The Clinton camp's remarks made little sense to me. It seemed to be complaining that a contributor to Obama doesn't like her. Not a staffer and former blogger, but a source of money. The tone of the reply felt a little petty to me, so the whole exchange doesn't have me cheering the way it does MJR, but the initial note from Clinton seemed somewhere between puzzling and stupid. Next they'll be asking that Obama tell people who hate Clinton to stop voting for him. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

MJ:

Few among us would argue with your central premise that a hard-fought primary is a good thing, but my question is whether the standard we should rally behind is one in which anything goes.

BTW, for the most part those GOPers who have stressed party unity have done pretty well electorally over the last 40 or so years. Electorally that is, not as a matter of governance, but we are talking about electoral politics.

I agree. Imo starting in 2000 the repubs have been better (and dirtier) fighters than the dem candidates. I want to see how the respective candidates respond to an attack before I vote for one.

MJ

You are backing a loser. This contremps probably is the deathknell for both Barak and Hillary. That Geffen was allowed to have a hissy fit, not just attacking Hillary, but the most popular President in my lifetime, Bill Clinton, shows Obama is not ready for primetime.

Suggesting that Hillary is ambitious was greeted by every woman I know as outrageous. Is Obama not ambitious? Hillary striking back though necessary only perpetuated the fight.

It is probably time to stop dreaming of the first woman or Black Preisedent look into Edwards or Richardson or some other Democrat.

These two are toast.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I have to disagree. I think we should reserve all our anger, resentment and general pissedoffness for the Republicans, and I think we should be using it now. The election is in 2008 but the crisis is right now.
It's obvious Bush will continue to wage the Iraq war as he pleases regardless of public opinion or Congressional resolution. There's also a high risk of Bush getting us into a full-scale war with Iran, whether by intent or reckless stupidity.
Public pressure and simple fear are going to force Congress to pass funding caps, personnel caps, draw-down schedules and don't bomb Iran (unless we specifically tell you) acts. How much do you want to bet that Bush/Cheney will ignore any and all of these acts and do as it pleases? Then the matter will go to the Supreme Court, which will split: one side arguing Bush is the Decider and can do whatever he pleases (however the opinion is dressed up in legal language); the other that Bush is a dictator and has no legitimacy (again, it doesn't matter how it is put legally).
And it won't matter which opinion is the majority. What it will mean is that the political system is broken. What then? Would it even matter if there is an election in 2008?
What I worry is that the Democratic Party can't bring (and a lot of Republicans) simply can't bring themselves to really believe it's that bad or that slowly stepping on the brakes (which is what Congress tried to do in Vietnam - not that it mattered; the decision to bail on South Vietnam as a loser was Nixon's and all the anti-war opposition just gave him political cover) isn't going to help.
I don't think it's much better on the blogosphere. Either they assume normal politics will work as long as it's done right or they're content with the strategy of the Left since the 1970s - write bitter and snarky books (nowadays blogs) without actually trying to do anything. And I'm not exempting myself, I signed up for this blog so I could make bitter and snarky posts without having to do something.
I guess I can't blame anyone. Since 9/11 we've been in a car going a hundred miles an hour toward a cliff. Now we have to slam on the brakes and probably roll the car a dozen times. I understand why people don't want to see this. It's one thing to pick the lesser of two evils; its another thing to have to pick between two catastrophes.
My God, do I hope I'm wrong.

I like them all.

A snotnosed, self-centered Hollywood billionaire pitching a hissy fit about the Clintons to a neurotic wacko from the NYT is not my idea of legitimate fighting. Geffen paid for his access to the White House during the Clinton years and I don't remember him complaining.

Go after the Clintons for leaving the Democratic Party in shambles after eight years in office. The Democrats were so weak, they could not go after crooks like Tom Delay for years. It took an unpopular war and blatant corruption for the Democrats to win Congress.

Forget the Marc Rich pardon. The one I'd want to know about it is the pardon of the four Hasidic Jews from New Square in Rockland County in upstate NY. If you remember, l400 residents which was most of the residents in New Square voted for Hillary Clinton in 2000.

The Republicans made a big deal about the votes being an exchange for the pardon. Since Hillary Clinton won by more than 2 million votes, those 1400 New Square votes meant nothing on the face of it.

Everyone knows the Hasidic Jews vote are very conservative and would never support a Democrat and especially a woman.

