Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton Supporter's Rag, the National Enquirer, Calls Obama a Terrorist

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:17 AM
Original message
Clinton Supporter's Rag, the National Enquirer, Calls Obama a Terrorist
A key owner of the National Enquirer, a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman, is trying to smear Barack Obama by connecting Obama to terrorists. Not through a middle name or a cheesy photo, but by saying Obama has a friendship with a terrorist.

What a bunch of fucking shit!!!!

Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and his name has been mentioned as a possible Clinton Treasury Secretary.

Link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/The_Clinton...

I know that political and famous figures have a hard time locking libel to grocery isle rags like the National Enquirer, but this is beyond the fucking pale!!!

I have to wonder if Altman got his hands on the results of that survey that was done which was trying to find out just how much scum the American public would tolerate being slung at an African-American candidate. I'm guessing he's banking that he can manufacture an Obama association with terror using the "close friend" avenue and somehow get away with it.

Someone tell me he's fucking wrong!

I don't really care what political or famous figure you're FUCKING talking about here. A senator, a congressman, a governor, a state rep., a mayor, or the fucking dog catcher ... associating someone with terrorism is FUCKED UP!!!!!

This guy better have air-fucking-tight resources and it shouldn't be up to subjectivity!

I mean really ... if a person is associated with a terrorist then that person could be added to the government no-fly list. That person wouldn't be able to fly ... ANYWHERE!

What kind of shit is this to make up out of thin air?

I can only guess at the rational here.

Is it possible that after crunching the math that someone out there has come to the determination that withstanding a HUGE meltdown of Obama, that Barack will win the nomination; and they consider that reality unacceptable at ANY cost?

If any "creditable" MSM newspaper (you know one of the big rags owned by one of the six major entities that owns all of media) had such a headline the paper might face the termination of its existence.

That won't due. So run it in a smaller newspaper, one that won't be missed. Nope, no nationwide impact.

Ah, but what about a grocery isle rag? Big impact, untouchable, and any finger pointing will be met with handing out tinfoil hats.

It's pretty simple people. Many of us never attain much after high school, in as much as social habits, etc. A lot of the political tactics you see resemble high school bullshit because that's exactly what it is.

When I was in High School there was a guy that was branded with the nickname "Cat Man." The story behind the name was as bad as you could dream up. "They" said he was literally caught fucking cats in his backyard. There was never any proof, just that claim. The nickname stuck, he never had ANY friends, and everyone was too scared of being associated with Cat Man to go anywhere close to him. Not at lunch, not in the hall ways, nowhere. After he graduated he was never seen again. His family doesn't even hear from him and I've heard that his dad has stated that he doesn't want to talk to him. He was a couple of grades above me, but fearing for what tiny reputation I might have had, the last thing I would have wanted would be to be called Cat Man's good friend. Essentially, anyone that would have been associated with Cat Man would have found himself as the new Cat Man after the guy graduated. It was epically sickening that the story was ever created, but you get my drift ... it stuck because of fear.

The National Enquirer isn't talking about cats, they're fear mongering and it's being taken to an entirely different level.

The rag just hit stores today I believe. Oh, and look at what it could impact tomorrow ... the Mississippi race and IL-14. Remember, Hastert's possible Democratic replacement has a TV advertisement out there with Obama in it.

The National Enquirer is now in every rack in every grocery store in America ... including every isle of every Wal-Mart. You do the math.



If Clinton wins Mississippi you can directly contribute it to the National Enquirer.

What bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
surfin Donating Member (250 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. I was suprised when the key lawyer for Clinton in his impeachment
was also the legal counsel for that rag. Interesting.

Do they ever throw dirt at Hillary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hueyshort Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
53. OBAMA SUPPORTER'S RAG, the NY Post
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 06:45 AM by hueyshort
owned by Rupert Murdoch, lifted a Daily Kos Hit Diary claiming that HRC had darkened Obama in one
of her web ads. The whole thing was disproved by Factcheck.org.
Daily Kos has cheapened itself into nothing more than a shit pit of misinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #53
69. ....




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. I confess I've seen this but was waiting for a BO follower to post it.
Blame Hillary. Gee, this is so tedious. If she had all the power you attribute to her, she'd be president right now.

You bet they better have air tight sources. They have lots of money to take away if someone wants to sue.

