Stars take the shine off Hillary's bid

The [UK] Observer ^ | 4.9.06 | Paul Harris

[Mia T]

Stars take the shine off Hillary's bid
Leading Hollywood liberals are sniping at the former First Lady over her strong support for the Iraq war. Paul Harris reports

Paul Harris in Washington
Sunday April 9, 2006
The [UK] Observer

With its liberal politics and radical attitudes, Hollywood should be one place in America where Hillary Clinton can count on fervent and loyal support.

But as the former First Lady gears up for a run at the White House her nascent campaign has hit an unexpected roadblock. A lengthening list of top Hollywood celebrities have publicly criticised her ambitions. From George Clooney to Sharon Stone to Susan Sarandon, the Beverly Hills set has turned on Clinton.

Nor are they alone. Vast swaths of American liberals have begun to snipe at their former heroine, attacking her for supporting the war in Iraq and decrying her recent shifts to the right as she positions herself for a presidential campaign. For a woman long derided by conservative critics as a 'feminazi' the irony of the onslaughts from the left must be painful.

Celebrities have queued up to attack her. Kathleen Turner said she 'had her doubts' about Clinton's potential bid. Stone said it was 'too soon' for Clinton to run. Clooney criticised the entire Democrat leadership, including Clinton, for lacking the backbone to speak against the Iraq war. Sarandon, one of the most politically active of the Hollywood elite, was forthright: 'I find Hillary Clinton to be a great disappointment. She's lost her progressive following because of her caution and centrist approach.'

Many observers might dismiss such outbursts as lacking real political clout, but Hollywood liberals are a vital source of election funds. 'Hollywood is like a piggy bank for the Democrats. No one wants that cut off,' said one senior Democrat activist.

Worryingly, the celebrities are not alone in turning on Clinton. She is a new hate figure for other liberals. That is potentially dangerous as it is grassroots supporters who do a lot of the work for the primary election campaigns that will decide who becomes the Democrat presidential nominee.

The key issue is her support for the war. She has adopted a hawkish stance, firmly against any withdrawal of American troops. 'She's not listening to her constituents when it comes to how they feel about the war in Iraq,' said a spokeswoman for Code Pink, a women's anti-war group that is helping to organise protests wherever Clinton speaks.

These protests are dramatic and effective. At one recent meeting in a New York university about 30 protesters disrupted her speech. Wearing black T-shirts spelling out the message 'Troops Out Now', the demonstrators repeatedly interrupted Clinton, then turned their backs on her in silent protest as she continued to speak. Asked to comment by reporters, the usually calm Clinton retorted huffily: 'I have no reaction.'

Anti-war campaigners vow that such protests will continue in what could become a recurring embarrassment to her campaign. 'We want our troops home now and we're going to follow Hillary Clinton around the country telling her so,' the Code Pink spokeswoman said.

Even Cindy Sheehan, America's leading anti-war activist, has come out against a Clinton nomination. Sheehan has wide support among liberals after she joined the peace cause when her soldier son was killed in Iraq. Last summer she was catapulted to international fame when she led a high-profile picket outside President George Bush's home in Texas. In an open letter to Clinton, Sheehan attacked her support for the war. 'I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys... I will resist her candidacy with every bit of my power and strength,' Sheehan said.

Many experts now believe Clinton is likely to face a challenge from an anti-war candidate in the Democratic primaries. That is most likely to be the liberal Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold, who has a cult following among internet-based activists of the kind who propelled the brief but spectacular surge by Howard Dean in 2004.

However, Clinton's shift to the right is unlikely to stop. She has continued to be hawkish on Iraq, attacked the recent proposed deal to hand over the running of some US ports to a Middle Eastern company, and started to use religious words in her speeches. She condemned a proposed anti-immigration law as contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Some experts believe this criticism helps her. Attacks from the left cement Clinton's image as a centrist among the independent voters needed by candidates to win. 'The more she is attacked by liberals, I think the more she likes it. It helps change her image with the rest of America,' said Professor Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California.

In any case, the attacks are unlikely to derail Clinton's ambitions. Though her staff claim she is only focused on fighting to retain her New York Senate seat, there is little doubt among Washington's political classes that her ambitions in the presidency. She has already raised $20m for this year's fight, despite the fact she is almost certain to hold the seat. She has hired 37 full-time staff costing more than $100,000 a month.

With such momentum and financial clout, experts believe the liberals - including the sniping Hollywood stars - will eventually get behind her. 'Who else will these people vote for?' asked Bowler 'In the end their anger at Bush and their anger at Republicans is going to be far greater than any dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton.'