I think the residents of New Square doublecrossed the Clintons by making it look like their votes were bought for the pardon. Don't forget that New York was governed by Republicans who could do a lot for New Square as a way of thanks.

Another thing everyone knows about Hasidic Jews is that they deal strictly in cash. If any cash changed hands over those pardons, that is guaranteed to come out next year.

I'm not saying cash did change hands, just that if it did, we will all know about it at the height of the presidential election campaign.

I've been keeping my eye on what's been going on in NYC and I'd bet the rent that Richard Johnson of PageSix at the NY Post is on someone's payroll. Johnson has been keeping track of every move made by the Clintons including Chelsea.

Stories about Rupert Murdoch and Al D'Amato making nice-nice with the Clintons is just so much crap. They will go after the Clintons tooth and nail when and if the time comes.

The Bush administration has had six years to investigate every aspect of the Clinton administration and the every bit of dirt that has been dug up will be flung at the Clintons.

The Republicans have been planning for Hillary Clinton's run at the White House ever since Bill Clinton left office. They will do everything they can do to destroy her and the Democratic Party.

If Hillary Clinton runs, you all better be sure you have all of the dirt on the Clintons and know what you might come up against.

I would like to see Hillary Clinton finally have to answer some of the questions that she was allowed to avoid. The $100,000+ that she made on cattle futures is a legitimate issue. That was as corrupt as anything Duke Cunningham was up to.

She should be asked about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Thats one of the ways the Clintons polarized the country: that she'd come out with a lie to deny her husband's behavior and Democrats sort of "invest" in that lie, as though she's really got a point even though its a self-serving lie.

Maybe this "infighting" is because many people are disappointed that Clinton and Obama are the two top candidates, even though both would lose a general election badly. I'd like to see both of them cleared away so a better candidate could emerge.

Delete

J. McCutchen

Shouldn't everybody just place nice in the name of party unity?

NO! Not until Obama returns the 1.3 million he raised and publicly denounces David Geffen.

PLease do not tell Hill's shill Wolfson about the 25 bucks I raised over the weekend before I finish bundling it. I'd hate to embarrass Sen Obama

Can't we all just get along?
Rodney King

I think what the Clinton campaign wanted to do here was two-fold:

1) Attempt to make Geffen's money off-limits to all of her competitors - not just Obama. Given her, or rather her husband's, history with Geffen, she knew the money was not coming her way. Knowing that Geffen can deliver huge amounts of money, she would certainly be happier for the other nominees to NOT have that cash.

2) Poke the other front-runner and see how he reacts. The only way to find out how much the other guy is willing to push-back is to, well, push him.

No, I am saying this won't stop here. Geffen attacking Bill Clinton will not be forgotten by Clinton supporters. Hillary's firing back at Obama will alienate his supporters from her. This the beginning of the usual Democratic slaughter of the Presidential front runners.

Liberman isn't much of a Democrat. However, Geffen gave a gift to John Edwards and to all those who are in the race who ultimately need to push Obama out of the way and become the alternative to Hillary.

I will vote for any Democratic nominee over any likely Republican one but it seems to me that Geffen was an idiot and hurt his candidate more than anything else.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Bush has set the "qualified to be President" bar so low, really, anyone qualifies.

Maybe you have other reasons why Obama may not win an election, but "qualified" certainly isn't one of them.

In fact, winning the Presidency is all about media likability, and I see no one more qualified in terms of how their mediated personality is presented and perceived. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Obama had been marketing himself as a different kind of politician, a Messiah who will transform politics, usher in an era of civility.

Hillary camp saw an opportunity to portray him as a hypocrite and took it.

Obama made the mistake of walking into Hillary camp's trap. He should have simply issued a statement saying he disagreed with Geffen. Instead he went on the attack with Lincoln Bedroom stuff. Now he looks like any other politician who says one thing and does another.

John Edwards and to all those who are in the race who ultimately need to push Obama out of the way and become the alternative to Hillary.

I will vote for any Democratic nominee over any likely Republican one but it seems to me that Geffen was an idiot and hurt his candidate more than anything else.

Agree completely. Geffen story makes Obama look like any other slash and burn politician. This helps Edwards position himself as the real alternative to Hillary.

Geffen donates money to Dems. Asks Clinton to pardon Peltier, convicted of killing two FBI agents. Clinton refuses. Geffen turns on Clinton. Geffen's ego must be massive to think he can get the president to pardon someone convicted of murdering FBI agents.

