Hillary 2016: Bush Clinton Bush Obama-Clinton

hillary liara terrible candidate, but the 2016 election was rigged with voting machines against her

"what good is it for women to enter the mainstream if the stream is polluted?"
-- Bella Abzug

related pages:

graphic from http://www.blackagendareport.comwritten in 2007 before Obama's selecton became clear ...

It is a nice illusion to fantasize that the Democratic Primary in 2008 will be determined by a fair vote of the people ... and not by elites who work behind the scenes. (It seemed obvious two years before the 2004 primary that Kerry had been annointed.)

It is likely that Hillary will be the chosen one of the empire given her loyal service over many years. Everyone interested in the revival of American democracy and the Democratic Party should take some time to familiarize themselves with the connections between Hillary, Arkansas financier Jackson Stephens, the WTI toxic waste incinerator, drugs through Mena, Arkansas and other facets of how the empire really works. Then, pressure the Democratic Party -- from your local chapter to the national headquarters in Washington -- not to pick the tainted Hillary Rodham Clinton as their next candidate for Emperor.


update June 2008:
The Hillary juggernaut was unable to prevail despite having deeper connections to the "deep state" of covert operations that is beyond democratic decisions. Perhaps the elites had a shift in their decision. Perhaps Obama skillfully outmaneuvered Hillary by capturing the desires of the many millions fed up with the Bush regime (who are probably the majority of the country). Perhaps the Obama candidacy is just slick bait-and-switch.

While Obama is definitely not "hope we can believe in" but instead is a corporate funded and promoting candidate, it is a small benefit that Hillary Clinton's political career has probably "peaked" and the country won't be subjected to a Clinton "44" administration.

[2016 update: Unfortunately, this prediction was very wrong and it looks like we will have a Clinton "45" administration.
late 2016: Hillary got more votes than Donald, but the voting machines and voter suppression tipped the race to the Republicans, just like in 2000 and 2004.]

Defense industry bucks tradition with donations to Clinton
Clinton is crushing Trump in campaign donations from employees working for defense giants like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics.

Hillary: more corrupt than many Republicans

from Sam Smith of the Progressive Review:

Arkansas Connections 1950 - 1989

Arkansas Connections 1990 -

Hillary Clinton's greatest hits


Sam Smith

... If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination it will be the end of the modern Democratic Party - the period of both its greatness and its popularity. Her husband began the serious dismantling of the party - particularly its commitment to social democracy - and produced for it the greatest loss of elected offices under an incumbent president since Grover Cleveland.

Hilary Clinton will complete the job. If she wins the nomination there will no longer be a real Democratic Party; it will be reduced a subculture of de facto Republicans who support abortion and affirmative action.

The real divide on Hillary Clinton

"Bluntly put, the Democrats are walking into a huge trap."

Clinton, Quigley, and Conspiracy: What's going on here?
by Daniel Brandt
From NameBase NewsLine, No. 1, April-June 1993















Lucy's football -- good cop, bad cop

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal


Hillary vs. Bernie

January 03, 2008
Vote for Change? Atrocity-Linked U.S. Officials Advising Democratic, GOP Presidential Frontrunners
Independent journalist Allan Nairn and American Conservative correspondent Kelley Beaucar Vlahos discuss a little-addressed facet of the 2008 campaign: many of the top advisers to leading presidential candidates are ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world.

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, I think one thing you could say about the advisers for all the candidates who have a chance is that the presence of these advisers makes it clear that these candidates aren't serious about enforcing the murder laws and that they’re willing to kill civilians, foreign civilians, en masse in order to advance US policy. And they're not serious about law and order. They're soft on crime.
And start with Clinton. Madeleine Albright, she was the main force behind the Iraq sanctions that killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians. General Wesley Clark, he was the one who ran the bombing of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, came out and publicly said that he was going after civilian targets, like electrical plants, like the TV station there. Richard Holbrooke, in the Carter administration he was the one who oversaw the shipment of weapons to the Indonesian military as they were invading--illegally invading East Timor and killing a third of the population there, and he was the one who kept the UN Security Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion. Strobe Talbott, he was the one who, during the Clinton administration, oversaw Russia policy, a backing of Yeltsin, which resulted in turning over the national wealth to the oligarchs and a drop in life expectancy in much of Russia of about fifteen years--massive, massive death. And you have various backers of the Iraq invasion and occupation and the recent escalation, people like General Jack Keane, Michael O'Hanlon and others. That’s just Clinton.


All the Baggage, None of the Charm
By Daniel Patrick Welch
Created Jan 26 2008 - 10:16pm
from danielpwelch.com

I should start with full disclaimer: The only Democratic candidate I hold in lower esteem than Hillary Clinton might be Barack Obama. This is not a pro-Obama piece. In a recent argument with a potential Clinton voter who accepted the critique of Obama but rejected it for Clinton, I reminded my interlocutor that they were, in fact, the same candidate: twin cheeks on the same fat corporate ass, as it were. So why do I care that the HillBilly Machine got so roundly trounced in South Carolina?