---

What matters is not the position paper her staff writes on Iraq... or immigration... or whatever....
What matters is what she has done....
and not done....

The past is prologue.
We must never again entrust this country to a clinton.

"For the children."

 

"You know... the job which we should have done ¹... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda."

hillary clinton
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006
Chitchat with Jane Pauley
San Francisco, CA

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

I thought that my virtual obsession ² with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live

WHY DID THE CLINTONS IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of their liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.

(ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP--oops!--FOR HILLARY DEFEAT)

Mia T, 12.10.05
EXCERPT:

'04 ELECTION PROVIDES CLUE

To better understand why this move is fatal for missus clinton, we must go back to November 8, 2004, which is exactly six days after the re-election of George W. Bush.

The venue is Washington Journal (C-SPAN).

Enter Harold Ickes, looking weirder, more Ichabod-Crane-on-crank, than usual. Looking weirder still when one remembers that Harold Ickes is a strictly behind-the-scenes sort of guy.

Only something very important could have coaxed Harold Ickes onto center stage....²¹

Forgoing the standard niceties, Ickes launches into his planned tirade. He accuses Bush of terrorizing white women to get their vote.²² (The way he carried on, you would think he was accusing the president of rape or something.)²³

"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women.

By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points.

In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%.

That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values.

I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women."

HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN

Now fast forward to October 11, 2005. Susan Estrich, alignments adjusted upward--ALL alignments--is on Hannity and Colmes. She is there to huckster The Case for Hillary Clinton, ²⁴ both the book and candidate.

Estrich's spiel turns her recent dire warning to the Democrats ("The clintons are sucking up all the air. Get them off the stage!" )²⁵ on its literal head.²⁶ (Air? Who needs air when you have a clinton?)

ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP FOR HILLARY DEFEAT (oops!)

Susan Estrich attempts to tie the fate of all women to the fate of the hillary clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote.

She argues that hillary clinton is the best chance, probably the only chance, for a woman president in our lifetime.

The false and demeaning argument and offensive gender bias aside, someone ought to clue in Susan Estrich. Gender feminism requires as its token a functional female.

So why is Susan Estrich making such a transparently spurious and insulting argument? She isn't that dumb.

For the same reason Harold Ickes is fulminating on C-SPAN.

The election of 2004 confirmed missus clinton's worst fears:
9/11 and the clintons' willful, utter failure for eight years to confront terrorism) were transformative. They caused a political realignment--for all practical purposes permanent--that is not good news for clinton, or for the Democrats, generally.

The white woman, the only real swing voter, the demographic the Democrats MUST get in order to win the White House, has turned red.


Next installment...
THE ROADMAP FOR DEFEATING HILLARY

In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, a journalistic consensus emerged to explain George W. Bush's victory. Despite the sluggish economy and deteriorating situation in Iraq, voters supported Bush primarily because of his values. One prominently featured exit poll question showed "moral values" to be the most important issue for voters, ahead of terrorism, Iraq, and the economy. Backlash against the Massachusetts court ruling allowing gay marriage and attraction of Bush's appeals to Christian faith helped bring out socially conservative voters and cement Bush's second term. This explains why Bush won Ohio, for example, where an anti-gay marriage proposal was on the ballot. However compelling this story might be, it is wrong.

Instead, Bush won because married and white women increased their support for the Republican ticket....

In this article I briefly account for the factors behind Bush's rise in the state-by-state popular vote between 2000 and 2004. This is not the same as identifying who elected Bush. That sort of analysis would put responsibility on white men since they voted 61-38 for Bush and comprise almost half of the active electorate. Instead, I focus on what changed between 2000 and 2004. In this view, it is white women who are responsible because they showed more aggregate change.

Identifying a cause for this shift looks for an explanation also in things that changed in the past four years. For example, John Kerry was not exactly Al Gore, so differences between Bush's two opponents could be a factor. But I suggest that such differences are dwarfed by a much larger intervention: the attacks of September 11. Turnout was up in 2004 because the perceived heightening of the stakes after 9-11 and because of intense competition between the candidates in a small number of battleground states. Higher turnout also appears to have helped Bush slightly. But it was the shift of married white women from the Democratic camp to the Republican camp that gave him the edge in 2004.

Post Election 2004: An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election
BarryC.Burden
Harvard University
The Forum, Volume2, Issue 42004 Article2
burden@fas.harvard.edu

READ MORE:

IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)
Mia T, 12.05.05

WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.

(ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP--oops!--FOR HILLARY DEFEAT)

Mia T, 12.10.05

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,

Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.

We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?

In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?

Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.

What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

 

IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
by Mia T, 11.14.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[Pharmboy]

This news about the Hollywood elites continuing to back away from Her Heinous is a great way to start the week...thanks for posting.

The protesters are the cherry on top.

[Mia T]

'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?

by Mia T, 02.02.06

The clintons, as is their wont, are now taking this proxy scheme to even more outrageous extremes.

The latest: an actual hillary clinton proxy presidency, populated on both sides of the camera by assorted rodham and clinton ex-staffers, sycophants and should-be felons, witness the latest hire.

'Commander-in-Chief,' a show that sets out to crown a 'queen,' instead exposes the kitschy simplemindedness of Hollywood fantasy and the special sway and shortsightedness of the pathologic ego.

Mia T, 10.27.05
THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)

unning vicariously, as we have argued, has its risks.

What was supposed to be Hollywood propaganda to make a hillary presidency marginally palatable has instead become a parable about missus clinton's own dystopian future.

ABC announced the other day that it is pulling "Commander-in-Chief" off the air "until spring." Missus clinton's proxy presidency, you see, has been in a ratings free fall ever since "American Idol" took it on.

In a perverse life-mirrors-art moment, support for the real-life missus clinton's presidency has plummeted, too. This even sans Rudy, her real-life "American Idol" opponent.

'Ars artia gratis.' Please!

Samuel Goldwyn must be turning over in his grave....

 

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

 

... While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)

January 9, 2006
Reviewer: miat22 (Mia T)


CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND

... to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence.

Munich -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies, is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, he has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Munich is less about Meir avenging the Munich massacre than it is about Bush waging the War on Terror. The historical (Munich) allusion is key to understanding Spielberg.

The core of his anti-war argument: By fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with Munich, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware.

Hollywood is DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.

To mitigate its danger, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood venues.

The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.



Was this review helpful to you?
VOTE HERE

My New York Times Review of Munich

 

READ MORE

[Fintan]

Oddly enough, this should give her credibility with normal people. That's starting to scare me...

[Mia T]

CLICK



thanx to Ladycalif for original photo

HILLARY VOTE FRAUD
missus clinton uses Jesus
by Mia T, 03.27.06

ARTICLE

HEAR HILLARY

 

[stm]

In a related story, the hildabeest shines like a 50 year old penny.

[NordP]

"...Even Cindy Sheehan, America's leading anti-war activist, has come out against a Clinton nomination..."

Maybe Cindy should be their candidate.... ha ha ha

She's got the looks ;-)

[Free ThinkerNY]

Cindy Sheehan should be nominated for Anti-War Whore of the Year.

[Mia T]

I don't think anything--money, spin, speech and gesticulation lessons, plastic surgery... or even rejection by Hollywood--will make her any less repulsive to 'normal people.'

Missus clinton has 100% name recognition... and (at most) only 10% corruption recognition. So there's only one way her numbers can go. And it ain't UP.

ON REJIGGING GALLUP'S LOSING NUMBERS FOR HILLARY
THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF ANNE KORNBLUT

by Chris Matthews, Anne Kornblut + Dana Milbank

(with annotations by Mia T), 01.26.06

EXCERPT:

This is HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[NOTE: My comments in blue.]

MATTHEWS:  We're back with Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times" and Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post."  Let's talk about Gotham's candidates for president.

First, Rudolph Giuliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, former mayor spent today, or the day in Orlando speaking to a conference of Evangelicals. 

Dana, he's up to it, isn't he?  This is below the radar.  This is Rudy campaigning for president in the south. 

MILBANK:  This is about as convincing as Jerry Falwell at the gay pride parade. 

MATTHEWS:  You don't buy this? 

MILBANK:  Well, he can try to do it.  But, look, he faces an awful uphill battle in winning over the typical Republican voter in a primary.  Now, if the election was fought on national security, he is fine.  But he's never going to convince them that he is one of them, that he is a religious conservative. 

KORNBLUT:  Right and not only that, but he's going to be in a death struggle with John McCain for the exact same constituency. 

MATTHEWS:  Let me tell you something.  I'll say it here a thousand time.  Watch Rudolph Giuliani.  Watch him.  Security is the issue in this country.  Whoever is the next president is going to be seen as more on the ball than even this president on security and terrorism.  This country is not going sort on terrorism.  We are going to get smarter on it is my hunch.

And Rudy is the guy to do it.  And he can be an SOB in many ways.  But this country may really want an SOB, a really tough cop as the next president.  So watch Rudy, I'm saying it.