Filp: "Their best chance is to leave things so screwed up that the Dems haven't a chance to straighten them out in four years." I have been so scared of that and, as you say, the public's short memory and gullibility. I worry, as I realize I've commented before, that the next president will be in the position of Carter, stuck with the aftermath of Nixon's war spending, wage/price controls, stagflation, Kissinger's "realism," and public disillusionment after Vietnam and Watergate, all just waiting for disasters like the oil cartel's little show of assertion and the shah's ouster. So the GOP just then wants to be the next smiling parental figure after Reagan.

It's one reason that the Democrats shouldn't pick needless fights over mere image, however, unless they define a candidate clearly as a change from Bush, too. Only that will keep hammering home who's responsible and who's about to have to clean it up.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

I dunno. I've read a number of stories that Clinton is not merely trying to raise more money than anybody else, but that the campaign is also trying to shut off donations to other campaigns. This exchange may be taking place above our heads--Geffen serving as a proxy for anti-Clinton donors, Clinton showing what she'll do if her campaign gets crossed. She's running a very traditional, top-down, controlled message, presumably media centric campaign. If she can keep the money from flowing anywhere else, she will have a huge advantage in such a campaign.

This may not be a two day story, but a leviathan struggle where we occasionally see a tentacle flung clear of the water.

The special prosecuters spent 100 million investigating the Clinton administration and couldn't find one damned thing.

I don't think he is talking about marcos himself, but rather the type of people that tend to hang out there.

(shrill just ain't in it)

That makes even less sense. When Markos posts an item where he's looking for analysis in commentary, he asks people to kindly refrain from pushing their candidates.

And, just today, he tosses Vilsack and Clinton off the train.

Hillary is in trouble in Iraq. She has no out. The time to change her position in Iraq should've been when it wouldn't look like clear pandering, before she stubbornly dug in her heels. Which is why she now has no choice but plow ahead while trying to blur the distinctions on Iraq (blame Bush, not those who give Bush his blank check).

I don't want people who do the right thing for political expediency. I want people who do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

Part of my equation when looking at the presidential candidates is their judgment. I know supporters of candidates who fucked up on Iraq want to gloss that over. But I don't want people who find religion before their presidential bids. I want people who got it right the first time.

And if that's not possible, then I want people who used their positions of authority to acknowledge their mistakes and actively work to limit the damage.

Vilsack led an organization which has mocked and attacked anti-war Democrats for years and did nothing. Then seven months ago (or so), headlining the DLC's national convention, he still did nothing. And as the DLC put out official decree after official decree deriding Murtha and other anti-war Demcorats, he did nothing.

Where was the leadership?

Vilsack ain't going anywhere, so it's essentially a moot point when it comes to him. But leadership means doing the right thing even when it isn't popular. And while Vilsack may have turned against the war last year, he didn't do anything about it because it would've been unpopular with his DLC patrons. Nothing he says now can change that. The die is cast. He failed to show leadership when it mattered.

Same with Hillary (who, remember, is still part of that DLC leadership). Though to her credit, she has told that those of us like me who demand good judgment and clear leadership from our elected officials to look elsewhere. At least she's honest that she won't be providing those things.

The point, of course, is that Markos echoes the blogosphere in this one fundamental way--he wants elected officials to lead. Tester or Feingold. Either way. Take clear positions and defend them. Don't try to have it both ways. That's not an 11th commandment for Democrats. That's a shout out to principle.

The Republicans would be happy to have either Obama or Hillary. It would be like handicapping them 5 of the swing states.

How would you like to have Jeb Bush as the VP nominee for the Republicans? It could be that bad. The Democratic ticket could be so far behind by the Republican convention that they could put Jeb on the ticket and win.

Really? And who would Jeb be running with? Newt? Rudy? John? Which would be the shoo-in?

After the fiasco of this Bush bunch it would take another stolen election to win, and I'm not ruling that out, either.

Jan Knaus

It's curious that Geffen said all politicians lie, but that Bill and Hillary are particularly good at it. What did they lie about and lied so well that Geffen, who is very astute according to his rep, was taken in?

You have taken the hook of the Clinton Campaign who took incoming from Geffen and tossed their outgoing to Obama. Seems to me that Geffen did the slash and burn and then the Clinton response was to slash and burn Obama.

This frame of "only the white guy" can win is so 1950s. The GOP got ZERO traction with their attacks on Nancy Pelosi during the 2006 mideterms. Notice who is the Speaker of the House now? Same thing with Obama.

