Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Smear and fear

In 1992, while researching a planned expose of governor Bill Clinton's ties to the now-notorious drug operation at the Mena airport, I called up prosecutor Charles Black. He told me that, to the best of his knowledge, Clinton had no such ties. Black had amassed a massive amount of evidence on the Mena case, all of which was kept out of the carefully-managed federal (repeat: federal, as in Poppy's DOJ) prosecution of Barry Seal, and none of which implicated Clinton.

Where had I heard those untrue tales about candidate Clinton? From a strange young fellow in Arkansas who claimed association with the Christic Institute. Back then (as later became clear), a whole team of disinformers bandied about the Christic name in order to seed the left with rightist fabrications.

So, there it was -- a smear against the leading Dem candidate. Why didn't I write about it? Because I was a Bob Kerrey kind-o-guy, and thus felt unmotivated to defend a candidate I didn't really like.

After Clinton became president, the smears continued, on both the right and left. Every day, we heard new garbage about the "murder" of Vince Foster, the "flamethrowers" at Waco, the "assassination" of Ron Brown, Whitewater, travelgate, and so on. The progs embraced John Cummings' horseshitty Compromised as though Metatron himself had dictated it. Pacifica radio circulated the insane rumor that Clinton was prepping the way for a "Soviet" invasion in freaking 1994. ("Linda Thompson says that Spetsnaz troops are gathering at the Mexican border!" I heard those very words from a KPFK-addicted lefty, sweartagod.) Anyone demanding higher standards of proof risked the "Clinton-lover" accusation, which was akin to being called a "nigger-lover" in the old South.

The most annoying aspect of the smear campaign was the smearers' arrogant faux-hip attitude: "Oh, you just know that Clinton ordered the Casolaro hit." No (I would answer), I know no such thing. The faux-hipster would tsk and shake his head at such ingenuousness. Anyone who refused to accept badly-sourced conspiracy allegations at face value was considered naive.

Until the impeachment debacle, until Ken Starr revealed his full monstrous colors, many rational folk refused to denounce these smears, in print or in private. "Clinton-lover!" Yow. Ye gods. Who wanted to be called that?

Instead, I considered hopping aboard the gravy train by producing the smeariest smear-book in smeardom -- Red Phoenix Rising: Bill Clinton and the Illuminati. I actually wrote a few chapters of that lost masterpiece of pseudo-scholarship. (Sample sentence, from memory: "Adam Weishaupt was a believer in Deism, i.e., the worship of demons." This dubious allegation was "proven" with a footnote to an obscure 18th century text that no-one would ever dig up.) The grand finale of the projected volume was to be an eye-witness account of Bill giving Chelsea her annual birthday rape in the basement of the freemasonic monument in Alexandria, Virginia.

Top that, Paul Krassner.

But that project began to sicken me, as did all of politics, left and right. I got out and stayed out until 2004.

Cut to: 2008. What's past is present.

Frankly, I hate visiting political websites these days. TPM, DU, Kos -- they're all repeating the same crap about That Fiend Hillary. Progs (not wingnuts) are repeating all the old rightist lies -- Vince Foster! Waco! Travelgate! Mena! Whitewater! -- as well as a whole rafter of new fibs, the most sickening of which is the Hillary-the-racist meme.

Drudge prints a shot of Obama (on a foreign visit) wearing middle eastern costume, and then says that he got the photo from Team Hillary. Y'see, Hillary Clinton is the one spreading that vile Obama-the-Muslim smear. Team Hillary says otherwise, of course. They deny being Drudge's source.

Guess what? The fucking asshole progs actually believe that Matt Drudge, Man of a Thousand Lies, now possesses greater credibility than does Clinton. Meanwhile, the Rovian hordes get a two-fer, smearing Barack and Hillary.

Or take the NAFTA flap.

Obama disses NAFTA in public, then sends his key economic aide Austen Goolsbee -- a Chicago-school Friedmanite and a staunch free-trader -- over to the Canuck consulate in Chicago to assure our northern friends that Obama really doesn't mean it. When the story comes out, Goolsbee sputters that he has no link to the Obama campaign, which happens to be an utter lie. Then he admits that, yes, he did speak to the Canadians, a bit, sort of, but the chat doesn't really count because it was all off the record.