Now here is Hillary Clinton, that other New Yorker in the subway series.  A new Gallup poll just came out.  "USA TODAY" Gallup poll, it shows that 16 percent say that they'll definitely vote for Hillary right now, 32 percent say they might vote for her. 

But here's the dagger in the back.  Fifty-one percent say they would definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton already the campaign hasn't begun. 

KORNBLUT:  I mean, this is exactly what Democrats are worried about is that already people have made up their minds.  I would argue, I guess, that it is awfully early.  We all know how early it is to be talking about this. 

MATTHEWS:  Definitely. 

KORNBLUT:  Definitely?  What does definitely mean?  [Definitely means DEFINITELY.] You know, you would have to see how is the question exactly phrased, all that stuff.  It is early. [Actually Anne, it is late. In fact, it is too late. The country knows exactly who this woman is, Anne.]

MATTHEWS:  But there's lot of tooth behind that.  If somebody tells a pollster, I've already made up my mind definitely. 

KORNBLUT:  And, look, I know more Democrats who believe this though than Republicans.  A lot of Republicans say that this is a deceptive number, that once she gets out there with all of her money running against who, Giuliani or McCain, the numbers may not be that weak.  [She has 100% name recognition, Anne. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Even when the sow isn't hillary.]

MATTHEWS:  How much of that is don't throw me in that briar patch, Dana?  We're so afraid of Hillary.  Please don't run her against us.  She'll kill us. 

MILBANK:  Anne is right that these polls are completely useless because you don't know what the alternative is.  But the fact is that she...  [Earth to Dana: 51% would vote for their mother-in-law before they would vote for HER.]

MATTHEWS:  OK.  McCain against Hillary.  Who wins? 

 

MILBANK:  Well, that's fine.  If you can tell me that's how it is going to turn out.  But we don't know. 

MATTHEWS:  Well, let me ask you about these definite numbers in a poll.  Do you believe the definite?  Do you believe somebody right in 2006 knows how they are going to vote in 2008?

MILBANK:  I think they definitely think that's what they are going to do right now, but they have no idea what they are going to be doing in a couple years.  And Hillary is going to have the opposite problem of Rudy.  And that is she's absolutely fine with her base if she decides to run.  But she is seemingly incapable of crossing over. 

MATTHEWS:  The poll was taken over the week right through Sunday, the Gallup poll.  And the Gallup poll is, of course, the most prestigious poll there is right now and has been for years. 

Dana, do you think she's paying the price for her plantation remark last week? 

MILBANK:  Probably not.  Because, once again, plays very well the base.  The people who were objecting to it were never going to support her in the first case.  And I really think the only thing that this is right now is do people recognize her name.  [What is it you don't understand, here? We recognize her name, yes. And we abhor the person attached to that name. Get it?]

KORNBLUT:  And I would add to that.  It's 51 percent say definitely not.  Remember the margin that's we've been talking about in the last few presidential races, 51 percent is terrible, but all she would have to do is bump it by a few numbers, a few percentage points and be OK.  [I can see why Pinch hired you. Your Alice-in-Wonderland illogic is quintessential New York Times. With 100% name recognition and roughly 10% corruption recognition (thanks in no small measure to your rag), missus clinton has only one way to go. And it isn't up.]

... Anyway, thank you Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times," Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post." 

Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL.  Right now it is time for "THE ABRAM'S REPORT" with Dan.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS
January 25, 2006

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,

Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.

We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?

In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?

Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.

What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

SEE VIDEO: "HILLARY IS 'DOOMED'" (more 'plantation' fallout)


GONE WITH THE WIND
(miss hillary's 'plantation' blunder)


WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.


IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)


WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)


REDACTION LOOPHOLE: ACCESS TO THE BARRETT REPORT


HILLARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT THE RAPE: HEAR JUANITA BROADDRICK


ROCKEFELLER SEDITION: WHO IS CALLING THE SHOTS?


THE ABSURDITY OF A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY


CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS:
Justice Undone in the clinton White House


clintonCORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .


Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000


IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[OakOak]

You said,
In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%.

Yes, Bill Clinton won 48% of white women, but he slept with the other 52%.

[null and void]

Stone said it was 'too soon' for Clinton to run.

Agreed. Satan isn't ice skating to work yet.