Let's stop being such chickensh**s about our nominee and vote outside of the race and gender categories. If we get out the vote in 2008, our presidential candidate will win--even if s/he is a Canada Goose.

What is there to answer. Do you have any idea how one might right a futures trade? Did she get the winning trades maybe but there is zero evidence of that. Futures are like stocks. Insider information really doens't do you any good.

There is a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." It is currently at work on the Episcopal, Presbyterian and other mainline churches. The Episcopal Church is under assult right now consecrating Gay bishops, having women priests and recognizing Gay unions.

The Conspiracy is led by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife and A. H. Ahmanson. I wish those who can't get enough bashing Israel woudl turn their attention to this rather serious effort to turn the clock back to the 1950s or the 1890s in the United States.

Scaife funded the Arkansas Project which largely made up scandals for the Clintons.

As for the Clinton's polarizing the country. All great leaders are polarizing. Jefferson was hates so was Andrew Jackson. Franklin Roosevelt was denounced as a traitor to his class and as bring socialism to America. Bill Clinton was so polarizing that he left office as the most popular President ever and may now be the most popular man in the world. He showed that fighting back and still being positive is a very popular stance.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I don't know why you think the Democrats are in such a strong position. Most of the seats that turned the House were in states that Democrats already win electoral college-wise.

Camp Hillary also saw an opportunity to possibly end any negative comments made about her. The Queen of Clean has designated that candidates AND supporters need to be goody two-shoes in the primary. This is only because it will benefit Senator Clinton; as a side-shoot, hurting another candidate by insinuation (another candidate forced a guy worth 2.5 billion to do this).

Senator Clinton may have good favorables but she also has high unfavorables. Instead of forcing the GOP to dig the dirt on another candidate in the general, the GOP can save money when Senator Clinton runs--what more dirt can there be? And we all get the retread conversation of the 1990s.

This "no slash and burn" benefits Senator Clinton. Make no mistake about that. And she wants all supporters for all candidates to toe the line.

Answer my question! Who could the Republicans run that would let them glide back into the White House with Jeb as the new Darth Vader?

I didn't say Democrats are that strong, I just asked you a legitimate question about your post where you stated that Jeb could get in as VP and they could win. Who would be their President?

Do you have a name?

Jan Knaus

OH, I SO hope you are wrong: Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson are all asses. Jim Gilmore was a completely incompetent governor and is stupid to boot. Mike Huckabee makes me cringe almost as much as Dubya, and Tommy?

Now I'm getting scared!

Jan Knaus

I don't think it hurts Obama. I doubt Obama can win for the more traditional reason of good old fashioned racism, but it does him no damage to look a bit tough. The people who are supporting him are anti-establishment- young people and older people like me who are more than fed up with inside the beltway Democratic hacks. He may pretend he's running above the fray but that isn't really what his supporters want anyway. They want change.

"I believe Geffen is particularly steamed about "Don't ask don't tell."

Not it was not gays in the military. That was early in the Clinton presidency and Geffen stayed friends with Clintons after that.

It was the Peltier case in 2000. Geffen wanted Clinton to pardon Peltier. He refused. Geffen became a mortal enemy. He is a billionare mogul with a massive ego used to getting his way.

Peltier is a major cause celebre for the Hollywood Elite. Read Larry Johnson in TPMCafe.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/22/geffens_law_enforcement_agenda

Clinton as a "polarizing President" is a favorite media narrative. There is no evidence of that in the polls.

Clinton is no more a polarizing president than Reagan. In fact Reagan had more polarizing numbers.

Clinton was always hated by about 30%. That 30% is a powerful minority with powerful media organs and lots of money. It was the same with FDR. A powerful minority hated him and demonized him.

What about this guy?

Hillary vs. Republican: We Must Be Clear That The US Does Not Seek Regime Change In Iran

*shiver*

Maybe any of them! BTW, most of the country doesn't see Jeb Bush as an exact replica of his brother.

Daniel, I'm sorry but your remark makes little sense, especially this part:

"That Geffen was allowed to have a hissy fit, not just attacking Hillary, but the most popular President in my lifetime, Bill Clinton, shows Obama is not ready for primetime."

Why do you presume that Obama had any power one way or the other to "allow" or "disallow" Geffen's remarks? David Geffen isn't on the Obama campaign staff-- he's a private citizen who is absolutely free to make whatever remarks he likes. And the remarks he made were strongly worded, but they were not profane, they were relevant, and they expressed his views as a private citizen.