Like, duh. "Off the record" is how such things are always done.

Then came this story -- which the fucking asshole progs and the Obamabots scrambled after as though it were a C-note caught in a draft. In prog-vision, this story offered proof that Clinton, not Obama, had offered a "wink wink" on NAFTA to Ian Brodie, the chief of staff to Canadian PM Harper.

That bitch! That fiend...! How dare she blame Saint Obama for her own sin!

But...did she? Even though you have already read the passage quoted below, I ask you to read the words again -- this time critically.

First, a little scene setting. The article tells us that on February 26, Canadian reporters swirled around Ian Brodie while he was in a train station. They asked him about the Democratic candidates' apparent unease with NAFTA. Brodie told them not to worry:
"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room. "He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt... That someone called us and told us not to worry."
And that's it, my friends. "One source in the room." That's the evidence against Clinton. An anonymous allegation printed in a right-wing Canadian newspaper.

If Brodie really did say such a thing about Clinton, what stops the source (or the implied multiple sources) from going on the record? Nothing.

Gee...anything about this allegation remind you of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, circa 1995? Now let's read further:
Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate — either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.
Yes, welcome to the wonderful world of ten years ago, when major newspapers printed whispers and rumors.

In this case, we have no proof that anyone from Team Clinton spoke to anyone on Team Brodie about NAFTA. We do know that Goolsbee of Team Obama did do something of that sort, and that, when caught, he tried to fib his way out of it. (For some reason, Goolsbee's DLC credentials don't bother progs, who normally consider the DLC Hell's antechamber.) The best evidence of what really went on remains this story:
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.
The "evidence" against Hillary on this issue is thus even thinner than the "evidence" that Obama is a gay he-ho. At least the source for that silly yarn was willing to sign his name to it -- even if he can't pass a lie detector test.

But, say the progs, we know that Clinton lied about supporting NAFTA! Actually, we know that she has always disagreed with her husband on free trade. We know that Robert Reich -- a vociferous NAFTA proponent back in the day -- is now an Obama advisor. (Reich now condemns the agreement. Obamafolk are allowed to change their minds; Hillaryites receive no such permission.)

Will Hillary give scathing speeches condemning NAFTA? No, she will make nuanced pronouncements. For good reasons:

1. Trade with Mexico and Canada is hardly the problem; the real issue is trade with China, India and other points east.

2. With the stock market plummeting, any candidate of any party would be an idiot if he or she convinced America's CEOs that the costs of production will soon skyrocket. Yes, America must ease away from "free trade" fundamentalism -- dare I say, from Goolsbee-ism? -- but in a time of economic peril, the nation must proceed with extreme caution and guarded language.

Not that you can explain such things to progs. To them, "guarded language" is tantamount to treason.

The larger question is this: Why is Obama allowed to remake himself, while Clinton is not?

On the Iraq resolution, progs speak as though Hillary single-handedly started the war. The resolution authorizing military force in 2002 did so only if inspectors were not allowed into Iraq. But inspectors did enter.

Did the Savior From Illinois, who bleats about having opposed the war from the beginning, ever say before 2005 that the whole operation was illegal? To the contrary.

Check out Obama's over-rated speech before the Democratic National Convention in 2004. (Here and here.) Watching the speech again reminded me of why I got an iffy feeling about the guy, even as everyone else got all warm and fuzzy. On that occasion, here was Obama on Iraq:
When we send out young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers, or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to NEVER, EVER, GO TO WAR WITHOUT ENOUGH TROOPS TO WIN THE WAR, SECURE THE PEACE, AND EARN THE RESPECT OF THE WORLD!
When I first heard these words in 2004, my mind flashed on an image from "what if" history. How would you feel if, in 1944, General Stauffenberg told his pals that Hitler's big mistake was not sending enough guys into the USSR? How would you feel about an American schoolteacher who said that Hitler should have sent more troops into Russia?

The day after he made that speech, Obama told reporters that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq and to prevail.

