MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Did the Clintons Try to Whack a Cat?

Washington Dispatch: Sure, Citizens United's Hillary documentary is a political hit piece—but it's also a preview of the mudslinging to come should she receive the Democratic nomination.

January 15, 2008


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

Hillary Clinton has what pollsters call high negatives, which essentially means that lots of people really don’t like her and never will. But her supporters have long argued that she is a formidable candidate despite these negatives because those numbers aren't likely to go any higher. As the theory goes, Americans are already well acquainted with the Clintons' dirty laundry—Whitewater, Monica, etc.—and as a result, any more mud slung at Hillary isn’t likely to stick. Unlike the less-seasoned presidential contenders, she's been through the mill, and is still standing. But if last night’s Washington premier of Hillary: The Movie is any indication, this particular case for Clinton the candidate is wishful thinking.

Created by the conservative political group Citizens United, the anti-Hillary movie makes the Democratic primary season look like a polite college-debate tournament. It hurls all the down-and-dirty opposition research her opponents have thus far declined to touch. Moreover, it doesn’t simply recycle the old anti-Hillary stuff; it raises a new slew of charges to spin the New York senator as a cross between Machiavelli and Lady Macbeth. The movie offers a preview of what the general election could look like should Clinton become the Democratic nominee. Despite far too much ranting by Ann Coulter and a few silly moments, the movie hits hard at Clinton’s weak spots and lands some solid punches that can’t be dismissed just because they come from the right-wing’s usual suspects.

Hillary dips briefly into some of the old Clinton scandals, including Bill's well-documented skirt chasing. An alleged victim of the former president's sexual advances, Kathleen Willey, appears in the film a decade after her moment on the national stage. Willey shows extensive signs of plastic surgery and paranoia and reprises some of the material from her recent book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. In a taut-lipped interview, she suggests that after her name surfaced in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton, the Clintons arranged to have her kitty assassinated. Willey, who attended last night's screening, says she got an anonymous phone call taunting her about her missing cat and later discovered a cat skull on her porch. She says a private investigator tipped her off that the White House was having her investigated. (The investigator, a pockmarked Jared Stern, also appears in the film like some sort of Deep Throat, interviewed in a parking garage.)

To great effect, the film also digs into the tale of Billy Dale, the former longtime head of the White House travel office who was allegedly sacked on Hillary’s orders so she could staff the office with cronies boasting Hollywood connections. According to the movie spin, the White House falsely accused Dale of embezzling thousands of dollars from the travel office as justification for the firing. He was prosecuted and acquitted by a jury in two hours. His story of how the Clintons ruined his life brought some audience members to tears. Of course unsaid in the film is that there was substantial evidence in his trial that Dale had mismanaged the travel office, that he was getting freebies—like sporting-event tickets—from contractors, and that he had diverted $54,000 in refund checks into his own bank account and lost track of $14,000 in petty cash, all solid reasons to fire the guy.

But the movie’s producers smartly skip over most of the ancient history from the Clinton administration and stick to fresher material, much of which will be unfamiliar to the average viewer (or voter). The fundraising scandals alone provide a mountain of fodder. And Hillary makes great use of the video footage from the 2000 "Hollywood Farewell Gala Salute to William Jefferson Clinton." The star-studded event was organized and paid for by Peter F. Paul, a repeat felon and con artist who had cozied up to the Clintons in the waning days of the administration. Aiding him was Aaron Tonken, another con man who was later convicted of defrauding charities, who helpfully provides an interview for the film from prison.

Paul, who is interviewed extensively in the movie, paid $1.2 million to put on the gala, which raised money for Hillary Clinton’s Senate race. Her Senate campaign, however, reported to the Federal Election Commission that the event only cost $523,000. (In-kind donations such as hosting a party count toward candidate spending limits.) The FEC eventually fined Clinton’s campaign $35,000 for underreporting the cost of the party. Hillary Clinton’s finance director was tried and acquitted for his role in reporting the event cost.

After the Washington Post reported on Paul’s criminal history, which included drug charges and all sorts of financial shenanigans (even defrauding Cuba, if you can imagine the level of criminal ingenuity that would entail), Hillary Clinton distanced herself from him. But Hillary showcases lots of footage and chummy photos of the former first lady with Paul, even a video of a conference call she made to him. All this suggests a close relationship that’s going to be tough to avoid addressing if she ends up facing off with a Republican next fall.



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

I`m voting for hillary so there.
Posted by:StellaJanuary 15, 2008 4:50:30 PMRespond ^
Amazing news.
Posted by:Ames TiedemanJanuary 15, 2008 5:59:36 PMRespond ^
Do you think it might be possible to use ‘investigative journalism’ to uncover the identities of those who funded this Hillary movie. I mean it’s not like they funded it in small unmarked bills delivered by masked men in unmarked black SUV’s. Maybe it’s listed with the IRS for taxation purposes? Part of the public record that could be added to this article for continuities sake.
Posted by:LoafJanuary 15, 2008 7:57:47 PMRespond ^
The GOP platform is built upon hate and lies, and phoney Christians. What a mess.
Posted by:Al SamuelsJanuary 16, 2008 8:43:24 AMRespond ^
Ms.Mencimer's reporting on my role in the Hillary movie seems to have been straight from the Hillary character assassination playbook. My civil fraud suit and whistleblowing against the Clintons AFTER I was induced by President Clinton to become Hillary's largest donor seems to be lost in the mischaracterizations of who I am and the totality of my career. If anyone was interested in what the public record shows about me and the Clintons, they just have to see www.hillcap.org to judge for themselves. I had the courage to take a lie detector test- and Hillary has not had teh courage to deny any of my allegations in her sworn declaration!
Posted by:Peter PaulJanuary 16, 2008 8:45:01 AMRespond ^
Good LORD. Is this it? Peanuts compared to what Republicans have been involved in.
Posted by:cpJanuary 16, 2008 9:44:52 AMRespond ^
Almost all of these allegations are old, recycled nonsense that at their core, are baseless speculation. Kathleen Willey is a shameless, money-grubbing liar and there are a host of articles available on the Internet that show her stories to be utter fiction. While I have no doubt that Bill Clinton is hornier than a two-peckered billy goat, Ms. Willey didn't raise one objection to being groped by Clinton until several years later, when some of Richard Mellon-Scaife's ill-gotten money found it's way into her bank account. Funny how that happens.... The Whitewater allegations were all debunked quite well by Joe Conanson's excellent book entitled "The Hunting of the President". Read it and you won't think about the slimeballs behind this massive smear campaign (which included David Bossie, who is just a little lower on the evolutionary scale than pond scum). Finally, in the end, these are all essentially victimless crimes. Can the same be said of the crimes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that involve mass slaughter of innocent people for a lie, corrupt, no-bid contracts that cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and the torturing and illegal detention of hundreds of Arabs and Arab-Americans????
Posted by:The Conservative DeflatorJanuary 16, 2008 11:57:10 AMRespond ^
There have been some pretty vicious attacks from my fellow progressives also. Many seem to enjoy putting themselves into the circular firing squad mode. I keep saying that ideological purity is for Bolsheviks, but they don't get my point.
Posted by:David StrongJanuary 16, 2008 2:04:51 PMRespond ^
Bozo the Clown, for President...
Posted by:Christopher FlynnJanuary 16, 2008 2:28:00 PMRespond ^
Until she becomes the Democratic candidate, I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I think this article is important in showing the methods that will be used to attack her. Republicans have repudiated the Constitution; Republicans have repudiated that ideals of the Enlightenment, and hence of the Founding Fathers (or Brothers); Republicans have nothing to offer but smear tactics. My hope is that Hillary and other Democrats will start their stump speeches by ridiculing the tactics embodied in this "film." Three minutes to deal with two points in the film would be enough to destroy its impact. My fear is that Democrats are too polite to kick Republican liars where it hurts. -- And then there's always Dick Cheney, lurking in the background, ready to create another 9/11 close to election day. -- We live in sad times.
Posted by:JTWJanuary 16, 2008 2:35:51 PMRespond ^
I must have missed it in the article; How many $ millions were wasted and how many lives were lost or otherwise destroyed as the result of all the "events" depicted in the movie? Will Hillary's missteps cause our soldiers to remain in the Iraqi desert a day longer? Does this mean the Republicans are right about economic policy, international relations, civil rights, trade, or "Homeland" security?
Posted by:EvanJanuary 16, 2008 2:41:36 PMRespond ^
Don't even think that you can avoid this kind of evil by voting for a different Democratic candidate. And don't take my assertion for it. Here's Bossie, quoted by the Moonie's, saying as much: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps /pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/NATION/513973288/1001
Posted by:RebeccaJanuary 16, 2008 2:46:10 PMRespond ^
["I`m voting for hillary so there."] Brilliant and insightful analysis of the facts at hand. Sort of reminds me of Congressman Earl Landgrebe, who once expounded: "Don't confuse me with the facts, Senator. My mind is made up. I'm going to stick with my President (Nixon) even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot."
Posted by:AlternateRealityCheckJanuary 16, 2008 3:19:48 PMRespond ^
["Will Hillary's missteps cause our soldiers to remain in the Iraqi desert a day longer?"] You mean missteps like supporting the invasion in the beginning? And continuing to support it in every vote that comes along on the issue? Like continuing to vote in favor of "emergency" funding for a five year old war they can't seem to budget for, no matter how many unrelated, porky "earmarked" projects are included in the spending bill? Yes. Those missteps WILL keep our soldiers, sailors, marines and flyboys coming home in body bags. You can bet THEIR asses on it!
Posted by:AlternateRealityCheckJanuary 16, 2008 3:25:44 PMRespond ^
While not a great fan of the Clintons, if we let fear of how Republicans might or might not campaign against her or any Democrat, we might as well concede the election now and not waste anybodies time.
Posted by:prophet without honorJanuary 16, 2008 6:51:15 PMRespond ^
"if we let fear of how Republicans might or might not campaign against her or any Democratic" influence who we vote for, (sorry posting way past my bedtime)....
Posted by:prophet without honorJanuary 16, 2008 6:55:16 PMRespond ^
NEWS FLASH: Blacks Learning 'Goldwater Girl' Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964....Feel Deceived ! A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her 'civil rights experience' during every speech given to blacks audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." But Novak's article states that there's a big problem with her statement. The fact is, in 1963, the same period of time she speeks of at all black church appearances, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes "...how then could she be a 'Goldwater Girl' in the next year's presidential election?" He continues, "...she described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.' (Hillary worked on Golwater's presidential campaign) Novak adds, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton's temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy." Novak adds, "What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign's panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination. Clinton's plans were transformed by the advent of Obama, an African-American threatening the hard allegiance of black voters forged by Bill Clinton. On one hand, the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama and his supporters. On the other hand, she has sought to solidify her civil rights credentials. While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handlers were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a young lady in Chicago's suburbs who never really existed." Blacks are stating their feeling of betrayment now that these truths are being exposed as they come to the conclusion that the fact is, Hillary was AGAINST the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Dr. King died for and as a 'Goldwater Girl' she was even against Lyndon B. Johnson, the very person she now gives the credit to for Dr. King getting to the mountaintop. ! Greg 'Peace Song' Jones
Posted by:Greg JonesJanuary 16, 2008 8:21:27 PMRespond ^
This is just more b.s. from the professional Hillary-haters, which seem now to include the quivering, quaking pro-Obambi staff of Mother Jones. How sad.
Posted by:CharnaJanuary 16, 2008 8:51:08 PMRespond ^
I've never read a more intellectually destitute blog in my life, from the far corners of the country they gather pell mell to ride the Rubicon of ignorance. From David corns yappings and now the latest article CD supporting the swift boaters. No your not progessives,nor are you democrats,your lead balls with a hollow core that passes for cranial matter(think vacuum)and with matching abilities when trolling for fish without an attendant flasher. Hope your using barbless hooks so you dont't impale yourself's with your own ignorance.
Posted by:nightsliderJanuary 17, 2008 12:56:15 AMRespond ^
thanks for reaffirming why I'm voting for Hilliary,your article makes so much sense that I just cant help myself, with all of these well stated negatives based on personal bias's I how could I go wrong, withering this torrid crap would strengthen anyones character. especially if they did'nt take the bait and acknowledge it. Just kinda let it hang out there for the so called progessives to waste their schills on. Yep the Oblapie freaks are getting desperate. BT th way MOTHER jones [deleted] off, REMOVING MYSELF FROM YOUR SO CALLED LIBERAL SITE, AND WILL ADVISE OTHRES TO THE SAME, WITH THE HOPE YOUR PARTICIPANTS COME TO THOSE WHO WET DREAMS ARE IN COMMON WITH YOURS, obalpie. THE BLACK OPIE.
Posted by:nightsliderJanuary 17, 2008 1:18:05 AMRespond ^
Republican vitriol toward Democrats has absolutely poisoned the atmosphere of this country and banished civility from our national discourse. The only way to fight them is to smile, and stick to our agenda of taking our country back from the slime pit.
Posted by:ACMJanuary 17, 2008 4:48:38 AMRespond ^
".... a vote for Hillary is also a vote to bring back the people behind this film." And these people will sit on their hands and do nothing if Barack Obama is nominated? They are already entrenched in society and ready to spew at ANY Democratic candidate. You don't think they've got scads of stunning slime ready to go just in case it isn't Hillary? I'm afraid there's no getting out of it no matter who the nominee is. The american people have to forcefully reject it this time, otherwise we get what we deserve. I'm voting for Hillary because I think she's the most qualified.
Posted by:RoseJanuary 17, 2008 5:18:22 AMRespond ^
THE FIX,S ALLREDY IN ....THE DEMOCRATS NOMINATE HILLARY AND LOSE...Republicans only nominate the Bob Dole candidate's in elections they know they'll lose.....a year ago I expected the 2008 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION was certain to be the next JONESTOWN...by the time DR.FRANKINROVE,S done with Hillary all that's left to do on November 5TH is officially declare the Democratic party brain dead and call Ted Kennedy to remove the feeding tube!!
Posted by:Bobby DeckerJanuary 17, 2008 8:22:53 AMRespond ^
I am so tired of Democrats backing down in fear every time the right wing hate-o-cons threaten to fling mud. Jeez! Grow a backbone. I believe that Hillary Clinton has an amazing reservoir of untapped support and I'm talking about people who aren't talking...those quiet voters who turn the pollsters' predictions upside down.
Posted by:Bertha and MaudeJanuary 17, 2008 11:21:20 AMRespond ^
We have to take a stand somewhere, don't we? Or else just sign over the country to the Republicans and hunker down to be their slaves. I think Hillary is the best Democratic candidate around. I am sick of the Republican b.s. and the stupidities of publicity-seeking people like Ann Coulter but there doesn't seem to be any way to avoid living through that crap. Even when people admitted that the Swift boat stuff was an outright lie, they still spread it around. Apparently lieing is acceptable to Republicans. Running at their first volley isn't going to help us take back America so we might as well fight them where we stand. I strongly support Hillary.
Posted by:BettyJanuary 17, 2008 11:47:03 AMRespond ^
Oh yawn! Truly amazing that the people who soooo detest Hillary can only come up with dirty tricks, high and mighty connections, and firing someone who deserved to be fired! And con-men? Do the names Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff ring a bell? I'm doubled over with laughter that the mudslingers are now shocked and aghast at con-people cozying up to any elected official. Puh-lease! Come on...give it your best shot! Senator Clinton is the choice for many of us. Intelligent, well-read voters know what is mud-slinging and negative spin of the worst kind. What I am really stunned about is how low some people will go to try to ensure a woman will not win the W.H. Don't tell me this isn't quite alot about gender bias. Shame on the country if they fall for these kinds of stunts. Hillary Clinton has my vote. P.S.: Hey America! How about a Clinton/Obama ticket? How's that for REAL AND TRUE CHANGE?
Posted by:KatJanuary 17, 2008 11:52:46 AMRespond ^
So, Richard Mellon Scaif's money found its way into by bank account! News to me! This untrue accusation by "The Conservative Deflator" is typical of the Clinton's smear campaign. Hillary Clinton can't deal with yet another of her husband's infidelities, so she attacks his victims. And she claims to be a champion for women and a feminist! What a laugh. Her whole life is a lie. And try as I might, I just can't seem to remember The Conservative Deflator being present in the oval office the day I was assaulted, so I can't see how he can be an expert on what happened that day. Maybe he should read my book, "Target," so that he can learn the real truth about what the Clintons are capable of and the lengths to which they will go to try to destroy women like me. Hillary is a lie.
Posted by:Kathleen WilleyJanuary 17, 2008 4:44:25 PMRespond ^
Oh, the different levels in Dante's Inferno: Down, down we go.
Posted by:Frank LornitzoJanuary 17, 2008 7:42:40 PMRespond ^
Clinton supporters should read "THE SECRET LIFE OF BILL CLINTON" which supports much of the material in the film with references from court documents including the people they had rubbed out in Arkansas and Vince Foster!
Posted by:polygraph politiciansJanuary 18, 2008 7:26:56 AMRespond ^
To Kathleen Willey - the White House has you investigated because you are named as a potential witness in Paula Jones' lawsuit(surprise surprise), someone kills your cat, and you come to the conclusion that Hillary is responsible. Your intelligence and analytical ability rivals that of Ann Coulter.
Posted by:LawyerfanJanuary 18, 2008 11:03:12 AMRespond ^
Please cancel my subsciption ASAP. I am not voting for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because of their financial backers--not because of the package of gossip, slander and scandal-mongering you published in place of journalism.
Posted by:PiJanuary 19, 2008 9:12:28 AMRespond ^
I dont understand the end of the article - about bringing back the people behind the film. Does that mean "the people in the film"? A vote for Hillary will obviously not bring back the republicans behind the film. Please explain.
Posted by:JojoJanuary 20, 2008 12:34:59 AMRespond ^
Enough with Bushes AND the Clintons. It's time to vote for Obama. Nothing would unite the Republicans like Hillary Clinton.
Posted by:ArchiesBoyJanuary 20, 2008 10:49:25 PMRespond ^
Wow! I never thought the Obama backers would stoop this low...let's hope that the sociopathic fringe (know as the GOP) don't get the chance to set their sights on him!
Posted by:Cujo's BuddyJanuary 21, 2008 11:25:48 PMRespond ^
we the people. who detest most of the former clinton policies .... denounce that Hillary will be persuaded by bill to do his will once again.
Posted by:Dr.QJanuary 22, 2008 6:34:42 AMRespond ^
what muddle headed writing. Billy Dale is pretty much acquired of any crime as the jury walked to the jury room and yet you trot out the evidence that was part of that acquital to reslander him? Nice move there. Along with all the other nonsense in this "article" you have demonstrated you still have a long way to go 'til mature adulthood.
Posted by:Brett BlairJanuary 22, 2008 7:36:53 AMRespond ^
I got another one that probably isn't in the movie. I learned this one from a major DC sinus doctor, who operated on me. He told me the story of a Secret Service man whose frontal sinuses were crushed by Hillary Clinton. Apparently, he entered a room where Hillary was engaged in heavy petting with some woman. She flung a heavy ashtray with such force that it hit him in the forehead and crushed his frontal sinuses. I guess he wasn't attentive enough to duck. It is well known that Hillary throws things when she is angry, isn't it? I can just imagine the kind of orders she will be screaming to the military or the DOJ when she is really really mad.
Posted by:Andrew PJanuary 22, 2008 9:46:01 PMRespond ^
Hillary will win the democratic nomination. All of you so called liberals, progressives, democrats have forgoten we would all be speaking republican if it was not for the greatest president the u.s. Has ever had. Obahma would be eaten alive by the republicans. By the way "republican" is australian for "american nazi party." Hillary is the only candidate who can standup to the lies to come. Edwards proved in 2004 he doesn't have the cajones to fight back. Barack has addmited to cocane use when was young. Carl will had is lunch to him in a plain brown paper bag. I can see it now, dozens of peaple claiming to have bought drugs from Obahma, acustaions of gang violence, he was brained washed as a child only to be activted in adulthood. All of that stuff is far fetched but so was the swift boat campaign and the trash trown at McCain in 2000. Hillary is the future. I and all of my family and freinds will be voting for her.
Posted by:Chester NewtonJanuary 24, 2008 9:13:06 AMRespond ^
THERE THEY GO AGAIN. The corrupt clinton cronies using their standard attack of character assassination. Loaf asks for the film makers to be investigated. The old "ignore the message and attack the messenger" ploy. Samuels blames the GOP platform and claims it is built on 'hate and lies'. Now how is that relevant to this article? CP minimizes the crimes by claiming the Republicans are worse. Sigh. That's never a good excuse for criminal behavior. The CD claims the allegations are 'old news'; baseless speculation; he defames Kathleen Wiley as a liar and was bribed - the old clinton 'nuts and sluts' defense (you would think they would have given this up after Monica and the dress); he provides a false claim that Whitewater was debunked - a very huge lie considering all the people who did go to jail for it; and finally another claim of 'who cares, we may be bad but those mean Republicans are worse'. JTW makes another pull for the old 'it's a Republican conspiracy' line followed by a defamation of the vice President claiming that he and not Osama bin Laden created 9/11. Evan's ignores the story and says the Republicans are worse for going to war. Charna has this wonderful quote "This is just more b.s. from the professional Hillary-haters, which seem now to include the quivering, quaking pro-Obambi staff of Mother Jones. How sad." Once again, anyone who points out truth about the corrupt clintons, they attempt to dismiss as 'haters'. This one goes the extra distance of calling them 'chickens'. That is pathological. nightslider just call's Mother Jones 'ignorant'. My goodness, now they are attacking Mother Jones well earned progressive and democratic credentials. They must be paying nightslider by the insult. Say slithering slug comes back for seconds. The 'nightslider' (that would be a slug now wouldn't it? or is it a worm?) More name calling. More claims to attack the pocket book - as in canceling subscriptions and getting everyone else to do the same. Wow, what a short tempered person. ACM again blames it all on 'Republican vitriol'. Goodness me. Rose says you might as well vote for hillary, because obama is just as corrupt. Kat decides to play the gender card - 'it's all just cause she is a woman'. Sigh. More claims of 'but the Republicans are worse'. Cujo tries to blame the film on the Obama camp... More name calling. Just remember, we get what we elect. In 1992 we elected bill and contrlled both houses of congress. By 1994, bill and hillary had so worn out their welcome that the Republicans regained control of the senate - 8 seat swing; the Republicans regained control of the house - a huge 54 seat swing; - the Republicans also gained 12 governorships and countless state elected official seats. All thanks to the corruption and incompetence of bill and hillary. Lets not repeat the same mistake twice ! in the country that
Posted by:NickAtNightJanuary 24, 2008 7:14:00 PMRespond ^
Bill clinton was the patsie of the backlash against the poor economy of the eighties and early ninties. That is why the dems lot some much power in the 94 elections. But guess what he still managed to get some good done and save the economy. The dollar was falling like a rock in 92 just like 07-08. And bill fixed it. Oprah excuse me Osama wait Obama will not get elected.
Posted by:osama obamaJanuary 25, 2008 10:05:30 AMRespond ^
Would Obama truly be in the arena at the level he is if not for Queen Oprah? I think not. And the only reason she is pushing him is because he is a black liberal. Oprah would never endorse J.C. Watts, Lt. Governor Michael Steele or Condoleezza Rice; they are too conservative for the new age liberalista Oprah. Yet when Reverend Al Sharpton was asked two days ago on Fox News if it's alright for Oprah to endorse Obama, Sharpton declared absolutely; she has the right to endorse anyone she wants. But remember a this summer how Al Sharpton decried the Obama ticket as not black enough and not poor enough? Two-faced Al is in overdrive: NOT BLACK ENOUGH, NOT POOR ENOUGH LISA RICHARDSAugust 15, 2007 This is going to come as a shock to readers, but Barack Obama, the black man running for president, is not a real authentic black maný"he’s got white blood cells coursing through those veins of his. Oh boy, that young, clean, articulate black man can’t possibly understand Reverend Al Sharpton’s struggle to chase white ambulances for black-attention-getting. That’s right; Al said Barack is neither black enough nor poor enough to run for president. And Jessie Jackson who extorts millions was poor enough to run for president? Is it just me; am I the only American rolling on the floorý"albeit an articulately clean floorý"laughing hysterically over this whole idiocy over liberal blacks saying one must truly be black enoughý"that means not having not one, single white-man’s blood cell rolling around next to the black cellsý"and have a poor background to truly be black. That means Jesse Jackson’s kids are really white since dad is a multi-millionaire. But Jesse took his the money the right way; he “earned” it Tony Soprano-style. No decent black would ever earn an honest living and be taken seriously in the black community if they didn’t make money via white extortion. This is the level liberal black Americans are lowering themselves toý"the black candidate must not only be black enough, he must be poor. After all, all black people are poor. To date, there have never been any wealthy blacks in America. So let me see if I have this correct, if Barack Obama can produce evidence he and Michelle Obama receive monthly welfare checks to their house, which ought to be in the hood if they are truthfully and authentically black, then Obama would be the ideal black man for presidential candidate. I’m no admirer of Obama who refuses to support U.S. troops fighting for his freedom to run for president. Not to mention the fact he’s done nothing but act without receiving an Emmy for his Pentecostal preacher-style performances. Obama’s the biggest phony next to the big blonde Pit Bull in earrings and pantsuits. Obama is nothing more than a Hollywood rock-star creation promoted by Oprah. If Oprah were not pushing Obama like an Avon Lady on Red Bull, Obama would not be a democratic front-runner. Does anyone think Oprah would endorse Harold Ford Jr.? He can forget getting another democratic nomination or leadership position.for anything ever again now that he’s a Fox News Analyst and friend of Sean Hannity. That’s definitely not acting black. But according to Al Sharpton, exceptionally poor black man extraordinaire, Obama is not poor enough; Obama lives in a nice house, drives nice cars, wears clean cloths, speaks articulate, makes more than welfare recipients. Obama’s just not black enough for black America. And Bill Clinton was? Bill “Jefferson” Clinton is actually descended from Thomas Jefferson’s black lover. You see, to be a black candidate one must trace one’s ancestry to slavery and Civil Rights movements dating from Frederick Douglass’s Abolitionists to Martin Luther King Jr. on the Washington Mall. If Obama is smart, he’ll superimpose his African daddy’s picture into a King March and say his father was actually born in Birmingham and migrated to Africa before coming back to America to impregnate Baracks’s half white mommy. That’s how idiotic Sharpton is making this whole broo ha ha. Obama isn’t black enough; he’s not poor enough to be black; he does not have American slavery rootsý"if he does, they were probably well-dressed and very clean house slaves. That’s worse than being half African. Obama’s father is a real Africaný"technically that makes him the white liberal’s token; but it’s also a bad thing. Being from Africa means one never suffered the evil white American bondage still inflicted upon blacks forced by whites forcing blacks to live free on welfare they can use to spend on Louis Vuitton bags. What is worse is Obama speaks well. No Ebonics means you’re definitely not black enough. In fact, I have it on good authority Barack Obama is actually an overly tanned Arab named Hussein Barack Obama pretending to be a Jew for the New York vote. Not one, single black liberal came out against Jesse Jackson when he ran for president. No one cared he’s a rich black man. That’s because Jackson strong-arms white owned corporations to extort money for his personal bank account that could feed the continent of Africa. If Barack Obama wants to help his career, he and Michelle should sell their house, donate the sales money to Al Sharpton, and move into the trailer park across the street from John Edwards’s 30,000 square foot mansion. Now that’s po nuff. Copyright Lisa Richards 2007www.lisa-richards.comLisa Richards, CTSep 11, 2007 @ 12:19 PM
Posted by:lisa-richards.comJanuary 25, 2008 11:36:39 AMRespond ^
are you being sarcastic? I think people should look into the clinton's strange deaths of people around them for many years.
Posted by:mrevereFebruary 2, 2008 12:12:26 AMRespond ^
I love this "Citizens United . . ." group. Every time they go that over the top, it's another 2-point bump for Hillary. If she is nominated, I hope that Plank 1 of the Republican platform is Whitewater, Plank 2 is Cattle Futures, and Plank 3 is Rose Law Firm files. She'll get 80%. That crap is SO OLD. . . .
Posted by:TricksterFebruary 8, 2008 10:56:43 PMRespond ^
Wow, I'm amazed at your complicity with the lunatics on the right wing fringe. You repeat and advertize these LIES, then act shocked and repelled when ugly truth about Obama also comes out (he skips votes that force him to make hard choices, e.g., 1996 votes on abostion and partial birth abortion). Why do the right wing lies have such traction? Because you so-called liberals repeat them and give them traction. I yearn for real journalists again who refused to allow themselves to be used as tools by fringe Republicans and Republican-lite candidates
Posted by:NPFebruary 12, 2008 9:50:39 AMRespond ^
Ummm... it was a MOVIE REVIEW.
Posted by:DustinchicagoFebruary 20, 2008 1:09:33 PMRespond ^
How can we find the film?
Posted by:candiMarch 7, 2008 8:49:13 AMRespond ^
Those who think everything mentioned is false need to look carefully at the Clinton years. These two may or may not have tried to whack but if it would get her one vote or a superdelegate she would do it in times square on national t.v.
Posted by:JamesMarch 7, 2008 8:52:22 AMRespond ^
So old and so true. Bill my friends is a convicted criminal who was disbarred. Hillary's friend Foster killed himself in the park due to his involvement with the Clintons. Yes lets bring out the old.
Posted by:CandiMarch 7, 2008 8:56:34 AMRespond ^
Who cares----name one politican that hasn't done things same things or worse.
Posted by:mary maryMarch 9, 2008 5:38:12 PMRespond ^
Why hasn't the mainstream media reported on Peter Paul's appeal since it has been granted. I think it is almost criminal if this information is true, that the media is not covering it. They rather cover what someone's mininster says.
Posted by:Frustrated DemocratMarch 20, 2008 8:46:34 AMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2008 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS