McCamy Taylor's Journal
Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 07:05 PM
Number of posts: 16,190
Number of posts: 16,190
Here is my fiction website: http://home.earthlink.net/~mccamytaylor/ My political cartoon site: http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/
- 2016 (5)
- 2015 (72)
- 2014 (79)
- 2013 (4)
- 2012 (69)
- 2011 (13)
- December (13)
- Older Archives
Forget about the top of the ticket for a moment. The Castro family is a tried and true Texas union Democratic family with not one but two brilliant young political leaders (twins no less). The Castros are the future of the Democratic Party. I seriously doubt that there are any skeletons in their closet. Their mother raised them to be good Democratic politicians.
A Castro will one day be president of this country.
Yes, this is quite a prediction. Feel free to bash me eight years from now if I am wrong. But I won't be.
Regardless of which of our fine candidates secures the nomination and goes on to win in the general, I wish to nominate (once again) Julian Castro for the position of Vice President. Your candidate will be glad that he (or she) close him. Remember, the VP's job is to rouse the base. And Castro is a proven base rouser.
"My fellow Democrats, me fellow Texans!"
Make Texas blue again!
My vote belongs to Clinton but my heart belongs to Castro!
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Oct 19, 2015, 03:04 PM (0 replies)
So, someone says that Elizabeth Warren agreed with something Clinton said, and (predictably) someone else shows up to remind us that Warren used to be a Republican. Poor Elizabeth Warren! Not so long ago, you were the hope of the Anyone But Clinton campaign. And now, you too have been thrown under the “Anyone But Hillary” bus. Must be getting pretty crowded under there. Let's take a look. Hmm. I see....
Wow! Can I get an invitation? I wanna go under the bus, too.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Oct 18, 2015, 09:16 PM (18 replies)
in 2004 about Kerry. If you can not provide proof that you loudly, aggressively repeatedly denounced Kerry as a war hawk at every opportunity, that you vowed to stay home in protest at the horror of having to vote for a Democratic nominee who supported the Iraq War, if you can not give actual links---no fair saying you muttered it under your breath or mentioned it to a friend once, or thought about it real hard---if you did not blog about Kerry's war vote, if you did not carry signs denouncing Kerry's war vote, if you did not devote columns to the subject of Kerry's war vote---
--and you now insist that Clinton's Iraq war vote disqualifies her, then you have either
1) changed your mind or
2) have a double standard as in it is only wrong if Clinton does it.
Come on guys. I am waiting for the links. I am waiting to hear how much you despise Kerry. I am waiting to read about how you fought tooth and nail through the primary and how you contemplated suicide after the Democratic convention.
Tell you what. I'll google someone who has denounced Clinton as a war hawk at every opportunity. Surely our friend, Will Pitt must have had some really harsh words to write about Kerry in 2004. I'll bet he raked him over the coals...
Oh my! Look what I found:
Yet for a Senator like Kerry who believes in bipartisanship, who chose to honor the office of the Presidency by practicing that bipartisanship, who trusted a number of publicly-made administration promises, who thought getting weapons inspectors into Iraq required the threat of force the choices presented in this vote were far more complex than those being made down on the street by the protesters.
Et tu, Pitt? Kerry's vote was complex. Clinton's vote was---simple? Why is that?
And look at this:
Please bookmark this post, because I am puking sick of typing it over and over again.
Kerry did not say he would still have gone to war in Iraq. This is what he said:
"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said after a short hike from Hopi Point to Powell Point on the Grand Canyon's South Rim.
You can bet I will bookmark this post.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:48 PM (113 replies)
A: If you said "The Terminator" to the first question, good guess. If you answered "Leprechauns" to number two, sorry, no. Number three should be a dead giveaway, but if you have not cracked open a newspaper in two decades you might guess "The LAPD?"
Wrong on all accounts. The person who inspires the MSM to verbal excess is none other than Hillary Clinton. As in todays example:
Slowly, relentlessly, Hillary Rodham Clinton has piled up one congressional endorsement after another
From the Associated Press via The LA Times.