A hateful sentiment? It may seem so in retrospect, but we must point out that lots of Dems bought (and still buy) into the "We broke it; we bought it" argument. Al Franken, as I recall, has made similar statements. Still, Obama supported the war as late as 2005, well after the thing had devolved into a hopeless mire, well after we started to learn the truth about the Niger forgeries, the aluminum tubes, and all the other neocon fibs.

In 2002, when Hillary cast that vote, matters were very different. The disinfo had yet to be exposed, W had yet to demonstrate the full depths of his penchance for fraudulence, and the "experts" in the intel community had sent decidedly mixed signals. Back then, who the hell knew the truth about Doug Feith and the OSP...?

By the way, at that very same convention in 2004, eeeeevil Bill Clinton forthrightly attacked Bush for "attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work." Yes, Bill said that. Bill pointed out that Bush had broken the terms of the Iraq resolution. Barack did not. Barack sent the message 'We need more troops.'

DUmmies and Kossacks truly believe that Hillary wants to continue the war, even though her record is clear. She has voted in favor of (vetoed) bills that would have mandated withdrawals. She has said "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Of course, progs and wingnuts will continue to believe in their preferred fantasies.

And yet, in the end, the truth is -- I don't like Hillary Clinton.

Many previous blog posts will prove the point. Even though she would probably make a good president, the woman has always rubbed me the wrong way. You know who got my vote in the California primary.

But. A smear is a smear. I've been down this road before -- and this time, I am determined to do the right thing.

I now despise myself for my cowardly refusal to decry the smears against Bill Clinton in 1992. Yeah, Bob Kerrey was my guy -- but should that preference have impacted my willingness to stand up for what was right?

Similarly, I loathe myself for my cowardly refusal to do whatever small thing I could to combat the anti-Clinton lies we heard so often throughout the 1990s. My craven stance ended only when the nation had soured on Ken Starr's excesses.

Today, I'm not so much bolder as older. Age has one virtue: You stop giving a crap about what other people think. So if reductionist progs want to call me a Clinton-lover, fine. You do that. I'm still going to decry the smears directed against Hillary Clinton.

I'll also decry the lies against Obama. Have done; will continue to do so.

In fact, I'm even going to expose lies against McCain.

Them's my apples. How do ya like 'em?


Anonymous said...

Don't care for the apples, Joe. I may be beating a dead horse at this point, but you've really let pundits and nonsense stear you into their camp. I'm sure you've heard the cliche about arguing with a fool. I really used to enjoy this blog when you were touching on stories that other blogs weren't. Don't get me wrong, you still do that here and there which is appreciated. But, all this nonsense where you constantly whine about "progressives," and rehash all of the crap from the pundits which, at one point, I thought your reader base didn't really care about, has affected your blog for the worse. Given the actual vote turnouts for both Hillary and Obama, will you be surprised if they are a ticket? I was pretty sure she'd go with Wesley Clark for the longest time, but that was when her campaign appeared to be more of a sure thing. If she gets the nomination, she'd be crazy not to pick Obama at this point. And if Obama gets the nomination, what strategic VP choice could he make that would actually get him an advantage over picking her?

It's why I just no longer care about all the nit-picking surrounding what people connected to them have said about the other, how much either is truly against the war, etc. It's largely just crap hyped by the media because it's easy news, and it's even easier for people to waste a day blabbing about online. But, in the end, it's all weak sauce.

When I come across it on the radio, or the TV, or on the net, I pretty much instantly switch elsewhere because it's absolute trite nonsense. As a result of this constant whining about this crap on your blog, I surf over here a lot less. And that's a big change from when you were doing stories covering Bush's earpiece, drug war related journalism, etc. It's like you went from having a blog that consistently provided interesting stories to just being a blog that largely rehashes and bitches about the same crap every other weak political blog does. I know you have better in you so, please, put it to rest already and get it together, unless you've just found that your new love is insulting and turning off your more loyal readers.

Joseph Cannon said...

Actually, I'm kind of with you, John.


This is the stuff under discussion right now. It's all over the other sites. And these are the stories that get the most attention here.

Frankly, I think AntiFascist has been writing terrific material lately -- better than my stuff. I try to make sure he's on or near the top in the mornings, when most people read blogs.

But how many people respond to his reports? How many other sites have linked to his work?

It's infuriating!