:popcorn:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Sue?
Fuck suing ... I want them out of business if their resources aren't air tight.

Explain away the Hillary connection ... fine. But the rag should go down.

I'm serious, if their sources are bullshit then that issue should be their last!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
casus belli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Yep.
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 02:28 AM by casus belli
Tampering with elections is a Federal offense. If this isn't tampering, I don't know what is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seeker30 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
26. So then every talk show person and everyone on this board should be in jail
Fortunately we have free speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
casus belli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. Freedom of speech doesn't include defamation. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. You'd better warn your friends here at DU about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hueyshort Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #36
54. The Obama posts that Smear Clinton
would make Clinton a fortune, if she decided to legally pursue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
52. Then you don't know what tampering is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
9.  nonsense. Of course someone who actually believes that Obama is
a puppet of Rove's would believe crap printed in the National Enquirer. I take it that you believe that JE has a pregnant gf too. Delusional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. I saw it this am---was waiting for a BO fan to blame HIllary and here it is!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
68. "You bet they better have air tight sources." The National Enquirer??
You really want to go on record defending them in that way?
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
70. It's the left wing conspiracy...........LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. The first one isnt based upon the whole Muslim BS
They arent trying to play on the "he's Muslim" BS, they are talking about William Ayres.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. How many people ...
will only read the headline?

How many people actually buy those rags and read the stories?

The headline isn't justified. However, sadly, it will have a negative impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Of course the headline isnt justified. But hopefully people understand its the National Enquirer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
casus belli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. If some people still believe wrestling is real....
then it's a pretty good bet that some people think the Enquirer is news. I'm just hoping that those who do can't be bothered to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. the National Enquirer is the most read "newspaper" in the US
and you can bet that the idiots that read this trash believe every word of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
27. When Hillary said she was going for the uneducated Americans
she meant it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #27
47. She didn't say it and "uneducated" is right speak for working class.
Shame on your ass for all the shit and lies you scream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. It's the National Enquirer
But out of ALL the grocery isle rags out there, they have a reputation for unearthing something that no one else knows about.

From time to time, they have printed items that people called bullshit on and it turned out to be true.

This is definitely not one of those times! But because they have been right on rare occasions on really big news stories, it's been enough to attract attention.

The timing is really fishy here too. The Obama smear just "happens" to be in the same issue as the Patrick Swayze cancer story. As far as I know that story is ALL OVER THE MEDIA. In most of those stories they are mentioning that the National Enquirer broke the Swayze story.

Now, you tell me if a verified world exclusive like the Swayze story that's all over MSM will attract attention and have people looking for the National Enquirer at their grocery store isle????

I hope it goes nowhere, but I'll tell you how to find out if it's getting any traction.

Check out: http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?sa=X

If parts of the Enquirer's Obama smear start showing up as search terms in Google Trends, then it means people have seen it, they're thinking about it, and they're looking for more information about it.

Most "hot" items crossing people's minds end up in the top 100 and stay there for a little while. The Obama photo was there for a couple of days and still goes in and out of the list.

I hope you're right and this piece of tripe goes nowhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tribetime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
71. hell yes people believe this
how do you think Bush got elected and Kerry got swiftboated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liquorice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. That story is pure trash, but you can't blame Hillary for it.
The Enquirer has run articles that Hillary is a lesbian and incredibly negative hit pieces on Chelsea. They've also run dozens of crazy sex stories about Bill. Blaming Hillary is beyond idiocy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. Pop trash
Sure they have. I think they know that they can talk about sex, cheating, and aliens as much as they want about whoever they want, and they do.

But using a headline to imply association with a terrorist ... that's beyond the pale.

It's not in the same ballpark or even on the same planet as the other tripe.

This has direct political implications ... the sex tripe is bullshit and has become part of the background no matter WHO it talks about.

For those who are looking to know more about Obama and all the sudden some rag claims to have the "secrets" and then mentions something about a terrorist ... that shit can have an effect.

Don't think sex tripe talk is any kind of comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liquorice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Do you find it at all ironic that you are complaining
about a hit piece on Obama and at the same time have created a very negative, completely unsubstantiated hit piece on Hillary, all in the same post?

