home

Hillary Turns on Bush

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:30:26 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

At a Martin Luther King gathering Monday, Hillary Clinton unleashed on President Bush.

Sen. Hillary Clinton on Monday blasted the Bush administration as "one of the worst" in U.S. history and compared the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to a plantation where dissenting voices are squelched.

.... Clinton also offered an apology to a group of Hurricane Katrina survivors "on behalf of a government that left you behind, that turned its back on you." Her remarks were met with thunderous applause by a mostly black audience at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem.

The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-N.Y. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

Go, Hillary. We need more of this.

< Bob Ney is Talking to the Feds: Too Little, Too Late? | Guantanamo: Indefinitely Detaining the Innocent >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Turns on Bush | 51 comments (51 topical)
    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:50:24 AM EST
    A WH 'spokesthing' caught off guard without it's obligatory instantly updateable handy dandy RNC pocket talking point guide??? From the AP article:
    A spokeswoman for the White House declined to comment and referred questions to the Republican National Committee.
    And the best response the RNC 'thing' could muster was a lame attempt at smear, and at changing the subject? That's it?
    RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said: "On a day when Americans are focused on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Hillary Clinton is focused on the legacy of Hillary Clinton."
    They just don't make these robots like they used to, I guess.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#2)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:56:57 AM EST
    “the Bush administration as "one of the worst" in U.S. history”
    Well, I’m inclined to agree.
    “The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about,"”
    Uh, no I don’t. A plantation was run with humans as chattel. The idea that dissenting opinions were squelched is ridiculous; none would have been offered. A more apt comparison might have been General Motor’s management, or Chavez’s Venezuela. Anyway, I don’t know what she was trying to say, but I do know whom she was saying it to. And that was the point, wasn’t it.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:03:04 AM EST
    Dead on PW, convenient use of plantation analogy there however, it means nothing.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:09:58 AM EST
    The idea that dissenting opinions were squelched is ridiculous; none would have been offered. Dead. On. pw. Just like in the WH, and the GOP.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:34:12 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but I'm not feeling it Hillary. Compared with Gore's barnburner yesterday, HC's speech seems politically opportunistic. Until she changes her stance on the Iraq war, she'll get no support from me. Maybe not even then.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:59:56 AM EST
    Obviously Hillary has hit a nerve again. I'm amazed at how many Smarty pants wingnuts suddenly don't understand her. Lets face it, this congress has been run like soviet brothel. We all know how corrupt it is and the deniers know in their hearts what I say is true.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#7)
    by swingvote on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:03:39 AM EST
    "We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," No argument there, Hillary, but if you think this applies only to the Republicans, you are deluding yourself. The administration of you and your husband (yes, you will come to regret that "co-presidents" crack, won't you?) also featured corruption (lots of shady deals made by administration staffers with third world countries like Haiti, illegal collection of FBI files on political enemies, illegal use of the IRS to harass political enemies), cronyism (You do remember the Travel office affair, right Hillary? And exactly why was Craig Livingstone hired?), and incompetence (bombing camels and aspirin factories, neglecting to follow up on the Cole bombing, complete and total overkill at Waco). Which doesn't make any of the failures of the current administration acceptable in their own right, but it's a pretty good reason not to trust you, Hillary, or anyone associated with you, with the reins come 2008. So keep up the good work spreading the message of government failure, Hillary. That you are willing to do so even though you are a part of the problem is just one more reason why I am coming to admire you more every day.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#8)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:35:33 AM EST
    ED-
    “I'm amazed at how many Smarty pants wingnuts suddenly don't understand her.”
    Well, since I’m the only poster that has said as much so far I’ll assume I’m your ‘wingnut smarty pants’. Of course I understand her, it was a forced analogy made simply to pander to a black audience. It was an inept analogy; the administrations attempt at quelling dissent to the subjugation and possession of humans? Owed only to the fact that her audience has had as much direct (and likely indirect) experience with plantation life as she has, she skated. Replace the black folks with old Jews and the plantation with Dachau; the analogy would have been as inept but its reception quite different. Look, I’m not saying folks should be offended; I’m saying the analogy was forced and the motive transparent (and decidedly lame).

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:01:41 AM EST
    Hey Hilary, where you been? That analogy was off. But some alternatives were even less informed... The idea that dissenting opinions were squelched is ridiculous; none would have been offered. A more apt comparison might have been General Motor’s management, or Chavez’s Venezuela. Chavez was democratically elected. Twice. Any significant dissention was bought and paid for by the NED and USAID.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#10)
    by swingvote on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:07:17 AM EST
    Che, Not to take issue with your general point, but Bush was also elected. Twice. Who's paying for the dissention here?

