Skip to comments.SUSAN ESTRICH ON "DREDGING UP" THE RAPE OF JUANITA BROADDRICK + "ALL THAT OLD CLINTON STUFF"
Posted on 05/23/2006 7:13:43 PM PDT by Mia T
SUSAN ESTRICH ON "DREDGING UP" THE RAPE OF JUANITA BROADDRICK + "ALL THAT OLD CLINTON STUFF"
QUINTESSENTIAL CLINTON ILLOGIC
When Estrich argues that missus clinton will benefit from an electorate increasingly ignorant of the clintons' sorry legacy, she has it exactly backwards.
With 100% name recognition and at most 10% corruption-failure recognition, missus clinton's numbers have only one way to go.
And it ain't up.3
Estrich's error is rooted in the assumption that ignorance in certain segments of the population is immutable. (The perpetual welfare state, contradictorily, is the fallacious and self-fulfilling endpoint of such thinking.)
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:
The white woman, the only real swing voter, the demographic the Democrats MUST get in order to win the White House, has turned red.
The clintons' triple rape of Juanita Broaddrick4 and their willful, self-serving utter failure to confront terrorism are the one-two punch that has the potential to knock the clintons off the public stage.... For good.... And for The Good.
The right believes she's a liberal under her newly centrist skin; the left doesn't know who she is. And everyone wonders if she can win.
Conservatives have a recurring nightmare. President Clinton&emdash;that's Hillary Clinton&emdash;having spent more than a decade building a protective centrist cocoon in preparation for her successful presidential run, emerges in her first 100 days as the proud liberal they always knew she was. Old friends like Lani Guinier are consulting on policy; Barbara Ehrenreich spends a night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Democrats have their own Hillary nightmare. It begins on a frigid Monday night in January 2008. The Iowa caucuses have just ended, and the results are as clear as the stars in the blue-black midwestern sky. Hillary Clinton 43 percent, and the other candidates far behind. Her closest competitor, Wesley Clark, manages to get only 17 percent of the vote; Mark Warner receives an even more anemic 14 percent.
From there, it's on to a big win in New Hampshire and the kind of momentum that feeds on itself. Hillary raises record-breaking amounts of money, inspires armies of volunteers. She sails through the convention on the shoulders of a unified, focused party. But as the campaign unfolds, dark clouds appear. Despite the enthusiasm surrounding her historic candidacy, Hillary can't seem to get over 50 percent in the polls.
She campaigns like the seasoned veteran she is, disciplined and on message, drawing huge crowds wherever she goes. It is a near-flawless, if heavily scripted, effort, directed by the party's most astute strategist&emdash;her husband. But in the end, it's just not enough to overcome her negatives. On Election Day, she loses the popular vote by three points and the electoral-vote count, in essence, by the state of Ohio. The Democrats have managed to blow it again.
Beneath Hillary Clinton's bland midwestern exterior is a figure of vast mystery. Is she a leftist? A New Democrat? A ruthless Lady Macbeth who believes only in her own power? Her self-discipline, a political asset in many ways, carries a cost. There can be something inhuman about her, something hard to love, even for those who share most of her stated political beliefs.
"I meet people all the time who say, 'I just don't like Hillary,' " says Susan Estrich, longtime Democratic strategist and author of The Case for Hillary Clinton. "But I've learned not to fight with them. I smile and say, 'Well, you go vote for a pro-life, pro-war, pro-gun, anti-environment conservative. Enjoy yourself.' In the end, people have to make a choice, and a lot of people who'll say they don't like her will end up voting for her."
Those on the right, of course, have more biting ideas on these questions. "I think Bill has always been protected by the attractiveness of his personality," says David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "Even people who believe he's a fundamentally amoral person can't help but be charmed by his scampish exterior. She, on the other hand, is such a scolding presence. He's Tom Jones, she's Blifil."
"Let's face it, all Bill wanted to do was get laid," says David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union for the past 25 years. "He was a politician who wanted to be president so he could be Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a politician with a mission. She is smart, focused, devious, and disingenuous. Hillary is a left-wing Democrat, a collectivist, who is hostile to most of the values we conservatives hold dear."
Then there's the spectacular weirdness of her marriage, the pain she must have suffered over Monica Lewinsky, and the way she endured it for the sake of both of their political futures. "Most women questioned why she stuck it out," Estrich says. "Is she madly in love with him, or is it the power thing? Most believe it was ambition. But at this point, after 9/11 and terrorism, the whole Monica Lewinsky thing is almost laughable. And now that he's had heart trouble and he looks so frail, he seems much less like the playboy."
As a strategist and campaigner, Bill Clinton is undoubtedly a huge asset. But the nature of their relationship is liable to be a factor in the campaign in unexpected ways. There are always rumors swirling around Bill and possible extracurricular activity. The Democrats' biggest worry is that if a problem should arise, it will be too late to do anything about it. "I had a long talk with him last fall," Estrich says, "and he told me he wouldn't be the one to cause a problem. If she runs, his problems won't get in her way."