IOW, Barack Obama had nothing to do with allowing or blocking Geffen's remarks. To suggest that Geffen's statements reflect in any way on Obama, is to stretch basic logic to extremes that really don't pan out. Geffen may be an Obama supporter, but he's his own man and Obama has no control over his statements. Frankly, considering the way that Hillary herself has lately been attacking her fellow Democrats ("yes, Cheney is right, some Democrats are way too coddling to terrorists"), she's merely been hoisted on her own petard here.

Filp, I'd really like to agree with you but I can't-- the GOP really does have formidable candidates in its stable and they will be dangerous in 2008 if the Democrats pick a polarizing candidate like Hillary Clinton.

Especially Giuliani. There's a critical detail here that often gets left out-- Giuliani is a mayor, an executive, which gives him a double advantage: He can't be tied to controversial and anger-inducing votes like Senators, and he gets the benefit of an appearance of strength by virtue of having been an executive rather than a legislator. That's an enormous plus, and it's why executives (mayors and governors, or even generals like Dwight D. Eisenhower) have won a ridiculously lopsided proportion of elections in the 20th century, while legislators have fared poorly in comparison.

The same goes for Mitt Romney, though it's not quite clear he has the same pull. But Rudolph Giuliani, fair or not, still has the afterglow of being "the hero of 9/11" and he'll be very tough. His personal peccadillos may be good for a few late-night laughs but ultimately, most people won't care-- that personal dirt can be dug up on anybody. As for social conservatives, yes, they may not see Giuliani as their top choice, but they would take him in a minute over Hillary Clinton. Those voters can be quite pragmatic, and Giuliani has shown himself to be quite the pragmatist in his own platforms.

Actually, Hillary's negatives are a lot closer to 50% than 30%. Moreover, Hillary's polarizing even among members of her own party, a very large proportion of which utterly detests her-- FDR and Reagan in contrast had tremendous, deep and broad support in their own party at least.

There's a very large segment of the Democratic Party that would not vote for Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. That's a far more severe issue than what Reagan and FDR had to deal with, and she's not only more polarizing-- she's polarizing in the worst possible way, that she drives away her own base. The continuing Iraq War support, hawkish attitudes to Iran and Syria, corporatist stands that hurt workers, flag-burning and especially her recent attacks on fellow Democrats have powerfully alienated the rank and file.

marcf:

Please don't take too much credit for proving what I had already acknowledged. I wrote, "Do you see any evidence that the inner circle of current GOP power is doing much about the 2008 election? I don't." That was, as clearly as I could state it, an admission that, no, I don't know who Karl Rove supports.

However, you don't seem to know either, which proves my point: the party biggies have no dog in the fight right now. And Huckabee? Gilmore? Thompson? Surely you jest. Why not Pataki, if you're scraping the barrel?

My thoroughly unreliable guesstimate: watch Jeb Bush make a few runway appearances at the convention, then hit the trail to raise money and support for the (eventual) loser -- putting him in line for four years of bridge-building and a shot at the 2012 nomination.

Oh, please. "Some people"?? Who are those "people" she's mentioning? Who, running in either the Democratic or Republican primaries, has said anything suggesting that he or she thinks "that we don't face a real threat from terrorism"? It's a Bush-like straw-man argument that attacks her opponents without leaving fingerprints. So, yes, technically she never said her "fellow Democrats", but throwing around these baseless general accusations she is suggesting that they all don't take terrorism seriously like she does. I don't like it when Bush does it; I don't like it when Lieberman does it; I don't like it when Hillary does it. If I catch Edwards or Obama or Richardson doing it, I'll call them out too.

If you think someone in particular doesn't take terrorism seriously, say so, and say WHY! Retire the straw-men. Please!!!

She didn't mention "fellow Democrats."...Her words were "Some people may be running who will tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism,"

Are you serious? Who then was she talking about, if not the other Dems running?

You're really making a huge stretch to defend the indefensible from your favorite candidate. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Hillary is always talking about mystery people. Who is the "bad men" that she joked about and then pretended it was Ken Starr? She is sinking her own ship with cuteness. Why doesn't she just say "It rhymes with 'kill'?" That similar stupid remark got Barbara Bush lots of points with the publican base!

Jan Knaus

"Another side of Murdoch"? Rupert Murdoch has publicly said that he will not support Hillary Clinton. He has said several times that he likes McCain. I couldn't find any quotes from Murdoch about Giuliani but Team Giuliani expects support from Murdoch, according to Giuliani's campaign plan.

Blair and the Clintons have sucked up to Murdoch, not the other way around. Bill Clinton was the one who sought out a meeting with Murdoch in 2002. From what I read, Hillary Clinton has gone out of her way to make herself accessible to News Corp. media.

Murdoch supported Blair while he was beating up the Clintons and why not? Blair relaxed media ownership rules that favored Murdoch. Plus Blair had no real opposition for Murdoch to support.

Both Blair and Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war. If you remember, so did Bill Clinton who said he believed Saddam did have WMDs.

Establishing a relationship with the Clintons makes good business sense to me. One, Murdoch gets to know the enemy better and two, a Clinton run for the White House is good for Murdoch's news business.

I am a suspicious sort so when I read that Murdoch is laying off hit pieces on the Clintons and Richard Mellon Scaife has had a change of heart, my first question is what tactics are they going to use this time around. Leopards don't change their spots and right wingers don't support the Clintons.

Just because the NY Post is not negative on the Clintons 24/7 doesn't mean that negative info about the Clintons isn't being compiled for future use.

PageSix does not have as many items about politicians as it used to a couple of years ago but they were quite interesting to read. You knew that Charlie Gargano was feeding info to Richard Johnson when you read personal tidbits about Pataki like what he did on New Year's Eve.

Some of the more curious PageSix items about Bill Clinton have to do with his relationship with a "mysterious" money manager, Jeffrey Epstein. In September 2002, PageSix reported that Epstein flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker to Africa on his private 727. Clinton was supposedly in Africa to launch an economic intiative.

PageSix followed up with another four references to Clinton and Epstein. PageSix knows something about Epstein and Clinton and I'd like to know what it is.

I, of course, have no idea what Rupert Murdoch thinks about the Clintons or anyone else. Again, I'm just a suspicious sort who wouldn't trust Murdoch or D'Amato as far as I could throw them. These people screwed the Clintons before and they will do it again, if you ask me.

She specifically said ""Some people MAY be running." This excludes declared candidates. Just the days before Nader said that he "may run" if Clinton is the Dem nominee, it was widely quoted, and I guess Clinton was referring to Nader.

Why does Cillizza add the words "fellow Democrats?" He made that up. Why does Mikhail say "yes, Cheney is right, some Democrats are way too coddling to terrorists" in quotes as if THAT is what Clinton said.

Do you approve of this? I can't believe that anyone here wishes to tell lies about other Democratic candidates. Once that gets started they could easily all drag each other into the slime.

You have every reason to be suspicious, but don't you think that although McCain looked good about a year ago, he's losing it now (literally). Gulliani interesting case, well it's a toss between him and Hillary regarding baggage - it will be interesting to see if the MSM will be able to turn him around into a republican hardcore corporate angel?

My reasoning, especially with this NV Fox News gig is that Murdoch might be 'heavily' leaning in Hillary's direction ... whether he will pull her down in the general - time will tell, that's where my suspicions come in too. Like you I'm sure that Murdoch has dirt ready and waiting in the wings should he 'feel' he needs to use it... Thing is, will he 'need' to use it?

With HRC I think she would sell her soul for the presidency, and is the reason why she is MORE than happy to shun us... for THE prize.

I think if HRC follows Blair's tactics then Murdoch at least will back her 'part' of the way -- well enough to knock out any chance of even a remotely progressive pro-diplomacy type democratic candidate...

Murdoch backs 'courageous' Blair over Iraq

Do you see any similarities?

Hillary's ambition is making me nervous.

It is possible that I have been taken in by the right-wing smear machine, but my understanding is that Hillary was not required by her broker to meet her margin calls. That is very bad form, and presumably illegal. Margin requirements for stocks are set by the Fed, isn't that so? -- and I think that must also true for futures. Hillary's run of good luck also seems improbable in the extreme, even for a professional trader. The average commodities trading pool is not an outstanding investment. I would want to see a good explanation for Hillary's futures profits. If I am in error, I would be happy to stand corrected. On the face of it, however, Hillary's futures profits do not meet the smell test.

I am probably too pleased with Obama to be objective, but I am puzzled and surprised by those who think he failed to handle the flap well. Can somebody make me understand what it was that Obama did wrong?