"Hillary wins, scam or not, and there’s nothing you can do about it" by Jack Balkwill Online Journal Tuesday October 16, 2007
”She was practiced at the art of deception,
I could tell by her blood-stained hands”
-- Mick Jagger, “You can’t always get what you want”
In a desperate attempt to keep the country in the hands of National Security State stalwarts, corporate media are pushing the "inevitability” of Senator Hillary Clinton as the choice of the Democratic Party.
Hillary will ensure that the war continues unabated, health care will remain in the hands of the medical mafia, and the lion's share of revenues will continue to go to ruling transnational investors who finance our political campaigns at the expense of the public interest.
The Christian Science Monitor last week declared, “Hillary Clinton now has what a presidential candidate seeks: a sense of inevitability about eventual nomination.” Citizen polling reflects back that which 24/7 mass media coverage creates, and Hillary is all but president.
The owners would prefer a sycophantic Republican, but realize polling now shows that it may be impossible to elect one to hold the Oval Office post for them over the next term, Diebold magic or not. The next best thing is someone in the leadership of the Democratic Leadership Council -- that would be Madam Hillary.
Even the rabid right’s Charles Krauthammer is on board the Clinton express. A recent Krauthammer Washington Post column begins by lauding Hillary's husband: "Bill Clinton's greatest achievement, aside from abolishing welfare, was free trade. The crown jewel was the North American Free Trade Agreement. He got that through Congress over sustained union opposition in 1993."
Those who maintain true power in the Land of the Free and their devoted servants like Krauthammer love it whenever government leaders go against labor unions (or human rights organizations, social justice groups, peace factions, environmental groups) -- generally anyone opposing the public interest on their behalf.
Or as Hillary put it herself in Bob Woodward’s The Agenda, “"You show people what you're willing to fight for when you fight your friends."
Krauthammer does find some fault with the Clintons in that they tend to obfuscate their true goals in order to gain support from liberals, rather than go directly for the throat in selling them out, as would, say a libertarian like Dick Cheney, in stating clearly where the fidelity lies.
But Krauthammer reveals a lot about his own beliefs when he says of Hillary, "I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her -- precisely because she is so liberated from principle."
There it is, "liberated from principle." That's why Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for Hillary. Rupert is no dummy; he knows where to put his money for a good return on the investment, and no doubt thinks, “Hillary will serve me before any of those dumb liberals who vote for her.”
The corporate media are covering every word of Hillary's as though it were chiseled in stone and conferred from a burning bush. The masses are thereby informed that the anointed one has appeared.
If one is so reckless as to make an Internet post pointing out any Hillary flaw, they should be prepared for an attack from supporters using pointers provided to them by corporate media. One is that Hillary is the women's candidate, so opposition occurs because men don't want to see a woman elected, for purely sexist reasons.
When I was so foolish as to mention a Hillary flaw in an Internet talk group, someone immediately socked me with: "You're only against Hillary because she's a woman." I responded, "And you're only against Bush because he's a man."
Hillary even sounds a lot like President Bush, as in her statement, “Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”
Of course, differences may be found between the current White House occupant and his heir apparent, if one employs a high-powered microscope. Hillary is pro-choice. There, I think I’ve covered it. Since her primary Republican rivals have declared in the past that they are also pro-choice, this is not an earth-shaking difference.
Hillary has always been a Republican, going back to her days as president of the College Republicans at Wellesley. Referring to her campaigning as a “Goldwater girl,” Hillary says “I have gone from a Barry Goldwater Republican to a New Democrat, but I think my underlying values have remained pretty constant.”
Ahh, there it is, constant values leading to “New Democrat,” a euphemism for “Old Republican.” Her husband, as president, waved it proudly as he sold out the working class and threw poor children into the streets. “New” is such a nice word, all shiny and clean.
To gain insight into what one may expect from a Hillary administration’s policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, we might gaze back on the words of her beloved mentor, Goldwater. He said “If I had inherited the mess that [President] Johnson got into, I would have said to North Vietnam, by dropping leaflets out of B-52s, 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over they’re going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam . . . I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them.