Hillary's huge fund-raising advantage and the stature gap between her and her Democratic opponents make her a prohibitive early favorite in the primaries. But polls show that, as a national candidate, her support tops out somewhere in the mid-forties. Worse, because she is so well known, there are almost no undecideds. "There is real concern among certain Democrats that she simply can't win the general election," says Steve Jarding, who played a key role in getting Mark Warner elected governor of Virginia.
Competing against Hillary in the primaries is a delicate matter. "The conventional wisdom says that to beat Hillary Clinton, you've got to beat her up," says Jarding, co-author of the just-published Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run 'Em Out. "But I don't believe that. You have to show that you can beat her by beating everyone else. You've got to separate yourself from the pack, and you have to beat these second-tier guys, if you want to get to Hillary."
Then, if needed, there will be an alternative. "If there are enough Democratic leaders who fear Hillary Clinton as a candidate, then they better step up to the plate and say, 'We love Hillary, we love the Clintons, we just don't think she can win, and we've collectively gotten behind candidate X.' "
The vast right-wing conspiracy Hillary spoke of is not currently much of a conspiracy&emdash;it's more like a lucrative cottage industry. In addition to the Websites and the novelty items like T-shirts, bumper stickers, and playing cards, there are huge consulting fees, expensive direct-mail campaigns, and an endless stream of serious, slanderous, humorous, and ponderous books.
Just published is I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words, by Tom Kuiper. Coming in the next few months are books by John Podhoretz (Can She Be Stopped?: Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States, Unless . . .) and David Horowitz and Richard Poe (The Shadow Party: How Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and the Sixties Left Took Over the Democratic Party).
There are a few dedicated Websites like StopHerNow.com and StopHillaryPac.com, a couple of blogs, and the odd event here and there like last summer's publication of The Truth About Hillary, Ed Klein's embarrassingly lame, sleazy attempt to eviscerate her. (Throughout the book, he refers to her as "the Big Girl" and tries to portray her as a lesbian based on the fact that she's had close friends and aides who were gay.)
And there is a steady, low hum of harsh, thinly sourced anti-Hillary stories that serve almost as background music on right-wing Websites like Newsmax.com, WorldNetDaily.com, and RightWingNews.com. Though there is no formal structure to the anti-Hillary movement, no vast right-wing conspiracy, what gives it cohesion is that many of the key characters pop up again and again. NewsMax, for example, is funded by conservative donor Richard Mellon Scaife, a veteran of the Clinton wars.
The site is run by Chris Ruddy, who worked for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which is owned by Scaife. Ruddy, a longtime Clinton antagonist who wrote The Strange Death of Vince Foster, has for years promoted bizarre conspiracy theories claiming, among other things, that Foster and Clinton administration Commerce secretary Ron Brown were murdered. StopHerNow.com, essentially a fund-raising vehicle that has so far failed to raise any real money, was the brainchild of the hermitlike Republican political consultant Arthur Finkelstein.
The Clintons are among the most vilified and investigated politicians in American history. Having withstood every conceivable attack, Hillary can't be Swift-Boated. She is the indestructible political equivalent of one of those horror-movie villains like Freddy or Jason&emdash;she gets hacked, stabbed, shot, and set on fire, and she still keeps coming.
Most surprisingly, many leading conservative activists&emdash;politically muscular, testosterone-laden tough guys&emdash;are afraid of her. They seem to be more convinced of her viability as a national candidate than are some members of her own party.
"She's an articulate socialist who'll go to great lengths to get power, to hold power, and to destroy those who stand in her way," says conservative activist Richard Viguerie. "A lot of us remember the conservative organizations that were audited by the IRS during their eight years in the White House. She scares the dickens out of us."
But it goes even further. There is a commonly held belief that for eight years, Hillary was the wizard standing behind the curtain pushing all the buttons. "During his presidency," Keene says, "she was seen as the evil genius. The attack dogs, the Sidney Blumenthals, were Hillary's friends, not his. She's the tough, no-holds-barred ideological fighter who has demonstrated over time she'll stop at nothing to get her enemies."
The Republicans' fear of Hillary is a testament to how successful she's been in softening her sharp edges and moving to the center. As a senator, Clinton has been collegial and conciliatory, working respectfully even with politicians who tried to run her husband out of town. And polls now show that the more exposure people have to her, the more positive their view. She has made joint appearances with Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, and Lindsey Graham. Clinton has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, has talked about the evils of illegal immigration, and has even lowered the volume on her normally high-decibel pro-choice advocacy, calling abortion a "tragic choice to many, many women."
"I think she's nailed it beautifully," says Dick Morris, Post columnist, Fox News analyst, and the hardest-working man in the Clinton-bashing business (the latest of his one-a-year anti-Clinton books is called Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race). "Her strategy at the moment is just what it should be: move to the middle and be tough on terror."
Many on the right are not buying it. "What was her epiphany? What eye-opening experience did she have?" Viguerie asks. "It's all so calculating, so Machiavellian."
Clinton's rebranding is working so well that she has been getting criticized by the left for her support of the war and other centrist positions. Any rocks thrown at her by the left, however, only serve to bolster her sought-after credentials as a moderate. Most Republicans believe, however, that when it counts, her claim on the left wing of the Democratic Party is unimpeachable.
The freedom to take your base of support for granted is so important because of the way the numbers add up in a national race. Current conventional wisdom is that American voters are more or less evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans: 43 to 45 percent are firmly committed, no matter who's running. The real battle is for the undecided 10 to 15 percent in the middle.
It's this simple math that has begun to make the right crazy. "She doesn't have to fool conservatives with this new, more reasonable posture," says Keene. "She only has to convince 7 percent of those undecided voters that she's sincere."
Estrich, for one, thinks the right should be concerned. "I was followed around on my book tour by people who'd hold up signs and scream at me, 'What about Juanita Broaddrick?' And all the younger people would look at me and say, 'Who's that?' That's part of the problem with dredging up all that old Clinton stuff. More and more people have no idea what you're talking about."
Hillary's candidacy would be a real test of whether people are ready to vote for a woman. "Opinion data show that Americans want to believe they're ready," says Ruth Mandel, head of the Eagleton Institute. "Most people, when asked, tell pollsters they would vote for a woman. But when asked if they think their neighbor would, the number drops dramatically. The first answer is the socially acceptable one."
But finally, there is the matter of Hillary herself. It's true that the scandals of the nineties no longer have the power to hurt her. It's people's perception of her as a calculating, triangulating political android&emdash;supporting the war, speaking against abortion, sidling up to Gingrich and Murdoch, smiling that smile. We've known her a long time&emdash;but who is she now? That we still don't know makes everybody nuts.
This is HARDBALL on MSNBC.
[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.
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.
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, Anne. 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
We need to do better than Hillary Clinton, or the symbolism of a woman as president will be marred by electing a woman who has done almost as much to inflict mistreatment on real-life women as her misogynist husband.
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
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 white woman, the only real swing voter, the demographic the Democrats MUST get in order to win the White House, has turned red.
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
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
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
You go, girl!
Estrich's famous rape has become nothing more than street cred for use in debunking krinton's critics. In truth, she's getting it far worse now than anything she might wept over when younger...and she doesn't even know it.
I think she's talking about you. ;)
Estrich on Hannity & Colmes spinning the clintons' rape of Broaddrick:
On point 1, the statute of limitation on rape applies in a court of law, not in the voting booth. The question we are deciding isn't whether the clintons should be thrown in the slammer (another matter for another day); the question is less onerous, (from the clintons' perspective, anyway): Do the clintons have the character to be president?
The reductio ad absurdum is Christopher Shays' comment, made after he viewed the Ford building evidence on the rape of Broaddrick: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."
And yet Shays voted not to impeach. Purportedly because he asked the wrong question. ("Where was the obstruction of justice?") (Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton gave to Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...)
Regarding points two and three: Juanita's bitten lip, swollen to twice its normal size, the hallmark of a serial rapist, is the obvious counterexample.
My sister sent me an email asking me to support some bill supporting women's rights that Mrs. Clinton is backing. I told her no way do I stand with Mrs. Clinton on anything. She says why. I tell her Juanita, for one reason.
Juanita who, she says. I recounted the essentials and pasted Juanita's letter to Mrs. Clinton. We'll see how my sister responds.
I know others love Mia T's posts, but I am not one of them. I prefer my info straight up, without all the graphics, no matter how clever.
I am always upet when I click on a thread, and get inundated with graphics, having failed to notice the poster. I usually avoid Mia's threads, not because she is not an observant poster, but because I just do not need to see all the clever stuff to feed my brain....
I know most of you probably have a different point of view, and please forgive my late night rant!
Juanita Broaddrick is credible. Even leftist women believe her. (Recall the Salon piece.)
"That's part of the problem with dredging up all that old Clinton stuff. More and more people have no idea what you're talking about."
Yea Susan, right! Don't you wish!!!!! But then I know better - otherwise you would try to ignore the 'dredging' instead of making comments like that!!
You certainly have a valid point of view. Each to his own taste, of course. ;)
BTW, thanx for couching the negative as positively as you did. ;)
good point. :)
fwiw, I agree.
"ALL THAT OLD CLINTON STUFF"
Is the same type comment the clintons made thru out the 90's.
"that's been discussed - that's old news - and the DBM does their -- drive by!!!!
But we're not forgetting!!!!!!!! And won't let them get away with anything!!!
One has to take seriously the observations of a "Hole-In-One, 148 yards, 8-iron" kind of person. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.