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#11)
    by fafnir on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:31:47 AM EST
    "Hillary turns on Bush"? Yeah, when elephants fly. Hillary was pandering with a rather odd message. As long as she remains a handmaiden of the DLC, she will continue to deliver milquetoast pablum instead principled straight talk.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 09:28:02 AM EST
    Not impressed. Any attack she starts now is, IMHO, disengenuous. It's too little too late. She rode the war wagon when that seemed politically expedient, now the tide has turned on Bush, so too does her position. Sorry Hil. There was a time...but it's long past.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 09:40:53 AM EST
    I think Hillary is getting a little desperate that she isn't the focus of the media. Between Biden, Gore, Kerry, Kenedy, Reid, Pelosi etc... she is only one of many dams we here from on a weekly basis. While Bush is still the face of the Republican party with guest appearances by McCain. I thinnk she's worried that she won't have enough political capital that isn't associated with her husband she starts her run in 2007. If I was her I'd try to make a new name for myself now because if she doesn't all we're going to hear about in 2008 is what she did before 2000. Her speach was typical dem stuff but she should have dropped the plantaion analogy, expecially on MLK Day. If a republican had made that analogy, say Trent Lott, he'd have been crucified.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 09:44:32 AM EST
    There was a time...but it's long past. never too late to do the right thing.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:04:02 AM EST
    It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.
    To check her assertion, here are some numbers for the House since 1999. My interpretation, assuming all Democrats have an equally "contrary view": "Present legislations" is ambiguous, so I don't know what numbers to look for. Certainly Dems don't get much legislation passed or even out of commitee, but they find plenty of bills to co-sponsor. Strictly speaking those bills must have been "presented" to somebody sometime, but maybe she had something else in mind. Less anally, if they find so many bills they like well enough to co-sponsor, then their kind of legislation is getting action. Maybe she's complaining about not getting bills to the floor, but that probably has more to do with losing seats than with Republican slavemastery. 16 out of the top 20 speechmakers (# of speeches) are Democrats. This suggests they get a fair chance to "make an argument" and to "be heard". (Someone might like to see # of words per speech, which shows Republican long-windedness, but I disregard it because of people making just a few very long speeches) Conclusion: she's making stuff up to get attention and build support.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:10:09 AM EST
    Hey Piggy well guess what Here's what Newt Gingrich had to say, just before becoming Speaker of the House, in 1994:“I clearly fascinate them,” Gingrich said of the Democrats. “I’m much more intense, much more persistent, much more willing to take risks to get it done. Since they think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I’m actually willing to lead the slave rebellion.” [Washington Post, 10/20/94][Americablog today] You see I guess the plantation is on the other foot now. Will you now give me a long speech about Newt & the repugs pandering to blacks?

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    Well it appears Hillary has turned on the light and stirred up all the haters. She is speaking truth to power and you guy's cant control your attacks on her and they are pretty obvious and lack credibility.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#18)
    by swingvote on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:26:08 AM EST
    Ed, Which attacks against her are "obvious and lack credibility"?

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    Justpaul, Instead of defending your libertarian friend, why don't you ask him to provide links? He made a claim, he should back it up.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#20)
    by swingvote on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:32:04 AM EST
    Che, Come again? I'm not defending anyone. You pointed out that Chavez had been elected twice, as if this was some kind of antidote to any criticism of him. You then said that any significant criticism of him was paid for by outside interests, as if his having been elected, twice, made it impossible for any grass roots dissention to have grown up in response to his actions. Is this not what you meant to imply? If not, please explain what it was you meant. If it was what you meant to imply, please explain how the same rules you apply to Chavez do not also apply to Bush and why his opponents should not be assumed to be funded by outside sources as well just as Chavez's are. As for my "libertarian friend", I can only asusme you mean pigwiggle. If so, please be aware that I have never met pigwiggle, have never corresponded with him, and in fact have addressed very few comments to him. I have no ill will toward him, but I don;t normally call people I've never met my "friends".

