Huffpost Politics
The Blog

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Stan Goff Headshot

Top Three

Posted: Updated:

The three approved Democratic "front-runners" need some demystification.

Let's review the bidding.

Counterpunch's very fine series about Senator Clinton is a good place to start:

It's clear from Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s very revealing Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton that Mrs. Clinton played a major role in driving White House lawyer Vince Foster to suicide. After the Clintons arrived in the White House, it became Foster's role to guard their secrets. It was one thing to lock documents into a secret room during the campaign. It was quite another to play hide-and-seek with files in the White House, as Mrs. Clinton required Foster to do. Now there weren't nosy reporters but special prosecutors with subpoenas, looking for documents relevant to Whitewater, to Mrs. Clinton's billing records at Rose Law, her tax records relevant to the commodity trades. Foster was tasked with hiding all these documents: some in his house, some in his office and some - the most damaging files - back in his Little Rock house.


Now let's have a look at Black Agenda Report's background check on Senator Obama:

Obama is a confused man, driven by consultants and no common sense. The United States has coddled and put cash in the accounts of the Pakistani military for two generations, as a bulwark against socialist India, also a nuclear power. The Americans' Saudi surrogates financially supported the religious schools in western Pakistan that gave birth to the Taliban, and took over Afghanistan. Obama now proposes that the U.S. fund an alternative school system in Pakistan - but under what regime? He has no idea, and not a clue about how to secure The Bomb.


Finally, let's see what John Walsh discovered about John Edward's anti-war epiphany... since Johnny, a shitbird from my home state, sicked the police on us when we confronted him on his warmongering in 2004. He has staked out his terrain on the populist left of Clinton and Obama, including his antiwar epiphany (which in no way means getting out of Iraq... he will recant that the minute he is in office, because he is a liar):

There's this...

So how is consulting to a hedge fund going to be helpful in understanding poverty?

Well, you know! The same way working on an asparagus farm will help you understand high fashion. The same way working for the Metropolitan Opera will help you understand termite control. The same way working for Paris Hilton will help you understand string theory. In other words, not helpful at all of course---what do you think I am, an idiot?


...or this...

Edwards declared in an op-ed column in the Washington Post on November 13, 2005: "The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war." Sounds simple enough. "Had I known then what I know now, etc." Poor John Edwards was deceived. But was he? How was it that 21 other Democratic Senators and 2 Republicans were not deceived and voted against the war?


Cynthia McKinney looks pretty good to me right now.