Relentlessly, huh? When Obama piled up endorsements in 2008, he did it---what? Sporadically? Light heartedly? Distractedly? Why did he deserve his endorsements? Why does each endorsement that Clinton receive make the sinister music in the background go up a notch?
Once again, the press proves that the old adage is true---it's ok, unless Clinton does it. Clinton does not just acquire Congressional endorsements. She is The Terminator of Congressional endorsements. She stalks those endorsements. She aims her assault rifle at them and shoots them square between their poor, doe like little eyes. Those endorsements don't stand a chance, not with Hillary the Terminator on the trail.
In 2008, you scoffed when I wrote about the tropes from fiction that influence our elections. The Hero. The Mother. The Martyr. But Obama was anointed as The One Who Would Fulfill All Our Hopes--until he didn't. Clinton embraced and supported Obama as The Mother, thwarting the plans of those on the RNC who hoped she would pull a Kennedy 1980. And the press destroyed Edwards once and for all. This time around, it is even weirder. Now we have the Movie Pitch Candidacy (Sanders as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington meets Grapes of Wrath) and the Horror Candidacy (Relentless Clinton, the Terminator) and the Existential Candidacy (If Martin O'Malley is running for president but the press refuses to cover him does that make him a loser or a winner?)
Great primary! Keep up the good work! As in 2008, I will support any one of the three in the general. Just be careful not to fling so much poo in the primary that the chosen candidate will not be able to wash it off come next July.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Oct 8, 2015, 01:03 AM (4 replies)
Not just in comparison. The GOP candidates are so bat-shit crazy that they are scary. Scary, because we learned in 2000 and again in 2004 that the popular loser can steal an election if the vote is close enough and the GOP is dirty enough--and the RNC is a filthy as ever. Filthier, probably, since they can now roll around nude in vast sums of money acquired from who knows where---Seldom Adelson's casinos are a perfect money funnel for illegal and foreign donations.
So, anyway, once upon a time, a candidate like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump would not have a snowball's chance in you know what. The nomination of a flaming idiot would assure the rival party (i.e. us, the Dems) an easy victory, a la LBJ in 1964 against Goldwater. And then the impossible happened. Thanks to a not so secret vote for hostages deal, an actor became president. Ronald Reagan changed the rules. Suddenly, the last person you would ever expect to "win" a presidential election could get sworn in and run the country into the ground.
Once burned, twice shy. Twice burned, extremely apprehensive. Three times burned, no way in hell does any sane Democrat want to "take a chance". Not with our country's future. We have to live here.
And so, the more we see of the GOP candidates in their debates, the more we listen to their insane rants, the more we will (unconsciously) look for a safe port in the storm. A tested port, one who is so well defined in the public mind that all the dirty tricks and yellow journalism in the world can not change people's perception of her---or him. Al Gore would do. Joe Biden would do. Hillary Clinton will do.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Tue Sep 29, 2015, 12:44 AM (32 replies)
In 2012, Maryland Gov. (D)Martin O’Malley spoke at the Democratic Convention. You may remember it as the “forward, not back” speech:
Yes, we live in changing times. The question is: What type of change will we make of it? As we search for common ground and the way forward together, let's ask one another—let's ask the leaders in the Republican party—without any anger, meanness or fear: How much less, do you really think, would be good for our country? How much less education would be good for our children? How many hungry American kids can we no longer afford to feed? Governor Romney: How many fewer college degrees would make us more competitive as a nation?
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/gov-martin-omalley-dnc-speech-text-080695#ixzz3mtQKoI00
I recommend listening to the man speak. Being able to move a Democratic audience is one of the duties of a Democratic president and a Democratic presidential candidate, and O’Malley proved he could do it.
