So, the ugliness will continue...

So, Hillary squeaked by in 3 out of 4 contests yesterday, winning RI, OH and TX, but losing VT. Her campaign is spinning this as a "comeback" and Obama is focusing on the delegate count, which remains in his favor. The strange thing about the "comeback" narrative is that Clinton was leading TX, RI and OH by 20 points or so just a couple of weeks back, so in fact she lost lots of ground between then and yesterday. Each week, her team moves the goal-posts to keep them in the race. On the other score, the math continues to be incredibly daunting for her and Obama remains in the drivers seat for the nomination, but the damage Hillary is doing now with all of her nastiness will not only hurt him in upcoming primaries and caucuses, but also in the general election.

What last night assured is that this thing moves on and that it is only going to get uglier and nastier from the Clinton camp. Their willingness to smear the guy who will probably be the nominee, even going so far as to side with John McCain time and again against Obama, is reprehensible. The clear lesson from the last week or so is that ugly, negative politics is effective in America. And, as long as that continues, the Democrats' prospects in the Fall diminish and McCain grows stronger. Sad.

So, it is gut-check time for Obama and his supporters. What do you think will happen...?

Ethics, Clinton-Style: The Money Angle

So, I'll leave aside, for now, the clear racial (racist?) strategy the Clintons have employed to take the lead in the Democratic race for presidential nominee. Or, the fact that the Clintons have decided to unleash Bill as the modern incarnation of Spiro Agnew, Nixon's henchman.

I will point out the gross hypocrisy of the Clintons slamming Obama for his connections to indicted Chicago-land wheeler-dealer, Tony Rezko. Yet, she claims she has never met Rezko. Well, you see that guy with the mustache standing with a smiling Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the above photo? Uhhhhhh... that's Rezko!

Or, remember this guy? He's Norman Hsu, who Hillary once described as "a good friend." Hsu raised roughly $1M for Hillary's campaign before going on the lam, being arrested and charged on November 27, 2007, by a federal grand jury for violating federal campaign finance laws and defrauding investors "out of at least $20 million." More here: Hsu Casts Wide Net for Clinton Donors

While we are at it on experience, remember also the never-ending revolving door of corporate donors and all-around sleaze-bags that were welcomed to stay in the Lincoln bedroom... for a fee?!?? You really think another Clinton will be an agent of change, or reform?

And, did you know Hillary Clinton was a corporate shill for one of the most hated corporations in the United States: WALMART!!??? It is true. As one report stated,

The Walmart board Hillary Clinton sat on was rabidly anti-union, was exploiting sweatshop labor around the world, discriminating against women workers, forcing workers to labor off the clock and destroying communities that did not want them. This should not be a shock: Clinton was a partner in the Rose law firm, one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country.

More here: Hillary and Wal-Mart: A Love Story

Finally, if Hillary Clinton is such a threatening reformer bent on change, why is it that Right-Wing media czar, Rupert Murdock, has been raising and contributing money to the Clinton campaign? Why have several other top execs at Fox been contributing to Hillary's effort, along with corporate reps in hundreds of corporations?

For a full report on Hillary's donors, see: Open Secrets

If you think Hillary Clinton will be some kind of anti-corporate warrior, I've got some nice beach-front property to sell you in Nebraska...

The Establishment Strikes Back! Now What??!!?

Striking a courageous blow for the status quo, it looks like the Establishment and the old blue hairs are going to make sure we won't have an insurgency or any real change AGAIN this year...

Has anyone been paying attention to the Clinton campaign over the last few days??!! Where's the outrage? They proved once again that the dirty, negative stuff always works. Smear, smear, smear. Willfully lie, distort, lie, distort, smear... oh, and then cynically play the victim by crying. Beautiful! Is that the kind of politic you want to embrace? Is that the kind of politic that embodies your vision of the Democratic Party? Is that the kind of politic out of which to build something new? It is one thing to fight back against the Republican attack machine, but it is another thing entirely to employ those same despicable tactics against a member of your own party. I am ashamed to be associated with a party and a candidate who will so clearly do anything to advance her own ambition... and the fact that so many so-called liberal/progressives have uncritically picked up the Clinton campaign's talking points about Obama is particularly disheartening.

It was a masterful display of our politics at their worst in NH.

What do you think? What happens from here...?

In the meantime, here is some music to lift your spirits:


Bob Marley, "Revolution"... ("It takes a revolution, to make a solution")



Wyclef Jean, "If I was President"

Desperation! Clinton Grossly Distorting Obama's Abortion Record

Well, I'm not surprised, but this is pretty pathetic. In a desperate bid to somehow get back in the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton has resorted to grossly and knowingly distorting Barack Obama's legislative record on abortion. Clearly, Clinton is trying to play the gender card by scaring young women away from Obama and into her camp. (Recall, Obama bested Clinton among women in Iowa 35%-30% and drubbed her among young women)

In a mailer sent to voters in NH over the past couple of days, the Clinton campaign claims "A woman's right to choose demands a leader who will stand up and protect it." It says Clinton has a record of fighting "far-right Republicans" to defend abortion rights, while Obama has been "unwilling to take a stand on choice." It concludes, "Seven times he had the opportunity to stand up against Republican anti-choice legislation in the Illinois state Senate. Seven times he voted present - not yes or no, but present. Being there is not enough to protect choice." The mailer, which clearly states "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President," not too subtly suggests that Obama is not a strong advocate for abortion rights and women, in general.

I call "Bullshit!" This is totally disingenuous and cynical, not to mention false. Here is the reality, according to a fact-checking piece by Nedra Pickler posted at the Huffington Post (emphasis added):

"During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents. He also joined other state Democrats in voting present on some bills."

That's right, folks, Obama gets a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood for the range of positions he has taken not only on abortion rights, but women's reproductive health rights, more generally. This is silly. Anyone who knows anything about how the legislature works knows that there are times when, for strategic or political reasons, certain members of a party vote "present." This is all about political maneuvering and is almost always done in conjunction with a broader party strategy.

When called to task for the distortions in the mailer, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said, in classic Clintonian fashion, "New Hampshire voters.. deserve a straightforward presentation of the facts about both candidates."

To his credit, Obama spokesman Bill Burton did not throw a chair or simply tell Hillary's campaign to "Go to hell!" when asked by reporters about the smear. Instead, in another sign of the maturity of the Obama operation, "The Clinton campaign's false negative attacks were rejected by Iowa voters, and we expect that they'll suffer the same fate here in New Hampshire."

Geesh. I hope so...

This is all about Clinton's ego and ambition run amok now that her campaign is going down in flames, not about what is best for the party or the country. It is likely Hillary will NOT be the nominee, yet she is creating a false issue with which the right-wing will surely pounce. The is all downright Karl Rovian! Shame on you Mrs. Clinton. Go down with some dignity, won't you? I guess not...