Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
November 12, 2007 1:45 PM
Hillary Clinton Thinks Iowans Are Stupid
TODAY:
"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wants to take a close look at foreign trade deals. She says she'll call a 'time out' on trade agreements if she wins the White House.'" - Associated Press, 11/12/07
FOUR DAYS AGO:
"Clinton Says Yes to Peru Deal...Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, after prodding from a rival campaign, has issued positions on several trade deals currently before Congress, including her support for an agreement with Peru that is dividing her party." - New York Times, 11/8/07

Discussion
Which makes it all the more ridiculous that you wasted time defending her in the "You People Are Really Nuts" post the other day.
Whether she left a tip or not, who cares,Hillary is Hillary, she doesn't deserve to be defended.
This is exactly the type of political commentary we need right now: to show how blatantly ridiculous these politicians are.
As the old saying goes, 'no one ever went broke under estimating the intelligence of the American people' and it as true today as it was many decades ago when first uttered.
Given the Clintons track record of pandering to corporations, screwing the working people and blatantly selling the Whitehouse to the highest bidder last time they were in power, there is no doubt both of them have nothing but contempt for the voters.
You don't treat people like shit unless you really think they are dumb as rocks.
And if you had intelligent voters, they'd chase Hillary out of Iowa, not listen to the power hungry witch.
Yes that is actually the disconnect between words and deeds that so many "liberals" fall for. Really it should be false advertisement.
In 04 a professor had students evaluate positions of the candidates. Most chose the Green / Nader positions and thought that was what they'd get with Kerry. In fact, it ended up they could not distinguish the positions of Bush and Kerry on health care.
You guy's can trash Hillary now, (I"M pulling for Edwards)but you need to close ranks when she gets the nomination in about nine weeks or you will elect Rudy. After we get the whitehouse and a workable majority in congress we can start to weed out the wheat from the chaff. We need the DINO's now so we can control the agenda. We must not eat our own wayward children!
"After we get the whitehouse and a workable majority in congress we can start to weed out the wheat from the chaff. We need the DINO's now so we can control the agenda. We must not eat our own wayward children!"
Utter bullshit ! That's what we planned on when Bill Clinton won by FLUKE in 1992 thanks to Perot saving his ASS ! We don't want DINOs and we don't want fake "populists" ! The time to weed out the motherfuckers is NOW, goddamnit !!!!
To: Spankinrankin
We sure are better off now under Bush then we were with Bill Clinton. Its guys like you who will give us 8 more years of this crap!
the sage of lexington wrote:
You guy's can trash Hillary now, (I"M pulling for Edwards)but you need to close ranks when she gets the nomination in about nine weeks or you will elect Rudy.
I'm a democratic leaning independent but there is no way I'd vote for that bitch Hillary.
The thing is, ideology wise there is very little difference between Rudy/Romney and Hillary. They are pro-Iraq war, owned by big business and endorsed by them and all crooked as a dog's hind leg. If any are elected it will just be a continuation of the Bush agenda.
Because of this she won't get the independent or ex-GOP vote. All Hillary can count on is hard core brain dead democrats and there are not enough of them to ensure victory for her.
After we get the whitehouse and a workable majority in congress we can start to weed out the wheat from the chaff. We need the DINO's now so we can control the agenda. We must not eat our own wayward children!
I hope you were being sarcastic because thats some funny shit.
I don't think that it is a given that a Rudy is necessary worse than a Hillary. The very likely scenario is a choice between a Democratic congress and Hillary.
If Hillary wins, a consequence will be the loss of the Senate and maybe congress in 2010. I look at it as a wash, either scenario has consequences.
"After we get the whitehouse and a workable majority in congress we can start to weed out the wheat from the chaff." - the sage of lexington
HELLOOOOOO ?!?!?!? Wake your fucking ass up ! We've already got a "workable" majority and they're not doing SHIT except allowing the Bush/Cheney gang and the GOP to DICTATE the rules against the American public !
"We need the DINO's now so we can control the agenda." - the sage of lexington
PFFFFFTTTT !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! Come on now, what the fuck is eating your mind ?!?!? We've already got enough FUCKING DINOs and they've already controlled our agenda against our will and allowing the GOP to FUCK and RAPE them ! America does NOT need DINOs. They need REAL represenatation and the only way to get it is to vote INDEPENDENT and dump these two parties already !
"We must not eat our own wayward children!" - the sage of lexington
But that's what the fuck DINOs are allowing to happen !!
Join the Discussion