I abhor these kinds of attacks on ANY democrat. I will defend Obama against them, but you can't go around smearing Hillary like this and expect Hillary supporters to ignore it. All candidates, and especially democratic candidates, get smeared in our culture. The nastiest things are written about them. When it's your candidate it is just the worst. I know because I've seen it happen to the Clintons for years. They called the man a rapist! My God, you think that's just tripe? It was extremely damaging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Is this true?
<<<<A key owner of the National Enquirer, a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman, is trying to smear Barack Obama by connecting Obama to terrorists. Not through a middle name or a cheesy photo, but by saying Obama has a friendship with a terrorist.

Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and his name has been mentioned as a possible Clinton Treasury Secretary.>>>>

The fact is that when Hillary was confronted about Obama's religion she had the audacity to say, "I take him at his word." I think one other time she said "as far as I know."

All she had to say when asked if Obama is a Muslim is "No."

Why is she comfortable leaving ANY wiggle room for people to read into things that he might be a Muslim???

Keith Olbermann pointed this out and he was spot on.

She is associated now with a Kitchen Sink strategy ... named as such from her own campaign.

When you basically say you're ready to do and say anything, then saying things like "I take him at his word," as implying Obama's word is her reality, but it doesn't say reality is the only reality.

Fucking damn it! You Hillary supporters know exactly what her statement did! Don't act like you don't unless you ride the short bus daily.

She as put herself on the chopping block in regard to associating herself with pushing Muslim nametags on Obama. Now a possible Hillary cabinet member's publication goes a step further and associates Obama with a terrorist!!!

Shit ... you tell me how this looks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Is it the British billionaire who loaned Rezko the money to buy Obama's house?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
58. Obama bought Obama's house
Rezko bought a lot next to Obama's house. Get a fucking grip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liquorice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. If you insist on blaming Hillary for it, I can't help you. Should Obama
win the nomination, however, you are going to start to realize that Hillary isn't the root of all evil and others have plenty of reasons to attack your guy. ...Maybe this was a GOP hit... Maybe the Enquirer just wants to sell papers and this story will certainly do it! The maybes are endless. Hillary has been skewered in the Enquirer. The last big hit was when she was running for senator. They claimed she had a lesbian lover. Was she behind that story as well? Who was trying to hurt her chances for the senate seat? If she had control over what the Enquirer printed, that hit piece would not have been run.

People have a very bad habit of blaming the Clintons for everything. The RW started it and it caught on like wildfire. I know one thing for sure, the RW has and will continue to attack Obama as well. If he gets the nomination, people will hear so many lies and distortions, it will be unbelievable. But many people WILL believe, just like you apparently believe Hillary Clinton is so evil that she would push an Obama is a terrorist story. You have no proof, only innuendo. That's JUST like what the RW has done to the Clintons for many years. I hope the same doesn't happen to Obama, but sadly it almost certainly will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. See post 24. Altman is a close personal friend and former Bill Clinton official
He was Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and acting CEO of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), the federal agency cleaning up the savings and loan mess in the Clinton Administration. He was also Hillary's key backer for her NY Senatorial run.


Let me now come to the more difficult issue of the contacts about the statute of limitations and Mr. Altman's consideration of his possible recusal, starting with the meeting on February 2. Under the RTC statute, its chief executive is appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In March 1993, pending the selection of a nominee, the President had named Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Roger Altman to serve simultaneously as acting chief executive of the RTC. Under applicable law, Mr. Altman could only serve as acting chief executive for a maximum of 120 days, expiring during July 1993, unless by that time a nomination had been sent to the Senate for its advice and
consent, in which case he could continue until the nominee took office. In July of 1993, before the 120 days expired, the President nominated Stanley Tate to the RTC post, but he ran into confirmation problems and withdrew on November 30. As a result, Mr. Altman was legally authorized to continue as acting chief executive for 120 additional days after November 30, 1993, i.e. March 30, 1994.

In January 1994, there was increasing congressional interest in the status of potential civil claims relating to Madison Guaranty and Whitewater. At that time, the relevant statute of limitations on such claims was to expire on February 28, 1994, and the RTC had not yet decided whether civil claims relating to Madison Guaranty should be brought. At a meeting requested by Mr. Altman and held with White House staff members on February 2, 1994, Mr. Altman briefed the White House staff on the procedural options available to the RTC in potential cases such as Madison Guaranty where the statute of limitations was about to expire, just as the RTC had previously briefed an interested member of Congress who had inquired about the Madison Guaranty situation.

http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/legacy/072694-...


