by francislholland, Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:23:45 PM EST
Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com/
Darrel Rowland of the Columbus Dispatch reports today that Hillary Clinton is ahead of all of her competition, Democratic and Republican, in the crucial battleground state of Ohio, which is one of the states John Kerry lost in 2004. http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-sto
by Pravin, Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:40:52 AM EST
OK by now, most of you probably know I despise Hillary for her conduct in the last few years. And I am not too thrilled with Obama. But I will vote for Obama without losing sleep in a general election. Having said that, I strongly believe in what I am about to talk about.
I watched a report about how Hollywood was gearing up big time to fund the two big frontrunners in this primary - Obama and Hillary.
Personally, I do not donate to every candidate I support. I channel my donations to people who need it. What caught my eye was how some people like Spielberg were doing early fundraisers for both Hillary and Obama. Obama probably could use some funds to even compete with Hillary, but why do these Hollywood types want to give Hillary more money in this primary this early ? Are they afraid that if she does not crush everyone else early in the primary, she is in trouble? It's rich people helping other rich people get richer. Shouldn't they be saving their efforts to help Hillary for a general election fight when resources can never be too large or even a late primary fight? Are they more interested in Hillary and Obama than the Democratic Party? If they know in their hearts that Hillary is clearly their best candidate, does she really need their extra money to win considering she already has a big network. Why not donate their money to other Dems who need it in other races? Why enrich the rich even more? Even though Obama's emergence will marginalize my favorite dems, at least his fundraisers will serve as a counterbalance to Hillary and we will at least have two candidates instead of one with a lot of funds.
For people like Spileberg who is doing fundraisers for both, whata the hell is he trying to achieve? If he is not that sure, why not just wait until later to decide who emerges among a crowded field as the best? By chairing both fundraisers, he is still not evening out the field for OBama vs Clinton, but he plays a role among many powerful donors in discouraging others from competing with them.
by TarHeel, Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 05:26:03 PM EST
Seriously, Hillary has had her "blog" up for a week now and there is not a single post. Are they really getting that many posts to filter out?
At least Joe Lieberman had a "live" blog for a day or two until the flames were too great. (I do not think Lieberman's internet director had any real intention of keeping it up, but at least they tried.)
What lengths will Hillary go to, to filter out unflattering posts? Will her "blog" be as sterile as an operating room?
Seriously, how will her "blog' be spun by the corporate media? Are there any other "blogs" that require such a high level of scrutiny to have a single post?
Is it a foregone conclusion that the major media outlets will be duped?
Hillary has not raised a single penny on ActBlue - Dennis is kicking her @ss. You would think this would be a clue to the WSJ and the like about how weak Hillary's netroots support is.
by dickandbushequalcoochies, Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 06:34:56 PM EST
Excuse me for being a crude blogger. I just started doing this so please bare with me.
by skepticalbrotha, Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 03:30:09 PM EST
Anticlimactically, and antiseptically Hillary Rodham Clinton, announced the long anticipated formation of her Presidential Exploratory Committee. Bathed in soft light and looking deceptively relaxed in a tastefully appointed sitting room, she officially launched her effort to retake the dynastic throne of American Imperial power from the most venal and corrupt regime to preside over the executive branch of our government.
This moment in American politics would never have been possible without the complicity and mendacity of the Bush dynasty. Their lust for power, subversion of the electoral process, and manipulation of divisive social wedge issues is without compare to any regime in the last century. They have managed to steal the Presidency from the American people and place it in the service of their plutocratic and imperial designs in a manner, which has polarized the nation and the world as never before.
Over $20 million in book advances and $29 million in speaking fees have placed the Clintons at the pinnacle of the American class structure. They are uniquely positioned to benefit from that status and to reap the benefits of 30 years of catering to wealth and corporate power. As previously quoted, Michael Parenti has opined that "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy-that is, a system of rule by and for the rich-for the most part."