Meanwhile, I can scribble a few (or more than a few) words about the campaign, and people do react.

As perhaps they ought.

Like it or not, the piffle that seems so important during campaign season DOES matter. It makes history. I mean, the smears against Gore in 2000 were puerile, foolish and small. Yet they mattered, didn't they? If those smears had failed, Bush would never have caused so much trouble.

Joseph Cannon said...

By the way, I always presumed that if Clinton or Edwards won, the candidate would pick Obama to be VP; if Obama won, he would pick Clark. Kind of shame, though, since Clark would make an ideal Secretary of Defense.

Peter of Lone Tree said...

"Frankly, I hate visiting political websites these days. TPM, DU, Kos -- they're all repeating the same crap about That Fiend Hillary."
You need one more for a quartet, Joe: .

Joseph Cannon said...

Pete, what is your suggested fourth?

Anonymous said...

The political compass that united so many against Bush is whirling. Simple rights, simple wrongs are what people need to ease their lives on down the road and many seem to have forgotten what direction that is. You shall never be told full out, Joseph, how much you are appreciated. I really want to just say thank you. And now I will return to holding my breath untill the next presidential inauguration. Buck

Anonymous said...

You are wrong about "the other stories". We, your readers have always liked your blog because of the subjects that are not covered anywhere else. Many of us do not comment on them because we have nothing of worth to add or find the whole subject matter amazingly complex, but not by any means not interesting.
In contrast everyone (or at least eligible voters) are expected to vote at some point and have preferences and/or are trying to narrow the field. It's the one subject everyone feels comfortable commenting on.

Joseph Cannon said...

beeta...Thanks, and I hope you're right. The Uribe stories have been amazing, and Antifascist has done just outstanding research.

Anonymous said...

I think Clark would be better used as Secretary of State than SecDef, but I'm...pretty sure he'll wind up VP. Or...something else. If there is a God, which even I am starting to doubt at this point.

Bob Kerrey, Joseph? Really?

Joseph Cannon said...

Jen: Kerrey's stance on health care seemed strongest. He had demonstrated an ability to appeal to liberals and conservatives. Frankly, in 1992, I didn't think Clinton had a chance...!

Anonymous said...

You didn't think Clinton had a chance?

Anonymous said...

could not agree with johnm more, and in fact, have said as much on this topic here more than once.

and kudos to ya, joe, for so graciously accepting that perspective.

seems to me, if i may say as much, that the fury you're feeling, that tips you toward the hyperbolic, has more than once steered you astray of perspective and truth. and that means not just truth as in facts, but truth as in 'gosh, we truly don't have enough info here to land a fact.'

the whole nafta bustup is my case in point; so little of your position, as stated here, makes logical sense to me. i won't rehash it, but i will bring up another contradiction: if goolsbee is such a FREE trade guy, why in hell would he bother to try to make the canadians feel better about renegotiation talk??

ya know, heads of steam tend to deliver a lot of motion in one direction, but it may not necessarily the accurate one.

most of the other stuff you've mentioned here does make sense, but i'll add this qualifier: it needs a rest. this whole chaotic little mess is the way of campaigns, the way of competitions, the way of political tension. nit-picking over these teensy little points is just so much sound and fury. and these nit-picky little points will NOT make history!!! whether or not goolsbee made the comment will NOT make history; won't even make a freekin' footnote, for chrissake. not your best call, that one.

here's another 'for what it's worth':
i agree also with the sense that your obsession with the progs and with the finicky points diminishes rather than elevates the dialog here. it seems to invite the progs themselves, the trolls, the very folks who drive you mad. why do you persist? god knows, and so do your most loyal and valued readers, you have FAR better fish to fry.

there are very REAL issues out there just begging for your unique and stunning perspective. please get over this little snit and bestow upon us the grand breadth and scope we all crave; it's what keeps us comin', i can tell ya.

final point: i'm with you, jen; bob flippin' kerrey??? well, gotta give you your honesty in revealing that.

Anonymous said...


Hillary can change her mind. I'm just not going to allow her to deny positions she has taken in the past.
As to NAFTAgate...the Canadian goverment is using that to pit Obama and Clinton against one another to benefit McCain.

Anonymous said...

a lett6er from Barak Obama..

It's tough to think of two states more different than Wyoming and Mississippi.

But we won Wyoming on Saturday, and we just learned that we won Mississippi by a large margin tonight.

Between those two states, we picked up enough delegates to erase the gains by Senator Clinton last Tuesday and add to our substantial lead in earned delegates. And in doing so we showed the strength and breadth of this movement.

But just turn on the news and you'll see that Senator Clinton continues to run an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day her campaign launches a new set of desperate attacks.

They're not just attacking me; they're attacking you.

Over the weekend, an aide to Senator Clinton attempted to diminish the overwhelming number of contests we've won by referring to places we've prevailed as "boutique" states and our supporters as the "latte-sipping crowd."

I'm not sure how those terms apply to Mississippi and Wyoming -- or Virginia, Iowa, Louisiana, or Idaho for that matter.

I know that our victories in all of these states demonstrate a rejection of this kind of petty, divisive campaigning.

But the fact remains that Senator Clinton's campaign will continue to attack us using the same old Washington playbook. And now that John McCain is the Republican nominee, we are forced to campaign on two fronts.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty often on the opposite side of things from Joe, starting back when I mentioned that Pete Brewston of the Houston Post and Chronicle reporting on the CIA and mob connections to the S&L debacle blamed Democrats as much as Republicans. Joe said it wasn't so, but that was the plain quote from Brewston's forward to the book.

Yes, a dreaded progressive am I, and a Compact Disker, too (if you catch my controlled drift, so to speak), I've been known to maintain that there is little difference at the core between the political parties, so have I missed anything that ires our host?

I think the Foster story is far from complete (what WAS he doing making multiple one day trips to Switzerland? I'll wait for your answer!). I even liked and found credible the Cummings/Reed book back when it first came out. I have yet to see any evidence of its alleged errors. And it should be noted that on the question of Clinton, Reed/Cummings wrote that they thought Clinton should be elected over Bush, holding Bush primarily responsible, with Clinton a secondary, if important, figure, logistically. But I digress...

My point today, however, is that I must agree with Joe's post. I have never been so discouraged with the national discourse as with what I see on 'our' side in this election season. Sure, I knew the GOP were idiots incapable of reasoning their way out of a paper bag, but I thought for some reason that we had higher standards of discourse on the left.

I was wrong. In particular, the anti-Hillary left operates out of such fear and loathing that they check their intellects at the door and emote their mind-reading character assassination memes in hysterical fashion.

And, like Joe, I am not a HRC partisan. (I voted for Edwards in Florida right before he dropped out.) But I am stunned by the false attacks and arguments made against her.

Obama's main line of attack against her-- that she is part of the bad pattern of attack dog politics of the '90s-- is to blame the victim for the acts of the perpetrators. And the analysis is flawed, because if he becomes the nominee or the president, he'll find himself the target of identical attacks from the identical attackers. The Clintons didn't get opposed because they were wild-eyed partisans, but because they weren't Republicans and they won. (The whole point of the DLC and the famous Clinton strategy of triangulation was to move away from the more dogmatic Democratic Party positions to a third way, meaning closer to Republican positions than the status quo ante).

I fear he'll find out, like Ted Cassidy's character in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, that there are no rules in a knife fight when he is viciously kicked in the scrotum.


Anonymous said...

I'm here to hear near daily what passes for impassioned responses to the tidal wave of detritus that is spun over our supine minds...Fundamentalists, in any form progs, repugs and other names to be called have hijacked the means to communicate with the muddled masses...Thank you for calling bullshit wherever you see it...its easy for anyone of us to cry foul on the other guys but oh so indelicate of us to confess that "our guy/gal" can be as victimized or, more likely, well up to the task of casting stones themselves...so don't worry about pointing out the naked leaders..so few of us are honest enough with ourselves to do anything other that rail at the gale and wonder why we are so pissed off all the time...
B Story

Anonymous said...


I'll not re-beat the lifeless horse by citing the Globe & Mail article that I first brought to your attention, as you continue to misconstrue what it might actually mean. But a few points to bear in mind.

