping it up could arguably continue assisting her in the upcoming states.

She launched a vicious attack on Edwards and Obama right after that, and shortly afterwards she played the Al-Qaeda card saying that Osama bin Laden would attack America if someone other than herself was President.

I'm not defending Hillary one way or the other.

And for disclosure purposes, she's not my candidate.

I'm speaking from a strategic point of view.

It doesn't matter whether the crying was genuine or "about herself."

The point is it obviously resonated with voters in New Hampshire, and the other campaigns have nothing to gain dwelling on it.

They would be smart to drop it and move on, IMO.

miss being in the news?

Too bad for Clinton, that is.

#5 rec'd!

She has nothing to say on a Democratic board. She is running against one of our leaders so maybe you should take this garbage and go to her web site.

You are doing a great job of uniting us against the Reich Wing.:sarcasm:

Can't work in coalition with one that engages in such odious tactics!

will forfeit the election to the Repukes, it's that simple.

Good night

Besides, what does it mean if the choice comes down to two candidates whose only difference is the letter behind their name?

How does that help Democrats?

environmental repair, prosecution of the criminal element in the Right wing, executive order changing most if not sll of the Constitutional violations of this misAdministration, help for our Veterans, Universal Health care, I could go on, but your desire for ideological purity is more important, as it is for so many others here.


Then live with catapulting us back into the 19th Century.

You want more outsourcing, more H1-B visas for foreign workers, more war in Iraq and another war in Iran. You also want lobbyists to continue writing policy and want the Bush Junta to get off scot free.
You'd rather have us give up our principles for political expediency. Besides if you think clinton is going to do one single thing for working americans then you are sadly mistaken. She is corprate through and through, her record bears that out.
Remember that the left has been fighting the republicans while Hillary was giving bush everything he demanded and more.

The simple solution is to nominate someone that will not divide us. Obviously Hillary is extremely divisive and no amount of calls for loyalty oaths is going to change that. She must not be our nominee, it's a sure fire recipe for defeat. But if you think that she'll somehow miraculously unite us all just because she claims to be a democrat, then I have what ever you're snorting.

I have NOT FUCKING BACKED any Candidate except the one who will be nominated by OUR (that's right OUR) Democratic Party after the convention. If you think for one second that working against Hillary if she is nominated is worth the effort, take your best fucking shot and vote for the Rethug instead, because it will clear your conscience.

We're done, go bash Hillary to someone else, I'd rater puke than read your propaganda.

That's it in a nutshell.

What's the point? Where's the change? What do democrats get out of this to Democrats benefit? 6 of one, half dozen of the other, and it's the 90s all over again -- the bad part of the 90s.



True believers don't inhale. They just fart in our faces and call it sunshine. The sell the rest of us bullshit using 'fear'. DainBramaged is using the 'fear' card.

Some of us are tired of fear. We had 8 years of it under Bush, and look where it got us.

No more fear. No more being led around by fear.

They are the ones that would sabotage the party for her. Their opinion is "if Hillary doesn't win then nobody will". Hillbots are just like wife beaters. They abuse the person until the person fights back, then the abuser suddenly becomes conciliatory. The abuser is good for a few months and then the abuse starts again . . .
They claim to be democrats but they want a monarch, not a president. They think its Hillary's divine right or some other royalist bullshit.

So you'd vote for the Rethug candidate if she is nominated? What a shame you aren't open minded and want a lifetime of Theocratic rule.

My political compass is actually more socialist than anything. I hate Rethugs and I feel the current "democrats" don't have the courage necessary to destroy the Rethugs utterly. The rethugs needs to be outlawed and banned as a party. They are our version of the nazis and we need to treat them as such. I'm certain I hate Republicans way more than you.
Another point, as it stands now, I'm living in Texas, the reddest of red states and all of the electoral votes will be going to the Rethug nominee, whoever it is. That is a fact that will not change. So, my vote counts for absolutely fuck-all. I'm already disenfranchised simply because of where I live. So my not voting will have absolutely ZERO effect on the election. My preferred candidates Edwards and Kucinich will not be on the ballot in Texas, so I am doubly disenfranchised, this time by the democratic party. If I have no voice in choosing my candidate then the candidate will not represent me or my interests. Both Obama and Clinton are unacceptable candidates in my eyes because they will let the BFEE escape justice scot-free and will continue the policy of conceding and complicity with the Republicans, they will keep us in Iraq for the next eight years and will expand the war into Iran in order to appear "tough".
You may happily vote for an empty suit but don't blame me if your nominee is not compelling enough to win enough votes to win the WH.

Or move to where your vote counts. Don't work AGAINST our candidates.

Oh yeah, one last thing, I put you on ignore, we have nothing further to discuss.:nopity:

Love your "Love it or Leave It" Argument. Very Nixonian of you.

Ciao to you and your Loyalty Oath Bullshit.

There wasn't one liberal in the bunch!

so she only has herself to blame.

because if she IS nominated, you will be nothing more than a phony, and your vote will be wasted if you DON'T vote for her. You do DU harm by working AGAINST our candidates rather than working for them.

Chris Hitchens, Arianna Huffington, and Alamo Girl all said so. So it must be true.

--p!

and that will certainly result in many babies and fetuses being incinerated!

I'm voting on their strengths, not assorted bits of bile and Counterpunch hit pieces.

Still not decided. Three good candidates and thousands of out-of-control staffers.

I love being a Democrat!

:loveya:

--p!

One can almost see the reverse of what happened in 1969. Nixon turned the Vietnam war into a Republican war.

I didn't think so.

I know the rad-left is eager to tar their less-hip brethren with the "warmonger" brush; they've been doing it since Kennedy was in office, and still regularly remind us that he was an anti-Communist and that Vietnam was a "liberal war".

With any of the candidates, we take that risk. Even with President Dennis Kucinich, who would then have to focus on preventing reprisals against Iraqi collaborators -- just like President Hillary Clinton or President Barak Obama or President John Edwards.

Either way, whomever this task falls to will be blamed as a war-monger and a baby-killer. No matter what they do, leave or stay. Inevitably. It happened to Bill Clinton during both the Balkans conflict and the Rwandan genocide, and he was blamed for everything the UN did, too.

Bush got us in this one deep, and it's going to take a major effort to get us out. Assuming that any candidate will have an easy or simple task of it is asking for a miracle. Pre-emptivly blaming Hillary is just absurd. And all the schadenfruedlich gloating over the evil that Hillary will do is getting just a little gruesome.

--p!

And with Hillary, whatever AIPAC wants, AIPAC gets. They own her lock stock and barrel.

The former is a working class mother, the latter is part of political establishment in NH.

Is she still on her "fruit smoothy" hunger strike?

:eyes:

now I think she's just pathetic!! Sen. Clinton did not have to meet with her but she did and listened to Sheehan's group graciously, which is more than Bush did. She's now spewing terms that do not make me want to hear her with an open mind: neo-connette, cackle, bizarre, insane, etc.

Ms. Sheehan I respect your pain on the loss of your son, but as far as I'm concerned you can go to hell!!!

but the only person she hears is herself.

If Clinton loses the GE she only has herself to blame.