The clean-up job he did for them was so disgusting. That's when all the young idealists who were serving in the Clinton Administration started jumping ship shocked by the level of corruption and cynicism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
13. Who cares about Obama and the terrorist. I Want to Know About Britney's Abortion!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
15. Take that thrash elsewhere!! good grief--what has DU become!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JenniferH Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
18. This shows that Hillary has connections and experience
Not only do world leaders have her phone number, media executives have her phone number. Imagine Hillary and her acquaintances against McCain. How many other newspapers will fight along with her? Probably a lot more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. WTF?
You think it's good that our media is bought and paid for and you're cool that Hillary has ties to that?

You're fine with the 1996 Telecommunications Act and media consolidation?

You're fine that the Democratic Party's nominee could be someone like Hillary who is part of the corrupt system most real progressives want to blow wide open?

What the fuck buddy?!!?!!

It's all okay as long as the Democrats benefit? Is that what you fucking think?

You're part of the trash progressive needs to kick the fuck out of the party!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. If Hillary were doing the Enquirer's leg work to find dirt on Obama, she would
never have the time to do her homework on the issues and take positions that Obama then takes as his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. WTF?
Could be her a campaign strategy, but I never said it was directly her.

Any of the words that have come out of her mouth could be planned responses. Her response to Obama religion could have been a planned response which was a result of guidance from her campaign.

As for associating Obama with a terrorist, it could just be people who perceive that come hell or high water Hillary has to win.

If the GOP believe that it's mandatory for Hillary to be the nominee for them to have a chance at energizing their base in November, then they could have a hand in it.

Hillary has associated with numerous individuals in business, she's a moderate, and she loves lobbyists.

Like it or not there's a lot of the same ilk shared between the parties. If some of the factions have a goal of getting Obama out regardless of the headlines that need to be manufactured, they'll do it.

I hope we find out if anyone is held to task about this headline though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. Well maybe he does have associations with a terrorist. Did you read the
article? Although I'm one of Hillary's unwashed, uneducated, only-have-$30-left-on-my-Paul-McCartney-Starbuck's-card losers, I wouldn't buy that trash.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sulawesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #18
48. Bookmark this, and read your own post in more rational times. Unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
19. National Enquirerer?
Are you serious? OMG, I swear there is something about this Obama, 'conversion' that really drives people off the deep end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Secret Roswell Autopsies and Obama the Terrorist Chum.
Yep. It's ALL true. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
24. There's no gutter Clinton won't crawl to elimate rivals. He's more than a backer
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 03:05 AM by Catherina
He's a very close friend of the Clintons who was involved up to the neck in the Whitewater Scandal after Clinton fired Albert Casey and promoted his friend Altman to monitor and block the Whitewater investigations. After getting busted for lying to Congress and lying to Congress about lying to Congress, he "resigned". In the resignation correspondence Clinton thanked him for his "vital role in the passage of NAFTA". Altman is probably the person on the Clinton team who called the Canadians in last week's NAFTAgate.




Today, America may find out as The National Enquirer (this week's headline: ''Woody Allen's Bizarre Lust for Young Girls'') and Star magazine (''Hunky Prince William is Moving to U.S.: Look Out Girls'') are joined in tabloid bliss with The Globe (''Ravaged TV Beauty Beats Booze!'') under the same owners.

American Media, the company that owns The National Enquirer and Star, is expected to announce today that it will acquire the Globe Communications Corporation for $100 million in cash, said executives close to the deal. The price is five times Globe Communications' annual cash flow of about $20 million.

American Media is owned by Evercore Capital Partners, which is headed by former Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger C. Altman, who is a close friend of President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, arguably the first family not only of the country, but of the tabloid press. Mr. Altman had no comment about the deal yesterday.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E6D7...



Altman was the guy who "broke" the story that Edwards was having an affair a few months ago.

In one bombshell e-mail message provided to The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, the woman confesses to a friend she's "in love with John," but it's "difficult because he is married and has kids."

In another e-mail, she writes: "Last night and this a.m., he actually has amazed me. He is a great man. My heart is loud and my head is silenced."