I've written for the Globe and can assure you that before citing "one source in the room," the Globe would have found another. Second source confirmation and all that journalistic jazz. It would be helpful if that had been mentioned, just as it would be helpful had any source been willing to go on the record by name. However, I can also tell you that the "reporters" in the room to whom Brodie spoke all worked for the CTV network, which is owned by the same company as the Globe. It wouldn't have been hard for the Globe to verify what Brodie said, because all present work for what is essentially the same company.

As for your depiction of the Globe as "right wing," you couldn't be more wrongheaded. They have some mouth-breathing knuckledraggers on the payroll, as do most periodicals, to give the impression of "balance," just as they have ONE token "lefty." However, the Globe is actually a reasonably centrist rag, akin to the NYT or Wapo, certainly when compared to the National Post, which is a crypto-fascist daily. The newspaper topography here has changed considerably since the days when the Globe - still the paper of record in Canada - was the arch-conservative rag my granddad might have read.

As I've alluded to before, Brodie may have been misinformed or misspoken, but please don't doubt for a second that he said precisely what he was quoted as having said, and that more than one person present did hear it, and confirmed it before the Globe would have committed it to print.

That said, it doesn't mean it's true [I've pointed out that both Brodie AND Harper are serial liars], but to accept the word of Stephen Harper that something he wasn't present to witness is false is the height of over-reaching to make your case. [Care to guess who saw to it that the memo re: Goolsbee was leaked?] Harper is a Grade 'A' Asshole, though you cannot be faulted for not knowing or caring about Canadian politics. [Most Canadians don't either.]

Like you, John Edwards was my horse in the race and I was prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt to either Obama or Clinton, should they become the nominee. While much of the Clinton-bashing since has been groundless, not all of it can be ascribed solely to Koolaid drinking O-tards. She hasn't done herself any favours by running so scattergun a campaign, nor by denigrating both her opponent and his supporters at a time when she really ought to reach out to them for their support.

Neither one of these candidates was my first [or even second or third choice], but as it stands today, I see a world of difference between them [forget their supporters, since much looniness prevails on either side], because only one behaves as a grownup ready for the hurly-burly of 1600 Penn. Ave., and - sorry Joe - it's not Clinton.

I try to read your posts daily, and mean no disrespect in noting the foregoing. But if you're going to eviscerate Obama by citing Harper, how much longer before you disembowel McCain because you believe something Rush Limbaugh has said? Trust me, that's the logical equivalent.

Kindest regards, as always

AitchD said...

A friend I hadn't met but knew online asked me years ago "Have you seen THIS?" which introduced me to Cannonfire.

I listened to Wagner's Prelude to Tristan und Isolde while reading this blog.

Joseph is among the few who still know and keep the chivalric code.

Hony Soyt Qui Mal Pense

Anonymous said...


I'm agreement with you, the progs are destructive a--holes who are working at destroying the dem party by attacking hilary and obama.

But you haven't said a word about the recent spitzer debacle, his resignation this morning, the fact that an investigation was triggered because someone was watching his financial transactions last summer and found he was withdrawing sums of cash between $4k and $5k. Generally only sums larger than $10k trigger any warnings.

what is your take? spitzer had his enemies, it was really stupid of him to be using a highpaid call girl but the new FISA monitoring has made it a piece of cake to get dirt on any domestic "person of interest".


Joseph Cannon said...


I haven't had anything to say about Spitzer for two reasons:

1. I don't know anything you don't. (Not that THAT consideration would ever stop any blogger from yapping away.)

2. I'm really angry with the guy. He brought dishonor to the party in an election season. Yeah, I think he may have gotten rat-fucked, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a rat.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joseph Cannon said...

Don't send form letters. I don't care WHO you support, don't send form letters. I'll purge you like THAT.

Hyperman said...

If you had to compare both campaigns (not their followers that they can't really control), which one is causing more damage to the democratic party ?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hyperman said...

I don't know if you listen to Randi Rhodes, but she's been on a rampage against Hillary's since the beginning of the week.

In my opinion, she really, really lost the high road in her current "win at all cost" campaign. Randi Rhodes exposed her theory about Hillary's calculus: if she can't win this year, she need McCain to win so can run against him in the next election. So she'll do anything she can to damage Obama before accepting defeat.