In the first place, with no discussion of any substance anywhere in the current "debate," the only genuine emotion left is the bookie’s adrenaline rush, which from a distance amounts to a sort of minor high on some vague perception that the good guys won or the bad guys lost.

South Carolina seems to be the race where the mud gets slung, viz the repulsive re-torture of John McCain by Karl Rove’s machine in 2000 to Clinton 42’s shameless patronizing this week. I would call it the mud race, but in a state so officially racist that it still flies the confederate flag it would certainly be twisted. Hillary—let’s call her Clinton 44 with a question mark—tried to flee the state and let 42 do her dirty work. Nice try, Hil. The only thing as ugly as seeing Slick Willie get pounced on by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is the underlying slickness of the Willie itself-—or himself.


Republicans WANTED Hillary to be the nominee

Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 19 October 2007

The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

GOP activists root for Clinton win
By: Jonathan Martin
August 26, 2007 05:00 PM EST

INDIANAPOLIS — He may be on his way out the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in coming days. But the party Karl Rove has labored to build over the past eight years seems to have picked up his talking points on next year’s presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee and that could be the GOP’s saving grace in an otherwise uphill battle.


Published on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 by the Chicago Sun-Times
Dilemma of Horns: Stop Calling People, or Nations, the Devil
by Jesse Jackson

Rev. Jerry Falwell, noted evangelical republican leader, speaking to several hundred pastors and religious activists at the Values Voter Summit Conference, said evangelicals would favor the devil over Hillary Clinton. "I hope Hillary is the candidate because nothing would energize my constituency like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer [the devil] ran, he wouldn't."



Clinton a Drag? Dems Fear Her Negatives
Aug 12, 1:32 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.
"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.
Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination - despite privately held fears.


The Borowitz Report
March 27, 2007
Breaking News

New Hillary Software Lets Voters Customize Her Positions

Hillary 8.0 Could Spell Victory in ’08

Crisscrossing the nation in her quest for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) today unveiled new state-of-the-art software that will enable voters to customize her positions on a host of issues.

Dubbed “Hillary 8.0,” the software will be handed out for free at all of Sen. Clinton’s campaign rallies and could provide the technological advantage she needs to sew up her party’s nod.

At a rally in Chicago, campaign workers handed out the software disks to supporters while Sen. Clinton told the crowd, “Hillary 8.0 means victory for Hillary in ’08.”

The New York senator told her supporters that the new software “will make me the very best Hillary you want me to be, whatever that happens to be.”

The software, compatible for both Mac and PC users, allows potential Hillary voters to configure their very own version of Sen. Clinton, choosing from over 57,000 positions on a variety of issues ranging from health care to immigration to the war in Iraq.

But according to one early user of the software, Tracy Klujian, 26, Hillary 8.0 is not without its technological glitches.

“I tried to download the software and my computer crashed,” Mr. Klujian said. “I didn’t have enough available memory to store all of those positions.”

But according to one campaign aide, even that tech problem could ultimately redound to Sen. Clinton’s advantage: “The average American doesn’t have enough memory, and that’s exactly what Hillary’s counting on.”


Battle Royal
Bush, Clinton, Bush--Clinton? It sounds like the War of the Roses.
Monday, January 29, 2007

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. It sounds like the Wars of the Roses: Lancaster, York, Lancaster, York.
To compare our political struggles to the conflicts between rival dynasties may be carrying it too far. But we have become, I think, a nation that is less small-r republican and more royalist than it used to be. Viscerally, this strikes me as a bad thing. But as I've thought about it, I've decided that something can be said for the increasing royalism of our politics. And whether you like it or not, you can't deny it's there. Not when the wife of the 42nd president is a leading candidate to succeed the 43rd president who in turn is the son of the 41st president. The two George Bushes are referred to in their family, we are told, as 41 and 43. If Hillary Clinton wins, will she and her husband call each other 42 and 44?





Hillary Clinton and Wal-Mart

WARD HARKAVY, VILLAGE VOICE, 2000 - Twice in three days last week, Hillary Rodham Clinton basked in the adulation of cheering union members. Her record of supporting collective bargaining, however, is considerably worse than wobbly. Pity the thousands of unionists at last Tuesday's state Democratic convention who chanted her name, and the hundreds of retired Teamsters at Thursday's luncheon in midtown who had interrupted their Founder's Day meal to hear the corporate litigator turned union-loving Democrat deliver a campaign speech.

They would have dropped their forks if they had heard that Hillary served for six years on the board of the dreaded Wal-Mart, a union-busting behemoth. If they had learned the details of her friendship with Wal-Mart, they might have lost their lunches. . . In 1986, when Hillary was first lady of Arkansas, she was put on the board of Wal-Mart. Officials at the time said she wasn't filling a vacancy. In May 1992, as Hubby's presidential campaign heated up, she resigned from the board of Wal-Mart. Company officials said at the time that they weren't going to fill her vacancy.