[Mia T]

PARTY OF LINCOLN AND THE WAR ON TERROR
2.18.06 | Mia T






DEBUNKING CINDY SHEEHAN
HEAR ABE LINCOLN/JOHNNY CASH + PBS' NEIL CONAN
by Mia T, 8.31.05


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East."--Cindy Sheehan

"And if you think I won't say bulls**t to the President, I say move on, cause I'll say what's on my mind."--Cindy Sheehan

 

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

Mia T, 5.15.04
pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

 

 

"We didn't understand why the United States was there. We never thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States."--Cindy Sheehan

 

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

President Bush

"He was murdered by Bush."--Cindy Sheehan

"You get that evil maniac out here, 'cause a Gold Star Mother, somebody whose blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."--Cindy Sheehan

"The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush."--Cindy Sheehan

 

"This seems to be the President's reasons for continuing the war. Because he's killed so many American soldiers already, he has to kill more and I believe that's the most insane and immoral reason for continuing the war"--Cindy Sheehan

 

 

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
"Gettysburg Address"
November 19, 1863

CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT
the democrats are gonna get us killed (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) series₅
by Mia T, 8.28.05


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[Mia T]

It's really quite amazing. Anyone else with her repulsiveness, vacuity, baggage, criminality and, frankly, psychopathy, would have been yanked off the stage decades ago.

An amusing note: Hollywood dumped her for real when "her" show tanked--apparently its only meaningful metric.

[originalbuckeye]

My sentiments exactly. I've been thinking for a while that if the Hollyweird elites back off Hillary, it's because they don't want to hurt her. George Clooney said that he thinks the reason his father lost the congressional race was because he (George) is Nick Clooney's son.

[Mia T]

Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, Fintan. ;) Hollywood wants to win. Missus clinton is a repulsive, polarizing loser. (confirmed in Hollywood terms, i.e., The tanking of Commander in Chief) It's as simple as that. Hollywood will back Mark Warner or possibly even Evan Bayh. Recall the statement of David Geffen:

GEFFEN UNLOADS ON HILLARY: 'SHE CAN'T WIN'

DRUDGE REPORT
Thu Feb 17 2005 23:13:00 ET

Sen. Hillary Clinton should not count on help from Hollywood mogul David Geffen in her possible run for the White House.

Geffen, who was a generous supporter and pal of Bill Clinton when he was president, trashed Hillary's prospects last night during a Q&A at the 92nd St. Y in New York City.

"She can't win, and she's an incredibly polarizing figure," the billionaire Democrat told his audience. "And ambition is just not a good enough reason."

Lloyd Grove reports in fresh editions of the NY DAILY NEWS the audience broke with "hearty applause" over Geffen's comments.

Developing...

(Dowd discusses Geffen's opinion of hillary, the candidate.)
HEAR CHRIS MATTHEWS + MAUREEN DOWD DEVOUR HILLARY
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

[Brian Allen]

<< Oddly enough, this should give her credibility with normal people. That's starting to scare me ... >>

Do not be afraid nor yet underestimate the inherent good sense of 'the normal people.

The normal people will never be fooled by the loathesome and fearsome Mrs Cli'ton.

Her base always was and always will be but those too damned stupid to know they're being lied to and those to damned mean-spirited, hatred-engined and rage-driven, deluded and/or greedy to care.

Add to that every criminal alien and felon and dig up all of the "Democrats'" dead and vote them all twice -- and less that forty percent of America's voters is all she will ever garner. Absolutely tops.

[Mia T]

 

Do not be afraid nor yet underestimate the inherent good sense of 'the normal people.

The normal people will never be fooled by the loathesome and fearsome Mrs Cli'ton.

Her base always was and always will be but those too damned stupid to know they're being lied to
and those to damned mean-spirited, hatred-engined and rage-driven, deluded and/or greedy to care.

Add to that every criminal alien and felon and dig up all of the "Democrats'" dead and vote them all twice --
and less that forty percent of America's voters is all she will ever garner. Absolutely tops.--Brian Allen

HILLARY VOTE FRAUD_BUMP

 

Why do you suppose the clintons and Landrieu -- through Mayor ('chocolate... You can't have New Orleans no other way') Nagin -- tried to get their voters back, post haste (no trouble bussing 'em straightaway and en masse when it's to the polls) -- to a still toxic morgue with no potable water, no emergency support and with renewed risk of deluge?

Mia T, 01.18.06
GONE WITH THE WIND
(miss hillary's 'plantation' blunder)

Calculating a black man's worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist, and arguably more so, than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a white man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing.

Mia T, 07.23.05
THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT?
clinton legacy of lynching update

Full transcript. Video excerpt: RealPlayer or Windows Media. Plus MP3

[georgia2006]

enough with the band width