Fast forward to 2015: The press has declared the Democratic primary a two man race, much as they did in 2007. Then, it was Obama versus Clinton. Now it is Sanders versus Clinton. If Biden jumps in, we will have a three candidate race---
But wait. We already have a three candidate race. Just as we did in early 2007, when the corporate media “crib deathbed” John Edwards campaign by ignoring him. Only John Solomon for the WaPo wrote about Edwards in the early days of the primary, and his pieces were vicious attack fluff, like an interview with Edwards’ hairstylist intended to imply that the candidate was 1) vain about his good looks and 2) closeted gay and another about how the (rich former trial lawyer) had a big house. When Edwards came in second in the Iowa caucuses, E.J. Dionne, a guest on KO’s Countdown declared that Edward’s second place finish was the end of his campaign. Clinton’s third place finish meant she was still in the race. Is that what Karl Rove meant by The Math?
The press was never going to tolerate Edwards, who was running anti-Wall Street and pro-worker and pro-single payer. Never. And, as a handsome white southern male with all his hair and a much loved wife about to die of cancer, there was too good a chance that if nominated, he would sweep the general election. A Black candidate or a female candidate had more exploitable general election weakness. A Black candidate or a female candidate would give the eventual Republican nominee at least a fighting chance to rally to GOP base, despite its disenchantment with W., helping the party save face even if it couldn’t win the election. And so, the mainstream media went out of its way to kill Elizabeth Edwards’ dying wish, by denying the couple any attention at all. One of those Soviet style assassinations by silence. My heart breaks when I think about how much the stress of being helpless in the face of this unfair media blackout must have weighed in Elizabeth in her last days.
Who was the Elizabeth Edwards that the press was determined to silence?
Q: Is there a split between "new Democrats" and progressives, or what Paul Wellstone used to call "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?"See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2007/07/5092/elizabeth-edwards-interview#sthash.QUeBykxJ.dpuf
Edwards: John gave a speech at the DNC meeting saying we don't need to reinvent our party; we just need to remember who we are. And who we are is the party of working people, including people who want to work and can't, people who have worked and are trying to retire. That's who we are and have always been. Sometimes we need to be reminded of that. It's easy to get misled with the DLC mantra "love the worker, love the employer." The employers can pretty much take care of themselves. So as a party our job is to give voice to those people who don't have a powerful voice. Unless that translates into votes or contributions, it turns out a lot of Democrats just ignore those people. They use language about working class people, but they are not out there with them. They use language about the immorality of poverty, but they are not out there. They generally support unions, but they are not walking picket lines. And so the difference it seems to me is not between old and new Democrats but between actual Democrats and rhetorical Democrats. -
Another candidate wants us to remember who Democrats are. And that candidate is also suffering the death of a 1000 media omissions. I write about Governor Martin O’Malley. Watch as he discusses poverty in the US (and remember that in Ohio, food stamp money is being denied to mostly minority inner city residents while it is being funneled to mostly white rural residents.)
“We are all in this together.” It isn’t just the words. It is the way he says them. O’Malley gives voice to those who do not have a voice.
This kind of talk does not endear O’Malley to the right wing. The Washington Times---which hired John Solomon after he made himself into a journalistic untouchable with his Edwards hatchet pieces---has Cal Thomas flinging the poo at the former Maryland Governor. O’Malley’s sin?
Who is he blaming for “wrecking” the economy? Big banks and Wall Street.
Sounds pretty “Democratic wing of the Democratic party” to me.
The GOP’s fear of O’Malley is not new. As far back as 2012, it was the topic of conversation in the press:
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has become a punching bag for Republicans, taking it on the chin from leading politicians, strategists, analysts and conservative commentators as he ramps up his role in the national campaign.
Why all the hate? Because in 2012, they could tell that he was going to make a 2016 presidential run. And O’Malley is not a Democrat that the RNC would like to see nominated. He is too anti-Wall Street, too pro-the poor.