So what the hell was she doing on the Wal-Mart board? According to press accounts at the time, she was a show horse at the company's annual meetings when founder Sam Walton bused in cheering throngs to celebrate his non-union empire, which is headquartered in Arkansas, one of the country's poorest states. According to published reports, she was placed in charge of the company's "green" program to protect the environment. But nobody got greener than Sam Walton and his family. For several years in the '80s, he was judged the richest man in America by Forbes magazine. . .

Was Hillary the voice of conscience on the board for American and foreign workers? Contemporary accounts make no mention of that. They do describe her as a "corporate litigator" in those days, and they mention, speaking of environmental matters, that she also served on the board of Lafarge, a company that, according to a press account, once burned hazardous fuels to run its cement plants. . .

The Clintons depended on Wal-Mart's largesse not only for Hillary's regular payments as a board member but for travel expenses on Wal-Mart planes and for heavy campaign contributions to Bill's campaigns there and nationally. . .

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart's first lady, who also benefited from Wal-Mart stock, solicits support from union workers. Which makes her words to the elderly Teamsters last week especially poignant: "You can count on me to stand up for the right to collectively bargain!" Right on, sister!



Obama called hypocrite for wife's Wal-Mart link
By Philip Sherwell in New York, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:37pm BST 12/05/2007 (May 12)

As a fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman, Michelle Obama has been hailed as an invaluable asset to her husband Barack's mission to capture the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination.

Yet, while her style and performance are winning plaudits on the campaign trail, a little-reported business interest of Mrs Obama's has opened her husband up to one of the criticisms that politicians fear most - the taint of hypocrisy.

She is taking a break from her main job, as a well-remunerated Chicago hospital executive, to campaign for her husband. But she has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.

And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions. ....

Hillary Clinton, Sen Obama's main rival for the Democratic nomination, can testify to the political dangers in liberal America of being associated with Wal-Mart, even though the company's cost-cutting policy makes its goods more affordable for the low-paid. The New York senator and wife of the former President Bill Clinton still encounters flak for serving on the company's board from 1985 to 1992, before becoming First Lady.



James Howard Kunstler
Clusterfuck Nation

January 22, 2007

Next out is Hillary, who looks as though she is going to jettison her surnames in the manner of Oprah, Madonna, and Paladin. Her kickoff announcement video was all medium and no message. She wants to have a presidency of feelings, and the main feeling is that America needs Mommy. The psychological failure of masculinity in this nation is that acute. Between the millions of lumpen "baby daddys" who impregnate their "shorties" and disappear, and the hundreds of loot-crazed corporate CEOs (not to mention the hapless President Bush), the male ethos has just about lost all credibility in this country. Mommy runs most of the households in the US, so why not the government, too?
In case you can't tell, I don't like Hillary. I regard her as a monster of ambition. I voted for her husband twice, but concluded sadly that he had accomplished little in relation to his supposed abilities. Bill Clinton now looks like just another wreck on the shoals of male egotism, and seems fated, in the classically tragic sense, to creep behind in his wife's footsteps until he is taken offstage by infarction or aneurysm (or perhaps she will just chew his head off, in the tradition of the more powerful female mantis).
My original beef is that Hillary virtually hijacked the New York state Democratic party in her 2000 senate bid -- as if there were no actual New Yorkers qualified to represent their state. Mommy was so powerfully entitled that the state party brass and the media bigwigs rolled over and didn't even question her poor residency qualifications, which were glaring. Since then, despite all her plaudits for seizing senatorial leadership, she has done little but grandstand in preparation for this moment of launching to higher office.
Hillary's presidential campaign kickoff announcement was saturated in phoniness, from the illusion of personal warmth to the bizarre leafy-green exterior background that suggested the announcement had been taped back in August and put in the freezer since then. Worldwide, Mommy leadership has not necessarily been such a great thing. Margaret Thatcher got more credit than she deserved for turning around the British economy (when, in fact, it was the North Sea oil bonanza that did it, and that's over now). Otherwise, the "Iron Lady" presided over more internal rot, including a disastrous open-door immigration policy and the dismantling of the railroad system. Indira Ghandi demolished civil liberties and presided over an extravaganza of grift before she was assassinated. Benazir Bhutto was run out office in Pakistan twice, most recently for money laundering.
Now, it still might be the case that America would benefit from a Mommy president, but please not this particular Mommy. Behind the WalMart smile sits Nemesis, the remorseless spirit of vengeance, obsessed with smiting enemies. That might work to advantage against the oriental despots lined up to eat America's lunch. But I'm more inclined to think that Hillary would use it against her own countrymen.
It's interesting that her out-of the-box campaign slogan is "In It to Win It," which sounds a bit like Gerald Ford's old "Whip Inflation Now (WIN)" button, which is to say the war cry of a loser. Check the "no" box on Hillary. Then check it again. And again.