They don't get much stranger than this

Submitted by Robert Jung on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 5:30pm.

Okay, I've been holding my tongue on the escalating war-of-the-words between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but I gotta break my vow of silence for this one.

Proving beyond any doubt that politics makes strange bedfellows, here's the matchup I never, never, ever would've expected to see...


...Hillary Clinton and Richard Melon-Scaife.

Why is this so strange? Because Mr. Scaife is the crazy conservative billioniare who bankrolled -- and largely led -- the "vast right-wing conspiracy" against Bill Clinton's presidency in the '90s.

And why were Hillary and Richard breaking bread? Because she was speaking before the staff of his newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, to throw more brickabats at Barack Obama and reinvigorate the bruhaha over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's provocative sermon.

Putting aside the issue of Wright's sermon -- hey, he's not the one running for President, so who cares? -- the fact that Hillary Clinton has no qualms about colluding with the man who spearheaded the campaign against her husband speaks volumes.

More specifically, it speaks volumes about just how far Hillary Clinton is willing to go to win the Democratic party's nomination.


I'm breaking my silence now: Hillary, GO AWAY.

Categories - Current Events :: Politics :: Rant :: Stupidity

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
dvandom's picture
Submitted by dvandom on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 7:23am.

(And, as an aside, propaganda is also only skin deep, as "The Hunt For Bush" proves.)

Robert Jung's picture
Submitted by Robert Jung on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 10:39am.

Well, the behavior of the Clinton campaign in the last few weeks has been bothering me a bit, but this puts it over the top. Hence the rant.

And I've long believed that the difference between propaganda and publicity is the same as that between terrorists and freedom-fighters (with a hat-tip to Ronald Reagan).

--R.J.

Submitted by ryan on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 9:24pm.

I'm not quite sure I follow Hillary's idea here. Why in the world would she chose a person who UNsuccessfully tried to keep her and Bill out of the white house. I mean come on, I could maybe see the benefit if the man had a track record of success but he couldn't keep Bill out, so what in the would makes her think that he could stop Barack. I also think that is strange the the far right views Barack as a larger threat than Hillary because it looks to me that Barack is a more moderate candidate then Hillary, but who knows maybe they think that they can beat her in the election???

Robert Jung's picture
Submitted by Robert Jung on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 7:15am.

Why in the world would she chose a person who UNsuccessfully tried to keep her and Bill out of the white house.

Because even wounding an opponent beats doing nothing at all.

I also think that is strange the the far right views Barack as a larger threat than Hillary because it looks to me that Barack is a more moderate candidate then Hillary, but who knows maybe they think that they can beat her in the election???

Between his popularity, his fundraising abilities, and his lack of scandal, it seems pretty obvious to me that Obama is the more "electable" Democratic. The only area where Hillary has him beat is in experience, and it can be argued that the difference between the two isn't that much.

If Hillary runs, the Republicans can easily mobilize their voters just by dredging up the same unfounded rumors and anti-Clinton sentiment they built up during the '90s. They'll certainly do their worst against Obama, but given a choice it's obvious they'd rather run against her. I seriously doubt Rush Limbaugh is telling his liseners to vote for Hillary in the primaries because he suddenly likes her...

--R.J.