Disclosed her friend: "She initially confided in a few of her closest pals that she was sleeping with 'a married man named John.'

"It became clear the married man was John Edwards. They got together whenever they could, mostly at hotels where Edwards and his campaign staff stayed."

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_s...


It's fucking wrong and despicable like alot of things the Clintons have been doing for years. They polarized America for their personal ambitions by lying and then playing the victim card. They ripped the nation apart the same way they're ripping the Democratic party apart today. The politicians know this and that's why the superdelegates have been steadily crossing over to Obama.

We need to keep encouraging politicians to go against the Clinton machine and break their death grip on the party because Bill and Hillary are two of the most corrupt people in this nation. My father was a die hard loyal Dem and he left the Democratic party after getting a good whiff of them. If we go back to that kind of politics, America will be finished.

Recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. Repukes polarized America and you are using their talking points
to trash Hillary.

You make things up, then find the logical conclusion to your trail of bullsh*t.

If Altman was hired to block the Whitewater investigations, I hope everyone got their money back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. Stop kidding yourself
Look around. What's happening in the Democratic Party right now is what happened in this country after their DLC took power and started polarizing Democrats.

People are coming together to heal the polarization so we can piece this country back together. NO MORE CLINTONS and their Jackson Stephens scandals that put ambition ahead of this nation. I'm sorry if the truth upsets you but I'm thankful enough enough Independents, and even Republicans, are feeling hopeful enough we can change things for the better with them out of the way.

Rush Limbaugh isn't supporting your Goldwater girl out of the goodness of his heart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. I saw the whole thing on TV. Repukes polarized and blamed it on the
Clintons. Obama and his numbnuts parrot the Repuke talking points.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. That's all you have in your bag of tricks isn't it?
It's all a vast right wing conspiracy right? Just like he did not have sex with that woman. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #45
66. It did turn out to be a vast right wing conspiracy after all.
Where were you? On the opposing side?

Bill was using the Newt Gingrich definition of sex, whereby oral is not considered sex. (Don't you just love those guys.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
32. Altman should be forced to resign from the Clinton team.
Samantha Power calling Hillary a monster pales in comparison to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. You are funny. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. I'm glad you think calling a fellow Democratic a terrorist is funny
You're not very funny. You're very sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seeker30 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Sorry, someone who praises Reagan is not a democrat in my book
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. He also blamed Democrats for the divisiveness of the last two campaigns.
So that would be Gore and Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. You mean like this gushing praise from Bill Clinton for Reagan?
I'm not going to let you get away with that lie. Obama never praised Reagan. He praised that "Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to". That's the same thing I want but with the shoe on the other foot. No intelligent person is incapable of grasping the disconnect between what was said and your flawed interpretation.




For Immediate Release May 5, 1998
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT RONALD REAGAN BUILDING DEDICATION

Ronald Reagan Building
Washington, D.C.

1:36 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mrs. Reagan, Mr. Barram, Secretary Daley, Senator Moynihan, Delegate Norton, Senator Dole, Senator Lott, all the members of Congress and the Diplomatic Corps who are here; Mr. Mayor, Secretary Schultz and General Powell, and all the former members of the Reagan administration who are here and enjoying this great day; to Maureen and the friends of President and Mrs. Reagan who are here: I'd like to begin by thanking Jim Freed and his team for a magnificent building. I think we all feel elevated in this building today. (Applause.)

I also want to say on behalf of Hillary and myself a special word of appreciation to Mrs. Reagan for being here. From her own pioneering efforts to keep our children safe from drugs to the elegance and charm that were the hallmarks of the Reagan White House, through her public and brave support for every family facing Alzheimer's, she has served our nation exceedingly well. And we thank her. (Applause.)

The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that.

As Senator Moynihan just described, this building is the completion of a challenge issued 37 years ago by President Kennedy. I ought to say, and doggedly pursued for 37 years by Senator Moynihan. (Laughter and applause.) I must say, Senator, there were days when I drove by here week after week after week and saw only that vast hole in the ground, when I wondered if the "Moynihan hole" would ever become the Reagan Building. (Laughter.) But, sure enough, it did, and we thank you.