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-N.Y. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard." Mrs. Clinton should should be careful when she asks blacks if they know what plantation they are living on. The only plantaion I see in American politics is the Democratic Party. As long as blacks and any minority vote democratic that is all the Dems seem to want from them. Heaven forbid they actually get to represent themselves and their party on a national level.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:59:14 AM EST
    This is a perfect example of why the democratic party is doomed. You lefties only have slightly more in common with Billary than you do with GW, but she makes one stupid ass remark that sounds like she's taking up a cause that could possible be related to something you might agree with, and you dems cant sell your souls fast enough to get in line behind her. Just a little advice, in the 08 election stand up for what you truly believe in. You still won't win, but at least you won't feel so much like whores.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#23)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    Che- Links to what; that humans were chattel on the plantation, that GM has an overbearing management, to the ineptness of Senator Clinton’s analogy? No, no, I know; it’s not the substance of my argument; I dissed your boy Hugo. Here you go; reporters without borders have your crush listed at 93rd on its freedom index, below Qatar, Cambodia, and the like. Here’s their page on the specifics; details of military violence and intimidation against the press. ED-
    “You see I guess the plantation is on the other foot now. Will you now give me a long speech about Newt & the repugs pandering to blacks?”
    Beautiful. We’ve got this kind of justification for warrantless wiretaps going at another thread. Look, look, Clinton did it too. Absolutely juvenile, but I guess it makes it easier to swallow.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    Variable, That's good advice and I plan on taking it. I especially appreciate your point about Hillary Clinton being closer to George W. Bush than she will ever be to those decent people who post on this site. What this translates into, BTW, in terms of concrete action is not voting. Never again will I dirty my hands by voting for someone I am not, at minimum, convinced is a decent human being. Lesser of two evils is no longer a selling point for me, re the Democratic Party. And of course, Variable, this will make you quite happy I am sure, you will hope that as many Americans as possible decide to stop voting.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    In reponse to all you hillary haters. Get yourselves comfortable Hillary is going to be around for a long time. I am proud to be in a party that has produced two great Americans, President Clinton and Senator Clinton. I will be absoutly fantastic and wonderful if Hillary Clinton becomes the next President of the United States. On her worst day she will be far better that the last bunch of rePIGlicans. Nixon,ford,bushbag1 and the Worst Preznit ever, GWbushbag. It was great to hear her stick it to the right wing fascist presently in charge. Did I go to far?

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    I am proud to be in a party that has produced two great Americans, President Clinton and Senator Clinton
    I say Clinton will more than likely be the "lesser of two evils" come 2008...but I wouldn't give her and Bill "great american" status, Ed. And I must say, with all due respect, how could any sane human being be proud to be a member of either of our major corrupted parties? I'm sure glad I'm a registered independent, being a member of the DNC or GOP would make me feel great shame. It's bad enough I basically have no choice but to vote Dem if I want my voice somewhat heard.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:56:05 PM EST
    kdog: I wouldn't give her and Bill "great american" status are we talking, like a top 10 or 100 greatest americans here? how good an american does a guy have to be to get great american status.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#28)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:00:06 PM EST
    Jackie Robinson was a great American. As was Branch Rickey. Susan B. Anthony was a great American. Bill Clinton is not a great American; he just doesn't thoroughly suck, like most Presidents have and will continue to do. Indeed, in going over the roll call of Presidents from Washington forward, I utterly despair of finding a single solitary individual worthy of that title, "Great American."

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    Punisher I think the answer to your question is it's a matter of context. Compared to Repigs I guess my Golden retreiver is a Great American. But for my part based on the years from Nixon on Bill and Hillary could certainly be considered Great Americans of course I'm not partisan. Kdog. The Democratic Party is after all the party of FDR,JFK,LBJ. I know it has fallen out of favor to be proud of one's party but I am. With all its flaws it still is the best hope for America, for now!

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#30)
    by swingvote on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    In reponse to all you hillary haters. Ah yes, the ever useful Clinton mantra. Disagree with Bill: You're a hater. Disagree wtih Hillary: You're a hater. Suggest they could have done something better: You're a hater. Show where they failed to do something: You're a hater. Fail to run to their defense like a slobbering Pavlovian puppy: You're a hater. Problem is, Ed, I don't hate Hillary, nor do I hate Bill. I just don't trust either of them any further than I could throw them. They are career politicians who have shown time and again that they will say or do anything to remain in the spotlight, preferably with their hands on the reins. Hillary's politics are considerably to the left of the press she gets, and Bill's politics are, by all appearances, up for auction to the highest bidder. But keep telling yourself it's all about hate, Ed. You sound just like the rabid Bush supporters and, hey!, that means I'm getting it in stereo!

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    Justpaul says, You pointed out that Chavez had been elected twice, as if this was some kind of antidote to any criticism of him. It was a response to Pigwiggle's comparison of Chavez's accomplishments to the running of a plantation, which is BS. You then said that any significant criticism of him was paid for by outside interests, as if his having been elected, twice, made it impossible for any grass roots dissention to have grown up in response to his actions. I said the first part. You made up the second part. What I'm saying is that there is no significant dissent of Chavez in Venezuela, mostly because he has overwhelming popular support, and also because our usual "regime change" resources are devoted elsewhere. As to whether Bush was elected twice, well, that's for another thread. And I want no part of Hilary. Pigwiggle, Are you really going to ask me to take your Cuban mafia funded sites as factual? LOL

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#32)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    “Susan B. Anthony was a great American.”
    Hear, Hear! One of the most moving speeches I have read was her address to the court following her conviction for voting. It never fails to make me watery eyed; mandatory reading.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    I must have been channeling Kevin Drum. Over at washington monthly:
    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN....You can have your Washingtons, your Jeffersons, and your Madisons. All great men, to be sure. But for my money, the greatest of them all was Benjamin Franklin, my favorite founding father and the first great American liberal: an outstanding humanist, brilliant scientist, and incomparable statesman; a man who could run a postal service, a small business, or a legislature with equal ease — and who'd be happy to share a friendly beer with you after he was done. Happy 300th Birthday, Ben! We could use a few more like you these days.
    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#34)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    pigwiggle, I know exactly what you mean. That woman knew what she was about. I just think the term Great American gets thrown around way too loosely. How can we possibly grant Bill Clinton that kind of status to which aspired Anthony, or Robinson, or Rosa Parks with her simple-as-it-was profound assertion of basic dignity? Show me evidence of that kind of courage and decency before you slap some labels. We'd have much better luck unearthing greatness in those multitudes of Americans who were never written about, I dare say, than in perusing the library shelves for Presidential biographies.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#35)
    by swingvote on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    What I'm saying is that there is no significant dissent of Chavez in Venezuela, mostly because he has overwhelming popular support, and also because our usual "regime change" resources are devoted elsewhere. Really? What do you call this? Or this? And since when did 58% of the vote constitute overwhelming support?

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:52:49 PM EST
    And since when did 58% of the vote constitute overwhelming support? Sounds like a man-date to me

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    pun...glanton summed it up well. Bill Clinton wasn't terrible...Jimi Hendrix was a great american.
    With all its flaws it still is the best hope for America, for now!
    You may be right ed, but that's what worries me. FDR, JFK, LBJ...their greatness has been exagerrated and their mistakes forgotten, but I'd certainly take 'em over our current crop. And what about Truman? I always had a soft spot for Truman.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#38)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:20:25 PM EST
    Che-
    “Are you really going to ask me to take your Cuban mafia funded sites as factual? LOL”
    You’re kidding me, right? All you have is some insinuations about funding coming from a Cuban exile group? Look, everything in their Venezuela assessment (we are talking about Venezuela, right) is independently verifiable. And judging by the spot-on assessment of the US (we ranked #44) funding isn’t buying much. Good lord, you need to give this crap a rest. Chavez is a creep; I submit his Christmas Eve ‘Jews; money grubbing Christ killers’ diatribe as evidence. Or have the Cubans bought to the Wiesenthal Center as well?

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:46:36 PM EST
    Justpaul, Your links talk about a few thousand people in a country of over 25 million. Like I said, not significant. Pigwiggle, Yes I've read that quote. There is some creative editing in there.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 09:42:21 PM EST
    Plantation analogies have been used before. Guess by who? via atrios and Digby who chimes in with Tweety's take.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#41)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:41:23 AM EST
    justpaul -
    illegal collection of FBI files on political enemies, illegal use of the IRS to harass political enemies
    Does that mean Ken Starr was incompetent, since no charges were filed against anyone?

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:02:08 AM EST
    Your links talk about a few thousand people in a country of over 25 million. Like I said, not significant. Maybe you ought to try reading the links before you discount them, Che. "Tens of thousands of Venezuelans have marched through Caracas in an opposition rally to demand a referendum on President Hugo Chavez's rule." In a country of 25 million, tens of thousands of people just don't matter to you? Yet when Cindy Sheehan and 3 idiots protest in a nation of 285 million people, it's a significant event? "At least 2.4 million signatures are required to trigger a referendum on the president. The opposition says it has collected 3.2 million. But the electoral council ruled last week that only 1.8 million were valid." So we have, by your numbers, somewhere between 7 and 12 percent of the population actually going out and signing a petition against Chavez, but this is "not significant" in your mind? I guess you also consider all those rallies against the war as being "not significant" since they involved a far smaller percentage of the population? And I might note that these actions are taking place in a country where the government is using paramilitary forces to squash dissent. And what happened to your "overwhelming support" claim, Che? 42% of the people who voted in that referendum voted to oust Chavez then and there. And this was, again, in a country where the government was using the military to squash dissension. By your standards, the fact that Bush did not use the military to suppress dissent and still got more than 50% of the vote must also amount to "overwhelming support". But thank you, Che, for making it patently obvious that you don't really know very much about what is going on in Venezuela, or really care, for that matter. You support Chavez, no matter what, and you slime any opposition as "ex-cuban mafia" (which seems odd since Fidel and Chavez are buddies). You discount as "insignificant" opposition rallies which include a larger percentage of the population than those rallies against Bush you find so significant, and you ignore all evidence that your hero Chavez is in fact the kind of fascist you so often accuse Bush of being.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#43)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    Justpaul, When a quarter of a million people march in New York and they are called a focus group by the preeminent media mouthpiece, then your numbers ARE insignificant. So we have, by your numbers, somewhere between 7 and 12 percent of the population actually going out and signing a petition against Chavez wow What part of 7% of the population is significant to you. Every country has dissent, dude. You are playing up such a now-insignificant factor in their political environment to push your own agenda, which, when stripped of the meaningless stats and corrupt media sources, becomes "Chavez is a creep". I suggest that it is YOU who has a very loose grasp of Venezuelan politics. You reject any evidence of socialist or agrarian reform. What are you afraid of? Venezuelans invading Corpus Christi? But I suppose you've never read Phil Agee's book so how could you understand why there is a huge shift to the left in ALL of South America. Hilary Clinton.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#44)
    by swingvote on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    Che, 250,000 people is less than 1/10 of one percent of the people in this country. According to your standards, anything less than 19.6 Million people showing up for a protest is "insignificant". I had no idea that you had so little respect for the will of the people. Thanks for clarifying. As for what's going on in Venezuela, Che, I suggest you stop reading Philip Agee and talk to the people who are actually there. You might start those here: .

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#45)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 05:13:51 PM EST
    JP, Great link. A site with a cluster of anti Chavez junk posted over a 72 hour period a year ago. Further probing leads to nothing more than a bunch of disaffected capitalists who just cannot avoid calling Venezuela a democracy, yet all whining on the internet because they can't steal anymore. I'm sure they all have some "friends" in the State Dept.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    Yes jp, some day you and piggle can give us a thourogh exegesis on how "market forces" are the modern equivalent of the medieval doctors of the church's "mysterious workings of divine providence".

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimcee on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 08:20:54 PM EST
    Not for nothing but Hillary has about as much chance of being president as I have and if she continues parroting African-American lingual stereotypes she has even less of a chance than I do. 'And You know what I'm talkin' about!' What a honky fakir with blonde highlights gettin' down with the peeps. If she were capable she should be embarassed and so should those who think she's down with the black folks. Black peole aren't that stupid but don't tell Hillary. I am always amazed how low and stupid white folks get when they are in uncomfortable places. Next thing you know she'll be seen 'singin' wid da choir' although she is apparently tone deaf. If you love her your a gulable fool.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    Yeah, I get it justpaul. Hillary and Ted Kennedy(Chapaquidick!!)are socialists,Chavez is the next thing to Lenin, and anyone who questions the morality of getting rich investing in and maintaining a labor force that spends Sunday family outings foraging in the town dump is standing in the way of "wealth creation"(it benefits us all). The unmitigated gall of these Latin American leftists. Who do they think they are?

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#49)
    by swingvote on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    Che, How typical. You simply discard any evidence from actual Venezuelans which disagrees with your preconceived notions about Chavez being the next best thing to the second coming, then ignore the rest of the comment because you can't refute it. Go on supporting your fascist friend, Che. It's your right to do so and it's not like it will cost you anything, as opposed to the Venezuelans Hugo is killing. Jondee, Whatever. Your comment is so loaded down with your own misconceptions about what I am or where I stand that it doesn't even begin to make sense.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    "Hillary Turns on Bush" TL said "turns on." Heh.

    Re: Hillary Turns on Bush (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    Right jp. Youve called Kennedy "a socialist" here, declared Zell Miller more of a Democrat than most of the posters here and now it sounds like your just chomping at the bit to have a black op done on the non-ballplaying Chavez. I just connect the dots. Yeah Im not even close.

    Hillary Turns on Bush | 51 comments (51 topical)