After watching "The Hunting Of The President" DVD, it just reminded me why I can't support Hillary

[zulchzulu]

After watching the documentary on DVD tonight about how the 10-year hunt to drive down Bill Clinton is produced by Nickolas Perry and Harry Thomason, based on the book by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, it brought back the whole 90's nightmare that tangled the Clinton Presidency.

It's all there... all the cast of characters with their twisted stories and the usual suspects that made an entire billion dollar industry of Clinton "exposure". Despite the dark E minor synth bed soundtrack and forboding titles and conspiracy thread somehow trying to save the Clintons until the suddenly foreshortened Lewinsky chapter leading to the Impeachment attempts, it just brings it all back on how the Right Wing is well heeled and well oiled to do it all again if they get a chance.

I doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Right wing and (as evident in the documentary) willing mainstream media would love more than having not one, but two Clintons to go back into war mode again if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

Whether she gets the nomination or not, watching this documentary proves unintentionally that if the Clintons do get back into the White House, there will be the same or worse full frontal attack on them, thus giving us more gridlock, more distractions in this very dangerous time historically and with the full knowledge that the Clintons would easily "take the proffer" and fulfill post-Bush, Neo-Gingrichian agendas as long as they can say it was "their own".

It's indeed time to turn the page and start the 21st Century correctly (after these horrible Bush years) without the obvious scars and in-fighting that the 90's gave us. In my view, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for future Beltway chaos and retreaded old partisan wars.

Watch the DVD if you can (in your local decently stocked video store) and see if you agree.

Info:
http://webtv.imdb.com/title/tt0391225/

[aquart]

1. Except it's all old, tired news.

But do continue with your "blame the victim" strategy.

And let's be clear: YOU'RE TELLING US NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL SAY MEAN THINGS???? THAT'S YOUR REASON?????

Because heaven forfend we upset the establishment in any way. And nobody could ever think of a mean thing to say about any of our other candidates, can they?

Best way: Let's not run any candidates at all. That way they'll only say nice things about us.

[zulchzulu]

9. I have many other reasons besides the obvious reason I just stated

I know that who ever is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will do their best to swiftboat the candidate. That's a no-brainer.

It just gets down to whether this country wants a re-run of the Clinton Family Hall Of Mirrors again. Hillary is very divisive with an incredibly high watermark of negative ratings and her husband, as witnessed on the campaign trail, is not only full of himself and hogs the stage but also puts his foot in his mouth almost on a daily basis. They've shut him up in the past couple days, but he's a live wire.

Do I want to see this act again? Do I want to have to watch the mainstream media try again to get that gotcha story for their Pulitzer or their Murrow Award with this couple "entertaining us" with their triangulated sideshow?

I'm done with it. I hate re-runs and especially hate really bad re-runs.

Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks in her campaign coupled with her hawkishness with the votes for war are enough for me on a basic level. Seeing this whole bag of nonsense brought back (as was unintentionally evident with the DVD) is the icing on the cake.

Support who you want. I want REAL change.

[flpoljunkie]

45. "Upset the establishment?" The Clintons and their DLC machine are the establishment.

[AtomicKitten]

2. I have that DVD and I loved the book.

And, yes, Z, it is a prelude to a nasty deja vu upside the head.

[journalist3072]

3. I see you've got your talking points straight from Barack Obama

One of the lines from his stump speech is how he doesn't want to "refight the battles of the 90's."

It seems to me that the only people who CAN'T seem to turn the page, are Barack Obama and his supporters, because they keep mentioning the 90's and how "divisive" Sen. Clinton supposedly is, and she's not electable.

If you really wanted to turn the page, why keep revisiting the battles of the 90s? Focus on TODAY, and what Sen. Clinton is doing today to advance America's cause.

Instead, it seems that you really want to blame the victim here. It seems you want to blame Hillary Clinton for Ken Starr's 70-million dollar investigation, in which the only thing he found out was that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong in Whitewater, and that Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair.

By saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't be elected because of all she went through in the 90's, you're blaming her for Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich and that whole cabal's hatred of her..when that's really THEIR problem, NOT hers.

What's next: do you want to blame rape victims as well for being raped?

[jefferson_dem]

8. Comparing the Clintons to rape victims?

What a severely screwed up ironic twist of the truth that is. Do you *really* want to go there?

[babylonsister]

15. Why, exactly, do you hate Barack Obama? I'm very curious because

you obviously do.

[journalist3072]

So, in your twisted, wharped view, I hate him because I don't support his candidacy?

I happen to think that Barack Obama is not ready for prime time.

I happen to think he's very disingenuous when he slams Sen. Clinton for voting for Kyle-Lieberman, when he was too cowardly to vote at all.

I happen to be disappointed in him for voting to report Condi Rice's nomination out of the Foreign Relations Committee, and sending it to the full Senate.

I happen to be disappointed in how he's used the Tom Joyner Morning Show to try to get those of us in Black America to get behind his candidacy simply because he's Black.


But just because I don't support his candidacy, doesn't mean I hate him. I just don't want him as my President.

[babylonsister]

26. Twisted and warped view? Is your view better? I'm not into

fighting or arguing with you, and I'm glad you didn't find a name to throw at me.

OK, and bye. Good luck with your candidate, and I will vote for her if I have to,
BUT I will hate it.

[zulchzulu]

16. Do you think that it won't happen again?

I'm not blaming any of the Clintons for what the Right Wing did to them, although Bill sure gave them the ammo they needed.

I just know that the Republicans want nothing more than to have two Clintons to scratch and hem and haw at (with the willing mainstream media) and make any decent level of legislative advancement of badly needed reform on all levels distracted and sputtering.

As for "what Sen. Clinton is doing today to advance America's cause", I assume you're talking about more wars, which she is firmly for and has a record proving so.

[journalist3072]

22. Newsflash my friend: The Republicans are downright dirty people, period. And WHOEVER

is the Democratic nominee, whether it's Clinton, Obama, Edwards or anyone else, is going to be subjected to their slime.

Do you somehow think they are going to ease up on Obama or Edwards if they were the nominee? You think Obama or Edwards will have a cakewalk in the general?

If so, you are sadly mistaking.

[zulchzulu]

24. I've stated that...

I do think that Obama has enough crossover appeal with moderate Republicans and Independents to get him in the White House. And no, it would not be a cakewalk to should be expected to be.

It would certainly be a refreshing change and would turn the page from what we would expect to see otherwise.

[jefferson_dem]

25. But you will not vote for Obama even if he wins the nomination.

So what makes you any better than the Repugs you are condemning?

[sniffa]

39. how absurd

what's next: are you going to deny the Holocaust?

[emilyg]

4. You would not have voted

for Clinton anyway. Nothing new here.

[zulchzulu]

17. I voted for Bill Clinton twice

Twice is enough.

Rent the DVD.

[emilyg]

27. I will.

[Catherine Vincent]

5. I read the book and saw the DVD.

I will support Hillary if she wins the nomination. So, no, I don't agree with you.

[zulchzulu]

23. Not there yet, but...

...if Hillary is the nominee, I'll probably vote for her... I know I wouldn't do any grassroots work for her though and certainly would not put a bumpersticker on any vehicle I own.

[Catherine Vincent]

30. Even though I would vote for her I wouldn't put a bumper sticker on my vehicle.

Too much Clinton hate out there.

[some guy]

6. ???

I'm not a fan of either Bill or Hillary Clinton, but what makes you think the right wing attack machine would go after a President Hillary Clinton, but not go after ANY non-Republican President?

I see no reason to think they would give any Democratic party President a pass.

It's who they are, what they do. They hate.


edit: typo.

[Darkseid69]

7. Good Lord...

The right wing and media will go into war mode no matter who the Democratic nominee is. At least with Hillary they will be better prepared than say, John Kerry was when they go all out ballistic.

[karynnj]

49. Kerry was prepared

Before August, the media had:

- Over 100 pages of Kerry's Naval records. There were fitness reports that spanned the entire interval - and many were signed by the SBVT. They were all glowing.
- All the people in Kerry's boats when he got any medals backed him 100%
- Brinkley, a historian of the stature to be picked to edit the Reagan diaries had spoken to 100 plus people about 2 years before. Only 1 of the future SBVT said anything negative - and that was that he didn't like Kerry. (He oddly complained that Kerry was aloof AND complained that he (the SBVT) didn't fraternize with the enlisted men - knowing their mother's birthdays. (a JK knock, but not anything like the SBVT.)
- Nixon's secret tapes showed they investigated him and he was a war hero and clean cut.

After the attack came out, the Kerry people gave the media over 30 pages of provable lies in the SBVT book. The media NEVER asked the SBVT for any proof on charges that were absolutely contrary to the records. (This would be like someone telling your boss you failed important classes in your major and then falsified your transcript.)

Any ONE of these is far more than what the Clintons' threw back in 1992. If Democrats want to continue the fiction that somehow the difference was in how strongly they responded to charges, they do it at their own risk - the difference was in the environment. (Seriously - Clinton's first answer on evading the draft was that he didn't remember if he was drafted. Is there a guy who was near Clinton's age here that believed that?)

[Jim Sagle]

10. Of all the reasons not to vote for Hillary, this is the worst.

The RNC/media/military/intelligence complex will trash ANY Democrat who has the audacity to win an election.

They killed JFK.

They sabotaged peace negotiations under LBJ.

They sabotaged a hostage rescue attempt under Carter.

They smeared, investigated, lied about, and hollered at Clinton for eight stinking years.

When Gore won, they rioted in the streets to stop the vote count and had their corrupt Supreme Court make it official.

When Kerry won, they reversed Ohio to keep him out of office.

If you like Hillary most, vote for her. If you like someone else more, vote for him.

Whatever you decide, don't let them scare you.

[BeyondGeography]

11. It was always a bad idea for them to come back for more

the least we can do is show them the door before it's too late.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Agreed, zulch.

The last thing this country needs (other than a Repug in the Oval, perhaps) is four more years of Clinton-Bush-Clinton...

[niceypoo]

18. There is no such thing as Clinton-Bush-Clinton

Why are Obama backers so full of hate? They are turning this board into a sewer.

[jefferson_dem]

20. I'm referring to the era of American politics dating from Bill's first term until now...

If you think there's nothing unique about this past decade and a half...you haven't been paying attention.

By the way, I don't hate the playas...only the game. And try not to be so defensive.

[zulchzulu]

21. Really?

Actually, it's (God forbid):

George Bush, Sr.
Bill Clinton
George Bush, Jr.
Hillary Clinton

Are facts "full of hate"?

[niceypoo]

13. So, because the republicans don't like Bill Clinton, you wont vote for Hillary?

Does this mean you also didn't vote for Kerry, who was equally, viciously attacked by the same republicans? Why in the world anyone would let the republicans decide who they vote for is beyond me. I see this line of, 'reasoning,' here a lot.

[zulchzulu]

19. Comparing Kerry to Hillary Clinton is a complete joke

Sure, the mainstream media gladly kept the Swiftboaters on the air long after they were debunked, but what I forsee what the mainstream media and the obvious antics of the RNC to slam hard at TWO Clintons will make the 2004 race look like a Sears new puppy with the family photo shoot.

[babylonsister]

28. H. Clinton worked against Kerry, because now it's her turn. nt

[karynnj]

48. The SBVT attacks were completely lies

Kerry responded with the truth - the whole truth. The RW echo chamber was much stronger in 2004 than in 1992. Go back and read how Clinton responded to the attacks on how he avoided the draft. He put out at least 3 stories - starting with saying he did not remember (which no guy of his generation that I know believed) until the truth came out. A supportive media agreed with surrogates like Kerry that it didn't matter - that media is now gone.

Kerry and Gore were very clean - some of the Clinton stories were real - in fact, the RW may have erred in making stuff up, because now many things are swept away with the comment that they were not true.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Blame the victim! nt

[tex-wyo-dem]

29. Not only that, but if Hill gets the nomination...

I have a bad feeling that there will be a backlash against Dems running for Congress as well, regardless if she wins the WH or not. In other words, we may not see the majorities in the House and Senate we are led to believe is possible and may even lose the razor thin majority in the Senate.

Realistically, the Clintons are devisive enough to cause such a phenomena.

[cali]

43. What Senate seats that are in the favor dem column or competitive

would a Clinton candidacy threaten? VA? No. NH? Unlikely. NM? No. What House seats are you thinking would be endangered? Do you know enough about Congressional races to assert that she'd endanger the Senate? Anyone on knows even the rudimentaries of the Senate race configuration, knows that we won't be losing the Senate. No matter who the nominee is, we'll pick up at least 3 seats. That's at a bare minimum. The repukes have 23 open seats. The dems 12. And that's hardly the only problem the repukes have.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. Oh, nuts. They're gonna go after ANY Dem with everything they've got

for 4 years or 8 years if we're lucky. It's not specific to the Clintons. It's specific to being to the left of Ghengis Khan. I'm no Hill fan, but this is no reason to oppose her. (There are many other, much better reasons IMHO.)

[BearSquirrel2]

32. Two for one ...

Look, the Ree-pubs will smear whoever the Democratic nominee is. But with Hillary, the work is already done. It's like a two for one sale. It's like having a professor requiring you to write a paper and you having already done it last year in another class.

Hillary a victim? Well don't ever look at the evil Wal-Mart smiley without remembering she was the Walton's legal hit-girl.

[annie1]

33. Amazing how many "why i won't vote for hil"...or "this that bad hil" are always by obama supporters.

we get it!

[babylonsister]

34. It has to do with Obama, and not with Clinton.

She's the old guard-her history and everything about her and her family I don't like; Obama would be a breath of fresh air. That's the difference to me.

[lvx35]

35. Oh no! You're right! Lets vote for Obama, the republicans will leave him alone...

Because we all know they attacks on Hillary weren't POLITICALLY MOTIVATED or anything, so once the Clintons are out of the picture, they will just leave our guys alone and we will all be productive together!

And If you believe that, I got some great beach front property to sell you on the Carteret Islands...

[Beacool]

36. Oh please, you have been bashing Hillary in most of your posts.

This is just an excuse to proclaim that you won't vote for her when you never had any intention of doing so in the first place.

[zulchzulu]

44. As I've stated, there are many other reasons for me not to vote for her in the primary

Watching the DVD just brought back all the the same old crap we'd be dealing with again if she was the nominee and/or became President.

America doesn't need this crap anymore in my view. We had to watch the trainwreck already. Why the Re-Run Candidate?

:shrug:

[Prophet 451]

37. Then fight them

Yes, if Hillary is the nominee (and for the record, she wouldn't be my preferred candidate), the right and the MSM is going to go after her like a fat man chasing a cheeseburger. You know it, I know it. So what? Whoever the Dems put up is going to get Swiftboated. Bipartisanship is doomed to failure anyway (since the entire Repub party seems to think "bipartisanship" means "they do what we say"). The Right is going to cause gridlock the same way they did under Clinton regardless of who's nominated because they got away with it last time. They've learned that throwing tantrums works. I think it was Norquist who said that bipartisanship was "just another word for date rape" and they honestly believe that. The whole concept of working together is anathema to them.

The trick is not to let them limit our choices, that's playing their game and we can't win that, they invented it. Pick whoever you think would be the best candidate for the job. If that's Hillary, I disagree but that's fine.

[wyldwolf]

38. we all figured you preferred Hannity's version of events

[Perry Logan]

40. So we should run some milquetoast who doesn't offend the big, bad Republicans? Please--get a spine.

[AtomicKitten]

41. get some manners

[Perry Logan]

46. I said "please."

[sandnsea]

42. If we got truly progressive policies in exchange

I'd have no problem fighting these right wing attacks. But we're going to extend this volatile partisanship for absolutely nothing, that's what I can't understand. More globalization, more social compromises, more power to the corporates, more cowering on the environment, more bullying foreign policy. Why would anybody intentionally do this to the country.

[zulchzulu]

50. Nicely said

I'm for fighting right wing attacks full throatedly and expect it no matter who is the nominee. But, like you said, is it worth seeing the same Clintonian policies, which are Republican policies wrapped nicely in Clinton paper, again?

[KennedyGuy]

47. Good asvice Zulu..back down when attacked..

yep..
that'll do it..you guys are living in a dream world if you think the right wing will not attack Obama should he be the nominee..