The Hillary Clinton Slush Fund: Dirty Tactics, Dirty Money
With the latest revelations of Clinton friends and close supporters creating an independent campaign fund, which will ultimately be found to have violated campaign finance laws, we now see the union of dirty tactics, dirty money and desperation.
Let's call it what it is: a Clinton slush fund run by close for the purpose of attempting to saturate the airwaves with negative attacks that a near bankrupt campaign can no longer afford to fund themselves.
Lets be direct: the more Hillary Clinton keeps escalating her desperate demolition attacks, folks like myself will have no choice but to respond bluntly and directly because of the damage she is doing to the Democratic Party, not to mention her own future.
Hillary Clinton as CEO has been a disaster who has mismanaged more than $100 million, mismanaged whatever one calls her message, mismanaged political strategy, mismanaged political tactics, and when voters reject her tactics and message, she is reduced to trying overturn the verdict of voters, and because her campaign money has been mismanaged, her friends have to create an independent slush fund using dirty money to finance dirty attacks.
It is wrong enough for a candidate who has so failed to excite the voters to be reduced to nothing more than a negative attack machine against the candidate who lifts voters through true leadership. Now the dirty tactics must be financed through dirty money in what I call a slush fund and what I predict the law will call a violation of campaign finance laws.
Hillary Clinton has learned nothing from the failures of her campaign. This effort is doomed. This campaign will soon be over. This slush fund of independent money to dump negative sludge on the airwaves will be seen by political historians as one of the last gasps of a sad campaign that began as a coronation and will end as a fiasco.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Amazing that a candidate who touts herself as ready to run a country is unable to manage her money or her staff and had no plan B. She reminds me too much of GW.
Hillary is not and was never Presidential. She is only out for herself and doesn't seem to care about anyone else. I only hope they get to the truth of this ALP crap within the next 12 days.
Go Kucinich/Dodd!
OK, barring that, seeing the Clinton machine crash will work, but I'm predicting this:
Hillary Wins both Texas and Ohio, two states known for being easily--um, handled? Then the rules re Florida and Michigan are rescinded and those go to her as well. Lastly, the Super Delegates, (why do I see Wiley Coyote at that phrase?) being DNC apparatchiks, flock to her new found momentum. and Obama is a footnote. Ain't democracy great?
The storyline has been that TX and OH will be easy wins for HRC. There's still about 2 weeks to go before those, right? She started with 20+ point leads in both states and is now into single digit leads. Are you predicting that the slanders from the 527 will work? Because even a single-digit win is a PR loss for her.
But Obama will have time to craft responses that can counter the 527 ("Who are these people? Who is financing them? Why hasn't her highness condemned their message or use? Isn't this what rove would do for his clients?" could be all he needs to do to turn that whole thing around in his favor).
If he's successful, he could win one or both of those states, which kills her. The MSM storyline will be that the pre-ordained winner has been vanquished and the rest of her combat will be the sad and pathetic thrashing of a hooked fish about to be hauled onto the boat.
timm0, love that last image! But still don't trust the corporate media since they drove out all the candidates that didn't fit the storyline they need to sell papers. A Hillary comeback and victory would be a Meg-Lotto win for them.
2nd try--oh well...
timm0, love that last image! But still don't trust the corporate media since they drove out all the candidates that didn't fit the storyline they need to sell papers. A Hillary comeback and victory would be a Meg-Lotto win for them. posted 02/21/2008 at 18:48:41
Hillary gets more shrill with each defeat.
"Lets be direct: the more Hillary Clinton keeps escalating her desperate demolition attacks, folks like myself will have no choice but to respond bluntly and directly because of the damage she is doing to the Democratic Party, not to mention her own future."
Perhaps the specific question that needs to be asked is:
WHY is it SO important for Hillary to 'win'?
That can be answered with 3 little letters:
D L C = K-Street = Business = Ties with BUSH of the 41ST = BIG 'money, honey'.
Democratic "Leadership" Council, thy name and thy 'favorite candidate' is Clintonian "Business as Usual"
Is Nobama so much more noble that he isn't concerned with the power, influence and money of being the POTUS?
LOL
seriously
LMAO
One of the things that's so disturbing about the 527 is that it's so reminiscent of the Republican playbook, which is to bend, break or rewrite the rules to create the outcome you can't achieve legitimately. From stopping a legitimate recount in Florida to DeLay's mid-decade Texas redistricting, from threatening the "nuclear option" to stop filibusters when they controlled the Senate to setting a record number of filibusters in the minority, they feel no compunction about making up their own rules whenever it suits them.
The 527 (and the talk about Michigan and Florida, and the trashing of caucuses after they lose them) reflects the same mentality.
With the 527, she clearly can't expand her donor base to match Obama's. So they circumvent the contribution limits to suit her smaller but wealthier donor base allowing them to give unlimited amounts to game the system.
Some people might look at this and say "good for her, we need to be as ruthless as the Republican
The HRC devotees have skewered me for saying the same basic thing as you. You've made your point much better than I have in the past. The ends (power for me) ALWAYS justifies the means in the neocon world. From toppling sovereign governments, destroying our environment, giving away national lands, to blindly covering up for the illegal activities of their fellow gang members - this is the core of their nature. It is the crux of what most of us despise about DC.
I think the thing that sends the devout HRC folks over the edge is when I state the somewhat obvious conclusion, "I see no difference between HRC and the neocons."
Of course, you may even think I take it one step too far. But I don't think it's overboard. My follow-up on the conclusion is, "And I do not vote for neocons regardless of the party they're in."
"Republican playbook . . . From stopping a legitimate recount in Florida"
Sorry to interrupt the currently scheduled programming but by utilizing the miracle of Wikipedia, you can look up Bush v Gore and actually learn what happened. Maybe even seen the strategic mistake Gore committed. Now back to the current program . . . please carry on with the Clinton bashing.
It's her lack of vision. Always looking at the possible, not the practical - from passing Health Care without support of the Democrats in 92 to continuing a campaign that requires an improbably combination of questionable but legal moves.
She's as booksmart as they come. But just no streetsmarts to go with it. Having the right answer and selling the right answer are two very different skills.
Hillary has never been a Democrat in the real sense of the word or in the definition of it as it applies historically to the Democratic Party. She has always been an opportunist, in that she realized that a woman could never come to power in the Republican sphere. Her instincts are that of a conservative, her performance is that of a backer of causes for children and women; but if you look at her record of successes in this area alone, you will come up short. Her rhetoric tends to the "It Takes A Village" story line, because she figured out at some point in her college career, that such a direction could create success for her, as Eleanor Roosevelt's concern for minorities and the underprivileged found a place in her husband's Presidency.
But Eleanor, grand lady and exquisite human being that she was, would never even have entertained the notion that she should be celebrated for her work, let alone that she was qualified to take over after her husband's demise. She had the quality of humility and the greatness of wanting to serve her country in ways that underscored our best attributes. In short, Hillary you are no Eleanor.
And for the record, the phrase is "it takes an ENTIRE village to raise a SINGLE child".
Is this sort of like Obamatrons forming, in Obama's words, "troubling and meddlesome" 527 PACs? Or is it more like is own hopefund?
Yet another example of the mismanagement and missed opportunities of Senator Clinton's campaign. The fact that she dismissed those people who voted against her as succumbing to nothing more than a collection of speeches, rather than acknowledging that her message wasn't connecting was one of her greatest mistakes.
You do realize that Obama is using money from the HopePAC to fund progressive democratic candidates who are challenging republicans for their seats in Congress?
He's attempting to build a true working majority by supporting lesser known, not as well funded, but quality candidates that he believes can win.
That is significantly different than forming a 527 only to attack your political opposition.
Cheers - Rys
Absolutely right. And another point: earlier in the campaign, Obama and Edwards denounced the formation of 527s supporting their candidacy and demanded they cease operations. Hillary certainly is not doing the same thing.
Like this one? Yes, I see what you mean.
http://www
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