Selling itThere is a lot of packaging involved in preparing presidential candidates for the big TV ads selling them to the mainstream, with as much lying as is necessary to convince Alabama that the nominee is free of sin -- far purer than us mere rabble.
In her book, Living History, Hillary said her childhood resembled Father Knows Best, the '50s TV program overflowing with righteousness. At every opportunity, Hillary is shown speaking from a lectern in a church somewhere, to frame this pious representation.
But a number of unauthorized books have been written belying this image, some by right-wing opponents. Corporate media will not relay the following comments because of the language, but it does tend to give an insight into how she treats people. Unless these authors are all lying, Hillary is a much harder person than we have been allowed to see from the corporate media as it hypes her candidacy.
"Fuck off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too! Just do your goddamn job and keep your mouth shut" (Hillary to her state trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning," from the book American Evita by Christopher Andersen).
"You sold out, you mother fucker! You sold out!" (Hillary yelling at him, from the book Inside, a Public and Private Life by Joseph Califano, Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare).
"If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags" (Hillary to a Secret Service agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident, from the book The First Partner by Joyce Milton).
"Get fucked! Get the fuck out of my way!!! Get out of my face" (Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents, from the book Hillary's Scheme by Carl Limbacher).
"Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, okay" (Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail, from the book Unlimited Access, by FBI Agent Gary Aldrich).
Corporate media have decided the election for us already, it would appear, as the words “inevitable” and “Hillary” are paired more frequently in what passes, in the Land of the Free, for election coverage.
The king is dead -- long live the queen. And if you “just fucking do” as she says, you might be able to keep your head. Oh, and grab those bags, quickly.
Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.
Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007Hillary.htm
Of course, we all know why Hillary is allegedly kicking ass.
If you please Israel, then you go up in the polls.
Every time Obama or Edwards tries to separate from her -- thinking they will appeal to the American people (like Iraq, for instance) -- they DROP LOWER in the polls.
Does that make sense to you, reader?
Only if the polls -- like the rest of the MSM -- are controlled by Zionists.
Bingo!
"Clinton would use violence against Tehran
Suzanne Goldenberg
Guardian Unlimited
October 15, 2007
Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.
In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies, and that it must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.
“If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table,” Ms Clinton said.
Elsewhere, Ms Clinton took the edge off her steely posture by saying she would abandon the Bush administration’s policy of isolating its enemies, and would deploy diplomacy.
“True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.”
She says she would even consider offering incentives to Iran in return for a pledge to disarm. However, she sets out a series of stringent conditions that are virtually identical to current White House policy.
“If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives,” Ms Clinton wrote.
The article, the latest in a series of position papers from the leading Democratic and Republican contenders for the White House, offers a glimpse at Ms Clinton’s efforts to appeal to Democrats seeking a repudiation of the current regime’s world view when they begin voting in primaries next January, as well as to the broader electorate that will vote in November 2008.
It arrives only days after Ms Clinton was severely criticised by her Democratic rivals for backing a Senate resolution calling on the US government to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the elite division of Tehran’s military, a terrorist entity.
The measure has been argued strenuously by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and other neocons, but such a sweeping designation does not appear to have the support of the state department.
Ms Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to support the resolution, and her rivals said her vote could help the Bush administration make a future case for war against Iran.
Unlike the five other candidates to sketch out their vision of foreign policy to date, Ms Clinton gave little indication of her comprehensive world view.
However, she pledged to avoid the “ideologically blinkered” policies of the current presidency. “Avoid false choices driven by ideology,” she wrote.
On Iraq, Ms Clinton offered a small variation on her promises on the campaign trail, saying she would instruct her Pentagon chief and other military leaders to draw up a withdrawal plan within 60 days of her inauguration. However, she would consider leaving behind a residual force in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq."
So she will be different from George W. Bush how?
And how much longer you going to eat MSM shit, Amurkns?