Now, something funny happened in the spring of this year. Suddenly, the GOP started talking O’Malley up as the perfect person to challenge Clinton from the left. The GOP was scared shitless of Clinton. They were looking for the Great Leftist Hope, someone who could knock her out in the primary and give them a better chance in the general. And so we have Pat Buchanan praising O’Malley:
Although Buchanan stated that O’Malley isn’t a serious threat to Hillary Clinton, and would be “unless she drops a lot more in the polls than she has thus far,” he did say “O’Malley has a golden opportunity, there’s no denying it, John. If Hillary Clinton’s got problems with her emails, he ought to be out there in iowa and new hampshire and around the country answering all those folks who said, ‘who is he?’ And become the populist, liberal, progressive candidate who runs a good positive campaign, who’s solid on the issues, who does not attack Hillary and build himself up as long as he can until she gets in, or maybe somebody else gets in to eclipse him. And so i think that he’s in an excellent position.”
We have Rush----yeah, that Rush---praising O’Malley (??????) Sort of.
So here's O'Malley. He lands at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and there's a media contingent there. He has arrived to save the day. End of story. It doesn't matter what he does, doesn't matter if he succeeds. He cared. He dropped everything. He was in a bar having a nice Irish whisky with some friends and he put it down. He got on that plane and he immediately flew home to Maryland to save the day. End of story. Nothing ever gets solved. That's the point. That's why I started out the program talking about the benefits of age.
Why were the GOP talking heads talking up a liberal ideals Democratic Candidate? Because they needed someone to attack Clinton from the left. But then, heaven dropped an even better candidate in their laps, Socialist Bernie Sanders, the man who has many more general election vulnerabilities (he is a Socialist!) than life-long Democrat O’Malley. And suddenly, O’Malley was forgotten—by the right wing.
Members of the left have not forgotten. Here is a write up in the Chicago Tribune:
His lines about redeeming the American Dream and promoting a stronger middle class are standard fare. His selling point was: "I am the only candidate for president with 15 years of executive experience." He stands out, he said, for turning "progressive values into action."for new American immigrants, marriage equality and a ban on assault weapons: and we didn't just talk about it, we actually got it done!"
This was where his earnest speech became impassioned, his voice rising over building cheers: "In Baltimore, we took action to save lives by reducing record-high violence to record lows. We increased drug treatment to free thousands of our courageous neighbors from the scourge of drug addiction. ... Driver's licenses
Here is the speech that got the Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman so excited.
So, how is the press covering the campaign? Check out NYT’s “Politics” section today and you will find 1) one article about Sanders getting a new endorsement 2) two articles about Clinton’s emails 3) a whole bunch of articles about various GOP candidates and nothing—as in nada—about O’Malley. Search his name at the Times and you find most of the recent coverage is about his efforts to get more Democratic primary debates—presumably to get more coverage, since the press is not going to cover him. Oh, wait. Correction---the NYT prominently covered his recent criticism of Obama’s decision to allow only 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country. He wants us to do more. The NYT wants to make sure that its readers know that he wants him to bring over more. Presumably because the staff at the NYT knows how popular Muslim refugees are in NYC at this time.
The Washington Post keeps harping on O’Malley’s income and debts. As in this piece:
The appearance of a quid pro quo is not the biggest problem facing Mr. O’Malley, who remains stuck near zero in the polls among Democratic primary voters. Still, the payment — his single largest chunk of current income — while not illegal, is troubling.
The Washington Post cannot get enough of the O’Malley’s finances, seeking simultaneously to portray them as spendthrift (for attempting to send their kids through school) AND as broke AND as highly paid AND as penny pinchers. Quite a rhetorical juggling feat by the reporter assigned to cover O’Malley(with slime), John Wagner---and one that reminds me a lot of the WaPo’s series of John Solomon authored articles about John Edwards which the newspaper used to torpedo the Edwards campaign in early 2007.
Here, we have Furniture-gate, the WaPo’s attempt to portray as sinister the O’Malley’s decision to purchase used furniture from the governor’s mansion.
A decision by former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley to purchase furniture from the governor’s mansion is creating some headaches back home -- including criticism from his Republican successor -- as he campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination.
When O’Malley and his family moved out of the mansion in January, they took dozens of items with them that his administration deemed “excess property,” according to state records. As first reported over the weekend by the Baltimore Sun, the family paid $9,638 for beds, chairs, desks, lamps, mirrors and other items from the mansion’s living quarters that originally cost taxpayers $62,000. Many of the pieces were eight years old or more, and they were discounted by administration officials to reflect their age.
While Clinton and Sanders draw headlines, O’Malley is quietly courting voters here in the country’s first caucus state, going “town to town to town, the old-fashioned way.”
His campaign — which raised $2 million last quarter, compared with Clinton’s $47 million and Sanders’s $15 million — is focusing much of its limited resources on Iowa, hoping a strong showing will catapult O’Malley forward.
Sorry, O’Malley. I suspect that a second or even first place finish in Iowa will be declared by the press as the end of your campaign—as it was for John Edwards. The mainstream media does not want you in this race. The RNC does not want you in this race. Maybe back in the spring, when there was no one to challenge Clinton from the left. But now they have someone much more controversial, someone much easier to attack in the general. You are just too god damned electable. And too scary. Because he does not accept the old Wall Street truism that there is an ideal level of unemployment or that poverty is good for business.
Or maybe not. Here is John Nichols writing for The Nation:
O’Malley embraces elements of a Catholic social-justice ethic that will be highlighted as Pope Francis tours the United States this year. The governor is often at his best when he speaks of a duty to address poverty and inequality, and of the need to respect the dignity of work with living-wage pay and workplace fairness. As governor, he acted on these values by, for instance, making Maryland the first state in the nation to require government contractors to pay their employees a living wage and arguing passionately and practically for raising the state’s minimum wage to $10,10 an hour.
That does not mean that O’Malley marches in lockstep with the church; he is pro-choice and he has been a leading advocate of marriage equality; when Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O’Brien urged the governor to oppose marriage equality, O’Malley replied, “I do not presume, nor would I ever presume as governor, to question or infringe upon your freedom to define, to preach about, and to administer the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. But on the public issue of granting equal civil marital rights to same-sex couples, you and I disagree.” O’Malley signed the law and then defended it when opponents sought unsuccessfully to overturn the measure with a statewide referendum.
And now, more Martin O’Malley, from New Hampshire:
Driver’s licenses for immigrants, ban on assault weapons, gay marriage rights, the Dream Act…sounds like the man knows how to get things done. “Growing injustice.” “Leaving the majority of our people behind.” “Our economy is not money. It is people. It is all our people.” “No American family that works hard and plays by the rules should raise their children in poverty.” “We must make it easier for workers to join labor unions.” “We must advance the cause of equal pay for work.” “When women succeed, America succeeds.” “The enduring symbol of our nation is not, Donald Trump, the barbed wire fence. It is the Statue of Liberty.” “Stop giving a free pass to the bullies of Wall Street to run rough shod over the American people.”
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:52 PM (6 replies)
Apparently, the RNC is not content to let the Dems have their own primary. Or maybe, Dems don't hate Clinton enough. Morning Joe Scarborough brought up one of the Big Lies from 2008--that Clinton is the one who called Obama a Muslim.
The story is in the National Review, which is trying warn all Democrats (Aw! Aren't they sweet! They care about us so much!)that Clinton can not be trusted. She is one sneaky, lying you know what. And she is the one who told right wingers that Obama is a Muslim. Without her, they never would have come up with one of their favorite big lies.
The only problem? Clinton did not do it.
A Moonie owned paper published the first "Obama is a Muslim" accusation. And, the Moonie owned paper claimed that Clinton was it's source. As if Clinton would give the time of day to a Moonie owned paper. This is one of Pat Buchanan's "attacks against Dems that appear to come from other Dems." The RNC did this throughout the 2008 campaign. They launched smears against Obama---and claimed Clinton as the source.
But, but, but...we know it was Clinton. It had to have been Clinton. Morning Joe wouldn't lie!
Not so fast. Here is Truth Out on the matter:
If you've ever wondered how agit-propaganda works, you might take a look at the latest case study from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's media empire - a bogus story about Barack Obama attending a Muslim "madrassah" when he was six years old, a smear that was then attributed to operatives of Hillary Clinton.
The shrewdness of Moon's Insight magazine story is that it hit two enemies with one anonymously sourced stone, a strategy of slime and divide straight from the textbooks of a spy agency like the CIA.
Only in this case, it is not the CIA planting black propaganda in a foreign publication to undermine some U.S. enemy. It is Moon using his media outlets subsidized by his mysterious foreign money to manipulate and distort the U.S. political process, again.
The Insight "madrassah" story also turned out to be false. As CNN reported on Jan. 22, the Indonesian school that Obama attended as a child was not a "madrassah" where sometimes extreme forms of Islam are taught, but rather a well-kept public school in an upper-middle-class neighborhood of Jakarta.
Beware anyone who tries to recycle the old Big Lies of 2008. I have kept my journals. I have the links. I will prove you to be the liar you are. And that means you, Morning Joe and National Review---and anyone who tries to cite them as authorities on anything of importance to the Democratic Party.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Sep 23, 2015, 03:33 AM (4 replies)
Ever hear about the so called Canuck Letter? No. Well, pull up a chair. Get comfortable.
Back in 1972, Dick Nixon decided that he did not want to face Democratic front runner Ed Muskie in the general. So Pat Buchanan cooked up some dirty tricks.
One of the dirty tricks was a forged letter that the New Hampshire Union Leaders---a conservative rag---printed, a letter which claimed to be from someone who had overheard Muskie making disparaging remarks about Canadians. In fact, the letter was written by a member of CREEP and fed to the newspaper.
But wait. It gets worse. William Loeb, editor of the Union Leader attacked Muskie's wife:
She was known as an energetic, plain-spoken spouse willing to talk about policy issues when the Manchester Union Leader newspaper reprinted an uncomplimentary Newsweek editorial that said she liked to tell dirty jokes and smoke cigarettes. Then-Sen. Edmund Muskie, who at the time was competing in the 1972 New Hampshire presidential primary, denounced the conservative newspaper.
Standing in a snowstorm outside the newspaper's offices, Edmund Muskie called publisher William Loeb a "gutless coward" for involving his wife in the campaign. Edmund Muskie choked up several times during the speech, and several news organizations reported that he cried, but a dispute has persisted for years over whether he had tears or melted snowflakes on his face.
So, basically, William Loeb and the Union Leader destroyed Muskie's presidential run by attacking his wife and publishing phony letters on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.
Now, over 40 years later, the same conservative rag is trying to tell Democrats that they do not really admire Hillary Clinton. No, they are being brainwashed. Never mind that she has been voted the most admired woman in this country 17 times. Never mind that she has been a Senator and Secretary of State and was popular in both jobs. No, says the Union Leader, you do not really like Clinton at all. She is being forced down your throats by the evil people at the DNC.
In 2008, Democratic presidential primary voters defied the party establishment and picked an inspiring young candidate over the one anointed by party elders. This time, the establishment is not taking any chances. Democratic voters should feel used.
Sorry, Union Leader, I don't feel used. I feel insulted. That you would dare to revert to your old dirty trickster ways. Did you think we had forgotten and forgiven what you did to the Democrats in 1972? Did you think that we would forget the CREEPy role you played in that election? Elephants are not the only ones who never forget. Democrats know better than to listen to any words that come out of your sneaky, lying little pages.
Looks like the battle is on. The RNC is going full court CREEP. Everyone who has not read the Washington Post article above about Pat Buchanan's dirty tricks need to arm themselves. The truth will set you free---of the influence of Republican spewed lies.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Sep 23, 2015, 03:07 AM (8 replies)
I see that an article by Forbes is being posted as if it is sensible, gospel truth that all Democrats should heed. It is an article about how Democrats should not nominate a woman who is being harassed/stalked/tarred and feathered by the GOP Congress, because somehow (in another dimension where the DOJ is NOT under Democratic control?) she could be indicted for keeping sloppy emails:
If such an indictment were to occur in the near future, Democrats could presumably re-group and find an electable replacement, such as Joe Biden.If on the other hand, the indictment were to occur at a later period, say, in the middle of 2016, after Clinton had effectively secured the Democratic nomination, the indictment would threaten, if not doom, the Democratic Party’s chance of winning the election, even if the Republican candidate were to be flawed.
The maddening thing for Democrats is that there can be no clarity on the matter. The threat of a prosecution will be ever present, no matter what any official says, since no one knows which government agency might emerge from the shadows at any time with a duly authorized prosecution.
Should the Democrats accept the reality that Clinton is now too much of a risk to pin their hopes on? Or should they put their trust in the kindness of strangers and hope that no prosecution is ever launched? That is the Democrats’ dilemma.
Who is Forbes trying to kid here? Democrats, of course. "Kindness of strangers"? Is he talking about our current Attorney General? Show of hands how many people think the current DOJ is going to press changes against the former SOS for sloppy emails? Come on. Fess up. I know a whole bunch of you are hoping/wishing/praying that the AG would jump that shark. But it ain't going to happen. I rate the chances of Clinton being indicted for email fraud as somewhat less than Hell freezing over.
So, why is Forbes telling us to be worried? Because the business interests that Forbes represent do not want to see Clinton as the POTUS. They want Ted Cruz or maybe Donald Trump. You know, Corporatist candidates.
The Forbes piece is not just sneaky. It is ugly with its "threat" which might "emerge from the shadows." Scary. Good thing we have Hillary Clinton on our side. She is not afraid of anything, especially not the right wing conspiracy.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Sep 23, 2015, 02:28 AM (7 replies)
versus using this forum in order to spread RNCish innuendo/dirt? For example the "Clinton kill list" is probably not something that belongs in a Democratic primary discussion---but it has been brought up here. The molehill that still has not made it to mountain status "scandal" involving her emails is widely discussed as a sign that she can not be trusted. The only thing it symbolizes to the Dems I know in real life (as opposed to DU) is that the GOP still hates and fears Clinton. So, is the fact that the GOP still hates and fears Clinton a legitimate topic of discussion at DU? Might be, if the point you are trying to make is that the GOP will mobilize their own voters using Clinton-o-phobia. However, being the target of multiple right wing attacks does not impeach a person's character. And do real Democrats really do eye rolls when someone mentions that the Clintons have been the target of right wing attacks
Once the party selects a nominee, no one will be allowed to spew conspiracy theories about any of the Democratic candidates. Pardon me for being suspicious, but sometimes I wonder who are the people taking advantage of the temporary ban on the ban against bad mouthing Democrats? How much more will we have to read about Vince Foster and Monica and Whitewater before next summer? How many times will I have to read about Clinton's emails here, on a site that is supposed to be free of corporate media bias?
This can hurt any Democrat, by the way. So, before you decide that it's ok as long as it only affects Clinton, ask yourself how you will feel if your candidate moves up in the polls---and suddenly he or she has his or her very own "kill list"? And no fair saying that all the conspiracies about Clinton are true, but any conspiracies about anyone else originate from the Clinton campaign---that is just another GOP Big Lie that was proven wrong in 2008 when she did not "crib death" Obama's campaign at the convention. Clinton is too good a Democrat to shoot her party in the foot.
Are we as good at being Democrats as she is?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Tue Sep 22, 2015, 01:00 AM (19 replies)