As you have heard, this building will house everything from an international trade center to international cultural activities to the Agency for International Development to the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. It is fitting that the plaza on which we gather bears the name of President Wilson. And it is fitting that Presidents Wilson and Reagan are paired, for their work and, therefore, the activities which will be culminated in this building span much of what has become the American Century.

Since President Reagan left office, the freedom and opportunity for which he stood have continued to spread. For half century, American leaders of both parties waged a cold war against aggression and oppression. Today, freed from the yolk of totalitarianism, new democracies are emerging all around the world, enjoying newfound prosperity and long-awaited peace. More nations have claimed the fruits of this victory -- free markets, free election, plain freedom. And still more are struggling to do so.

Today, we joy in that, but we cannot -- indeed, we dare not -- grow complacent. Today, we recall President Reagan's resolve to fight for freedom and his understanding that American leadership in the world remains indispensable. It is fitting that a piece of the Berlin Wall is in this building. America's resolve and American ideals so clearly articulated by Ronald Reagan helped to bring that wall down.

But as we have seen repeatedly in the years since, the end of the Cold War did not bring the end of the struggle for freedom and democracy, for human rights and opportunity. If the history of this American century has taught us anything, it is that we will either work to shape events, or we will be shaped by them. We cannot be partly in the world. We cannot lead in fits and starts or only when we believe it suits our short-term interests. We must lead boldly, consistently, without reservation, because, as President Reagan repeatedly said, freedom is always in America's interests.

Our security and prosperity depend upon our willingness to be involved in the world. Woodrow Wilson said that Americans were participants in the life of the world, like it or not. But his countrymen did not listen to him, and as a result, there came a great Depression, the rise of fascism, the second world war. Our nation then learned we could not withdraw from the world.

Then a new generation of Americans reach outward in the years after World War II, building new alliances of peace and new engines of prosperity -- NATO, the United Nations, the IMF, the International Trading System. It is no accident that during this period of great American leadership abroad we experienced unparalleled economic prosperity here at home. And it is no accident that freedom's great triumph came on America's watch.

Today on the edge of a new century, the challenges we face are more diverse. But the values that guide America must remain the same. The globalization of commerce and the explosion of communications technology do not resolve all conflicts between nations. Indeed, they create new challenges. They do not diminish our responsibility to lead, therefore, instead they heighten it. Because today's possibilities are not tomorrow's guarantees, we must remain true to the commitment to lead, that every American leader of both parties, especially Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson, so clearly articulated in this 20th century.

For 50 years we fought for a Europe undivided and free. Last week the United States Senate took a profoundly important step toward that goal by welcoming Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, an achievement I believe that would make Ronald Reagan proud. The alliance that helped to keep the peace for half century now brings us closer than ever to that dream of a Europe united, democratic and at peace.

Now Congress has other opportunities to fulfill the spirit and honor the legacy of the man whose name we affix to this building today. Congress has the opportunity to maintain our leadership by paying for our support to the IMF and settling our dues to the United Nations. I hope they will do it.

President Reagan once said we had made what he called an unbreakable commitment to the IMF, one that was unbreakable because in this age of economic interdependence an investment in the IMF is simply an investment in American prosperity. And we fought for 50 years for peace and security as part of the United Nations.

In 1985, Ronald Reagan said the U.N. stands as the symbol of the hopes of all mankind for a more peaceful and productive world. We must not, he said, disappoint those hopes. We still must not disappoint those hopes. President Reagan understood so clearly that America could not stand passively in the face of great change. He understood we had to embrace the obligations of leadership to build a better future for all. The commerce that will be conducted in this great building will be a testament to the opportunities in a truly global economy America has done so much to create.

The academic and cultural activities that will be generated from people who work here will bring us closer together as well. Because the agency for International Development will be here, we will never forget that the spark of enterprise and opportunity should be brought to the smallest, poorest villages in the world. For there, too, there are people of energy, intelligence, and hunger for freedom.

This is a great day for our country. This is a day of honoring the legacy of President Reagan, remembering the service of President Wilson, and rededicating ourselves to the often difficult but ultimately always rewarding work of America.

As I stand within the Reagan Building I am confident that we will again make the right choices for America, that we will take up where President Reagan left off -- to lead freedom's march boldly into the 21st century.

Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/050598-speech-b...




Chillin in Kennebunkport
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. On further review - you are pathetic. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. I'll tell you what's pathetic
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 04:26 AM by Catherina
It's how far you bury your head in the sand. We WILL change things this time and get away from the polarization that's killing this country while Hillary's investment bankers run amuck with every money making scheme they can think of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sulawesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #40
49. Oh Really Now...then check out the following from hillaryclinton.com!!
"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seeker30 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:27 AM
Response to Original message
34. Hey man, they wouldnt print it if it wasnt true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemVet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
50. As a Hillary supporter, I certainly....
...don't condone such crap. However, if Barack Obama does turn out to be our Nominee, this kind of stuff has only just begun. I think we all need to grow some thicker skins to such BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. Grow Some thicker skin?
I guess "thicker skin" got Kerry elected in '04?

His inability to get the truth out about being swiftboated, that was good?

Kerry did very little to set things straight. Perhaps he felt he would be made fun of and mocked if he was petty and picked at the swiftboaters.

Perhaps he choose to ignore it and grow a thick skin.

Obama has come out and stated that he will NOT allow himself to be swiftboated.

Yes, you're right, this is probably the tip of the iceberg. Yes, there will be a lot of this to come, but guess what ... it doesn't matter WHO the Dem nominee is the same thing will happen to whoever the nom is.

If it was Edwards then it would have happened as well. Edwards was connected to Kerry through the '04 campaign which didn't fight back. In my book that lack of fight (even if mainly Kerry's fault) is what Edwards was labeled with. It's one of the reasons I felt very confident voting for Obama over Edwards. I felt that Obama would fight a lot harder.

Now, Obama supporters point out the dirty tactics. Fight beside the man who they feel should be the nominee, and we're told to get a thick skin.

Obama can handle himself. He doesn't need to scream and freak out like Hillary waving papers around saying shame on ________. But don't label efforts to do something as needing to grow a thick skin.

If you're perception of fighting is a need to grow a thick skin then you can have it.

Go Obama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
workinclasszero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
51. It all plays into Hillary's fear campaign (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
56. Oh please, more of the usual overreaching by the Obama fans!!!
Mean Hillary told someone at the National Enquirer to run a hit piece on Obama. Yeah, because the NE has NEVER run hit pieces on both Clintons. Ditto for the Globe, Star, etc.

Some of you need to take off your tin foil hats and breath some fresh air.



:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigleaf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
57. Well to be fair Hillary and the Enquirer share the same base (60+ year old women) of support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smae Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
60. Prior to coming out in the Enquirer this was on Fox news
This story was on Fox late February, but then we are assuming they were paid to
take the story off. If you google Obama takes money from Rezko there are still
stories on this. In the fox story and even the ones still on the internet
it states Obama admits to have taken campaign money from Rezko who is directly
linked to Sadam Hussein. He in turn said he would give that money to charities
so it wouldn't hurt his campaign.

I originally was going democrat no matter what... Hillary my first choice,
then Obama if he won the race.

In seeing this story, and seeing the original story in Fox news and it dissapearing... If Obama wins than I have no choice but to go Republican.

I will not take a chance of that link, and what it could do for our country!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
61. Kicking. Altman is doing it again! Now it's the gay crack story
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 07:50 PM by Catherina
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
62. Oh God here we go again. It is all Hillary's fault. Get a grip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
63. Hillary should reject and repudiate this supporter immediately
but of course she won't. He's doing exactly what she wants him to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Which supporter?
The magazine that writes stories about Bill's affairs and Hillary's "gay sex life"? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. I personally like this line of thought. She should hold up the Enquirer and say
"I repudiate this stuff."

It will even be worth all the Tweety sputtering on MSNBC about her nerve to bring it to the attention of the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
64. Don't Blame Clinton
This is the same rag that spreads rumors about Hillary and Bill, too.

Welcome to the real world of politics, Obama supporters. You haven't seen anything yet.

What's the deal with this poor Donald Young guy? Chicago police think he was killed because of something he knew about Obama?

There certainly are a lot of gays talking about his sexual preferences. If he is gay, he should be honest about it and not ashamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
72. These magazine's have written trash about
Hillary and Bill for many years. Really disguesting stuff. Obama is just getting a little taste of it now. It will get even worse, best to ignore it!

Stop blaming Hillary and the left wing conspiracy...............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 04:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC