portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

election fraud | government | political theory

Hilary Clinton and the right wing conspiracy

fascist versus fascist
Hilary after not taking the steps to assure a a healthy fulling functional democracy by objection to the Ohio electoral college is now having the right wing attack her again.

Some of the story:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director has been indicted on charges of filing fictitious reports that misstated contributions for a Hollywood fund-raising gala for the senator, the Justice Department said Friday.

The indictment, rare for a political campaign, was unsealed in Los Angeles charging David Rosen with four counts of filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission. The charges focus on an Aug. 12, 2000, dinner and concert supported by more than $1.1 million in "in-kind contributions": goods and services provided free or below cost. The event was estimated to cost more than $1.2 million.

The FBI previously said in court papers that it had evidence the former first lady's campaign deliberately understated its fund-raising costs so it would have more money to spend on her campaign.


So here is my question: After she backstabbed the democratic process and supported Kerik as replacment of Ashcroft does she expect us to support her? Let the right wing conspirators have her after all she is one of them too. I wonder how much the republican fascists bought her off for when it came to the electoral college? Or did they promise her not to attack her reputation?

add a comment on this article

the coming of the Purge! 08.Jan.2005 03:37


I am guessing that every democrat from the house to the senate will have some accusation or publically humiliating thing come to light over the next month. The dorks should have voted for objection all the way. With so many senators absent from the emergency meeting they could have even won. Now Barbara Boxer and the members of the house that objected can be the only ones to claim "political witch hunt" if some accusations come up against them. Stupid ass democratic senators that said no to the objection will slowly get weeded out by the neo-cons. Watch your backs Wyden, Kennedy, Clinton and the other fools that did not object. The neo-cons will get you with every disgusting scandal they can now. We are about to see a Stalin-esque purging of the political branches.

You are right 08.Jan.2005 05:45


It's the beginning of the end. But on the bright side, the Republicans will actually help weed out the weak, corrupt Democrats... most of them. I have this theory that all this talk about Hillary Clinton being the chosen Dem. candidate for pres. is actually concocted by the Republican right wing media. You hear Republicans talk about this scenario more than Democrats. Unfortunately some "lefties" on Indymedia are guilty of repeating their talking points. A Hillary candidacy is what the Republicans want most wholeheartedly. They know exactly how to tear her apart limb by limb, and they would enjoy it more than anything. Hillary is smarter than Pelosi, but has not much more backbone. Her weaknesses are evident and easy to attack. She will always be on the defensive, and never on the offensive. That's the way they like it. How did such a quivering mass of spinelessness like Nancy Pelosi ever get minority leader anyway? She couldn't lead a parade in a one street town.

Hillary scares me 08.Jan.2005 11:02

Teddy Ruxpin (The Lousy Typist)

Just my personal opinion, but I think the lady is dangerous. She has no chance of getting elected president, but a very good chance of getting the dem nomination. All conservatives and half the liberals hate the lady with a passion, but the bigwigs and donors love her to death. If 2008 goes the way it looks, we will wind up with Jeb or Rudy as president.

The odds are long that the environment will survive that.

"The odds are long that the environment will survive that." 08.Jan.2005 11:34


the "environment"

will survive all kinds of human activity, irrespective of Whitey House occupancy.

what matters is our *individual* contribution - our behavior and consumption patterns - and awareness thereof.

you are either AWARE of what is happening to mother earth, and how your own consumption/behavior choices impact it,


the lemmings who drive SUVs to shop at Wal-Mart will never change, no matter who's in the Whitey House.

A Mystery To Me... 08.Jan.2005 12:18

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

...why Hillary would be any more a dead weight on the ticket than any other soulless DLC twerpface like Gore or Kerry.

To me the saddest part of Hillary getting the nomination would be watching other feminists get all ecstatic, as if having a warmongering social Darwinist in a skirt in charge would be any better than having a warmongering social Darwinist in pants in charge. The mainstream feminist movement, like the larger Unions and civil rights groups, functions as nothing these days but a glorified cheering squad for anything calling itself a Democrat. Their utter lack of interest in election reform to promote 3rd Parties, to say nothing of their muteness in the face from Right-Wing 5th Columnists being rocketed to success in the Party (ie-- Reid) is testimony to that fact.

Blecch. Let them run Winona LaDuke if they're serious about promoting women of conscience. Maybe Lyn Stewart could be Veep.

Fork and Spoon operator 08.Jan.2005 14:43


I think pre-vious comment right about jeb-jeb--because look how he's not the AG nominee, or DHS nominee, or any other office that's being abandoned, because there's an ace up their sleeve. Irony is, he's smarter and could surely "run" things better than GW. Did you know, GW got to run for president first only because he became a state governor first? Jeb-jeb lost his '94 run for Florida governor, while GW won. It's that simple, and it's nauseating too. If they'd both won their '94 races though, maybe GW would have been the frontrunner anyway, why?, because Texas is BIGGER than Florida.

As about Hillary, I think she'd be a wonderful choice for president. She'd be "tough on terror" if you get my drift. And the republicans would cast some stuff her way, but look how right now they're going after each other. It's basic socio-science--the biggest rats fight with each other for the female rat, or in the national scope, the concept of feminine/oil/.

??? 08.Jan.2005 16:21

i don't buy it


> what matters is our *individual* contribution - our behavior
> and consumption patterns - and awareness thereof.

i.e., public policy doesn't matter,

just keep shopping (but shop "consciously")

and remember that the global disaster
is personally your fault
because you're shopping wrong

"the biggest rats fight with each other for the female rat" 08.Jan.2005 21:28


The basic concept of the biggest rats fighting is correct, though I don't know that the gender aspect has much to do with it. I see the party system in America as more of a turf war between rival Mafia-like gangs vying for primacy over turf. There's little difference between the parties philosophically, and they certainly don't represent "We, the people", neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans. Sure, they do a lot of posturing for their brain-dead constituencies over such artificially generated "moral" issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, creationism and abortion rights, but no politician has the basic morality he/she was born with. All they really care about is carving up and controlling this great fiefdom in the same way that gangland chieftains carve up and control the drug trade, prostitution rings, numbers games and protection rackets. No difference between what routinely happens in politics and the infamous gangland summit at Appalachin. None whatsoever. Power and influence is everything - all the rest is just theater for the masses. The real question is, what happens when the victims of a shakedown racket held together by nothing but fear and implied threats decide as a group to rise and teach their oppressors a lesson (either politically or actually)? And where is Robespierre when he's needed? (Knit one, perl two ...)

wake the fuck up - "???" is BOUGHT AND SOLD. 08.Jan.2005 21:38


"i.e., public policy doesn't matter, just keep shopping (but shop "consciously") and remember that the global disaster is personally your fault because you're shopping wrong"

--who brought up "shopping consciously" until you did?

ever tried "shopping consciously" without a JOB or a HOME?

it's a LOT more complex than simple shopping patterns,


and people *without* jobs or homes care a LOT about "public policy" -

as for "public policy",

that's not what US Imperialism is all about - it's CORPORATE Policy, ever more so since the 1940s, that dictates what the US Federal Government - and down the layer-cake, state/municipal/local governments - does, and decrees.

as for the lemmings who drive SUVs to shop at Wal-Mart: they'll never change, no matter who's in the Whitey House. if you want to "blame" anyone, blame them.

I personally don't "blame" them for anything, except allowing themselves led around by the nose under Imperial Corporate Rule. WHO THE FUCK AM I TO DENIGRATE WHAT THEY, THEMSELVES, ENJOY AND THRIVE IN??? Live and let live, I say.

"global disaster" -

uuuhhh, which one are you talking about? Ronald Reagan's? Bill Clinton's? sounds pretty junior-high-school Goth-Depressive-Trench-Coat-Columbine to be talking about "global disaster" . . .

I'd recommend you get yourself a Tech-9 and Glock, just take out your frustrations about "global disaster" on your immediate neighbors, rather than inflict them here upon caring and perceptive Portland Indymedia souls.

it's *our* "fault" that Reagan was pResident? That his former-CIA-director-VP George Herbert Walker Bush succeeded him, and Americans loved it just as much? That GHWB's draft-dodging-former-coke-addict-turned-BornAgain-fundamentalist son has now succeeded even *him* for two terms?

it's *our* "fault" that despite NINE OUT OF TEN AMERICANS called in to their Congresspersons urging them to OPPOSE the Iraq War Resolution in fall 2002, most of Congress wholeheartedly approved it?

it's *our* "fault" that the entire US Media is controlled by six (6) corporations?

what have *****YOU***** been doing about it for the past 25 years, Mr. "???"

Did you "vote" for Mondale/Ferraro in '84?

did you "vote" Dukakis in '88?

did you "vote" Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96?

Did you "vote" Gore/Lieberman (Lieberman, Jesus H. Christ) in 2000?

Did you "vote" Kerry/Edwards on Nov. 2nd, 2004?

who - in the US Senate - "voted" to approve Electoral College Results this past week?

you think US 'politicians' are doing something for YOU PERSONALLY Mr. [Delusional] "???", or for The American People 'collectively'?

we (i.e. frequent users of Portland Indymedia) ALL KNOW the causes - circumstances - potential cures of/for this Empire.

but "voting" in sham "elections" changes nothing. especially not at the National-US Presidency-White House level. this system is too corrupt to allow that sort of "change" to occur.

nothing to do now but watch it fall, learn to grow your own food, and stay clear of urban areas and shopping districts while doing so.

to the highes bidder
to the highes bidder
Number of Corporations Controlling US Mass Media, 1983-2004
Number of Corporations Controlling US Mass Media, 1983-2004
US President
US President "controls" "public policy"???!? unh, unh.

here's the perfect post for Mr. Ironic "i don't buy it ???" - 08.Jan.2005 22:01

Wyden pushing hard for health care reforms

ooohh, it's so "ironic" that "public policy" is "not important"

[BUT Help America Vote Act = Diebold / ES & S Electronic Voting Machines **ARE** IMPORTANT to Wyden . . .]


yup 09.Jan.2005 23:46

Teddy Ruxpin (The Lousy Typist)

Hillary would not be more "dead weight" so much as "actively despised." Kerry was dead weight, he was jsut there, and few cared enough to vote for him (I voted for him, but really really hated his ass).

Hillary, on the other hand, is as hated as Bush, just by different people. So you combine the passion opposing Bush that most of us feel, with the support for Bush's sucessor, and you wind up with the most hated Dem candidate running against a very well supported republican candidate.

Ok, that is not very clear, but I am a SHITTY typist, and drinking. Just chew it over until you get my point. Bush=lots of money and support. Hillary=hatred from all right and center voters. Bad equation, guaranteed republican win. Third party desirable but still at least three election cycles away from taking over. Life sucks.

Yep 10.Jan.2005 00:55


Illustrating my point that the push to make Hillary the Dem. candidate is orchestrated by the Republicans. They just can't stop talking about her.

add a comment on this article