Hillary’s Hit List: Democrats Marked On Scale Of Seven For Disloyalty

[Purveyor]

From Kerry to Kennedy, allegiance to Obama cost in rating in Clinton’s report card

BY PETER FOSTER

WASHINGTON — Hillary and Bill Clinton keep a detailed “hit list” of everyone who has crossed them during more than 20 years at the apex of American politics, a new book has claimed.

The list of so-called “sinners and saints” — including John Kerry, now secretary of state, and the late Ted Kennedy — was compiled on a spreadsheet in the dying days of Hillary Clinton’s failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

The alleged sheet of betrayals — and there were many that year — ranked offenders on a scale from one to seven and was compiled by aides to give the Clintons an instant database of those who deserved political favour, and those who did not.

“Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favours that had been done for them, then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons as if it all had happened just a few hours before,” wrote the authors of HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons have a reputation in Washington for long memories but the existence of a digital favour book raises questions about how Hillary Clinton, 66, might conduct another run at the presidency in 2016. The book paints a picture of how wounding and dispiriting the 2008 campaign was for the Clintons as leading Democrats deserted them for Barack Obama, whose instant celebrity trumped years of hard networking and their established pre-eminence as the most powerful double act in Democrat politics.

MORE...

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Hillary+list+Democrats+marked+scale+seven+disloyalty/9382576/story.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. What's wrong with having an enemies list?

Warmest regards,

Richard Milhous Nixon

[jsr]

24. The best Nobel Peace laureat maintains a kill list.

[marshall]

46. It certainly helped Nixon claw his way to the White House

After a stinging defeat delivered by Kennedy.

[Squinch]

2. I think they were ultimately pretty supportive of Obama, who at one point was their enemy.

[Purveyor]

4. Politically, they had little choice. eom

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Not surprised. Not at all.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Instant celebrity

Haha...I don't have religious objections to the Clintons this time around, but it was fun to beat their asses in 2007-8. They probably still don't know what hit them. (Hint: It wasn't instant celebrity so much as Clinton fatigue and an unforgivable war vote combined with a very attractive alternative, who has proven himself worthy of the promise, imo.)

I give the Clintons credit for having endured. They had a walk in the desert coming to them and they took it. Onwards.

[JoePhilly]

6. I wonder if they are on her DU Jury Blacklist, or Ignore list.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Obama didn't win just because he was seen as a celebrity.

[Chan790]

8. He also won because he wasn't Hillary Clinton...

and because he was a perfectly suitable candidate himself with a platform that more closely reflected the positions of the electorate in both the primary and the general election.

Hillary can suck an egg. I will always work against her ever being President.

[Whisp]

9. Many reasons why he won, last of which is that he is black.

Somehow that ridiculous reason/excuse comes mostly from the rabid PUMAs.

He was charismatic and genuine without skeletons to worry about and so he could just be himself, and that is what we all wanted. He won on his own merits and talents both in 2008 and 2012.

And he was smart like anything. He oozed with smart like anything and after the Chimperor I think that could have been the main attraction for Mr. Obama. During the primaries Hillary didn't have that at all, she goofed up in so many ways... most of which is having her husband and Penn run the show.

[Leontius]

13. Charismatic yes without a doubt, genuine no way in hell.

[Beacool]

15. Bill didn't run her campaign.

Genuine???? He's a politician, he said what he needed to say to win.

As for what "we" wanted. He didn't close the deal. They both didn't have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. It was the super delegates who decided on the nomination.

[karynnj]

33. Obama had significantly more regular delegates than HRC

The ONLY way HRC could have won were if the SUPER DELEGATES WENT DISPROPORTIONATELY for her.

What was interesting was that in earlier races, you never really heard about the super delegates. The first time the idea was floated that Obama could be higher in the pledged delegate count and lose, was after HRC failed to secure the nomination on Super Tuesday. Suddenly, from the NYT to the WP, there were articles of how the superdelegates could opt for her proven leadership - and tip the balance.

At that time, Senator Kerry argued that he did not see the superdelegates not going with the person that won the most pledged delegates. (Note that Kerry was a top Obama surrogate and it was easy for him to argue this as there was NO talk of superdelegates taking the electoral victory away from HRC if she had more pledged delegates.) Not to mention a large group of superdelegates pledged to go with the winner of the pledge delegate count.

After this was floated, another strange "animal" appeared that never existed before. The national primary vote count. This never made sense - especially as some states got no "primary votes" because of how they did their caucuses. Additionally, it greatly underweighted every state with a caucus. It also included a huge primary vote from PR. This was used as a reason to "justify" the super delegates ignoring the pledged delegate count.

Clinton did not give up on the idea of the superdelegates switching to her until about a month after the last primary. During that month, she did not return to the Senate, which was in session. As to her supporters, some held out until the convention.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. That's right. He won on is OWN merit, not because "white people" helped him or for some other

reason other than his own talents!

I'm so sick and tired of people saying this about the successes of black people. We are smart people. We are talented people.

And the thing that really turned me off about the Clintons was their unwillingness to give this man his just due. They were no better than the right wing. In fact, they were absolutely disgusting in their racism. Appearing on Faux News, feeding into the racist frenzy. I had a hard time forgiving the Clintons in 2008 for their behavior. I eventually did and moved on. But every once in a while, Bill Clinton will say or do something underhanded and memories of 2007-8 resurface. That is a moment in time that I do not ever want to relive again because I witnessed a lot of racism in the Democratic Party that really shocked me. Some of it on DU as well.

[Beacool]

14. Don't worry they'll be enough of us fighting against the rest of you.

[WeekendWarrior]

10. And this is a bad thing why? nt

[Whisp]

25. Because people don't like to feel owned.

There is a big difference between common interest and support, and demanding loyalty. The clintons must have overstepped big time to have such a backlash against them. I mean how much would you feel you owe someone who got your kid into a special college as a favour to you but with a huge price tag, and for how long and how far?

This is actually good news. I doubt very much they have repaired much in that aspect so 2016 ain't inevitable either.

[wyldwolf]

11. ... and it's being reported because it's Hillary. I'd wager MOST politicians have lists like this...

... but no one cares about too many other politicians.

[Whisp]

12. sure, but how many others are king makers or breakers

like the Clintons Think they are?

[Beacool]

17. They don't think it, they are powerful.

Big difference.

[Whisp]

19. But is that good for a democracy?

Whose vote or work should count more, the candidates efforts and platforms or who the Clintons decide lives and or dies in the dem political arena?

No, they are not as powerful as they thought - that's obvious when you look at 2008, but they do have too much influence - that's creepy.

[Beacool]

20. Oh please, politics is a blood sport.

[Whisp]

21. do you think the Koch bros. influence is all in the sport too?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. Their sense of entitlement is what always seems to get them in trouble, too.

They need to tread lightly.

[Beacool]

16. Politicians always have these lists. Anyone involved in campaigns knows that.

It's not nefarious. It's a list of supporters and those who didn't support the candidate. The list is used for future elections. It's also used to help those who supported the candidate when they are up for reelection. Bill campaigned for many politicians who had supported Hillary in 2008 as she couldn't do it herself until she stepped down as SOS.

What's the big deal?

[PassingFancy]

18. You're so right

Yes, all politicians have these lists - that's not news.

Back in '08, everyone I knew who was a Democrat during the primaries wanted Hillary and voted for her in the primaries.

As for the hit lists, I don't see a problem with them myself - if I were in a high profile position or field, I'd keep a hit list also.

[Whisp]

23. I wonder if the Clintons have a hit list for Repuglicans and Baggers too

or do they just have scores to settle with Democrats?

[Beacool]

29. This is about primary endorsements, not the general election.

Furthermore, if you think that any other campaigns didn't have similar lists, then you have never worked in a presidential campaign. I just remembered, you probably haven't since you don't live in the US, but I'm sure that Canadian politicians do the same.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Can you imagine how long Jimmy Carter's list is?

Wow.

[Beacool]

27. Carter?

He's been out of politics for decades.

[HappyMe]

22. Oh please. The Clinton's are a

Money Making Machine.


blech! 2014! Or HillAhReee don't mean shit.

She won't get a dime from me (although I'm sure she could give a fuck).

She's got plenty of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Beacool]

28. It takes plenty of money to run a presidential campaign.

How much money was raised by Obama and Romney in 2012? It topped a billion dollars.

[polichick]

30. That's how it works - and we fool ourselves if we think that...

what we, the people want has anything to do with what goes on in "our" gov't.

I look back at all the campaigns I've worked, the hope and care people poured into them, and I see what a colossal waste of time it all was.

Will the Democratic Party ever again see a true people's candidate worthy of our work, hope and care? I wouldn't bet on it.

[Impedimentus]

31. Hillary is better than ...

Christie
Cruz
Paul
Santorum
Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Rick Perry
999 fool Herman Cain
or any of the other members of the Republican Clown Show

However, she is still a corporatist Democrat who will support free trade agreements that will harm the poor and the middle class, high levels of defense spending, and she is a good friend of the Wall Street banksters. So, things will likely get bad for the rest of us at a slower rate and economic enslavement will be put off for a few years. Some future America.

[Paladin]

32. I'd much rather have a Democrat with a well-used Enemies List.....

....than a Democrat who pisses away time and effort, naively believing that other politicians are well-meaning and reasonable and open to productive compromise. It's called living in the real world.

[SidDithers]

36. Peter Foster is a right-wing hack...

so, of course, you think he's an acceptable source to use to bash Hillary at DU.

Here he is defending Thatcher and Reagan.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/12/10/apartheid-reagan-thatcher/



Sid

[Purveyor]

37. Are you saying a 'hit-list' did not exist? I can flood this forum with other sources if you wish.

[SidDithers]

38. No, I'm saying it's typical for you to use right-wing or questionable sources...

I know you're a fan of presstv too. It makes me wonder what kind of agenda you're pushing when you choose these sources to use at DU.

The Sun Media Group in Canada has pretty much the same editorial position as Fox News.

Sid

[Purveyor]

39. Well you just keep wondering Sidney and in the meantime, I'll stop being bothered by your

drivel.

See ya...

[SidDithers]

40. And I'll point it out every time you do it...

Better believe it.

Sid

[Beacool]

42. What chafes is the term "hit-list".

As opposed to what it is, a list of supporters and those who didn't support her in 2008. Such lists are common. It serves to know who's with you and who is against you within the party. These lists are fluid because today's supporter may be your opponent tomorrow and yesterday's rival may support you in your next election.

Notice how McCaskill joined "Ready for Hillary". This time around she wants to be in her bandwagon, if Hillary does choose to run again.

Also notice that there hasn't been any retaliation against those who didn't support her in 2008. She's no Christie denying towns their rightful share of Sandy funds or having his staffers inconvenience thousands of people to get back at the mayor of a city.

[Jakes Progress]

41. An idiotic meme started by republican operatives

to try to blunt criticism about christie. Only very naive or very confused Democrats would help them do this.

Shame on you.

[Beacool]

43. Or Democrats with their own agenda..........

[musicblind]

44. I did that.

Once when I was so depressed and hurt in my life, I hit rock bottom and did the same thing. It was a way of coping.

I did it in word and not a spreadsheet though.

But you know what else I did? Years later, I found that list and threw it away in disgust at myself.

It helped me cope at the time because it made me feel like I had some kind of control, and I think this is probably why the Clinton's did it.

They felt betrayed and hurt. No matter how much you say it is 'just politics' these are still people and it still hurts.

Obama WAS the better choice in the end.

Yes, I was a Hillary supporter throughout the primaries... but in retrospect I am actually glad that Obama won. I don't think our country would be as well off as it is if he hadn't. And yes, we are well off compared to 6 years ago.

I also think that he gave Hillary the best opportunity, and a better opportunity than VP. Being Secretary of State gave her the chance to show the world that she wasn't just a cardboard cut out propped up by her husband.

Now, after 8 years of this wonderful president, I truly am ready for Hillary, as the super pac says.

I thought she would be a great president, and while a better one came along last time, I can't imagine that will happen twice in a row. Maybe it will, but I am for Hillary all the way.

Reading her book, and watching her life, I feel like she is a good person deep down. I feel like she is right for the country. I also feel like she is a lot more left than she lets on. I am more left than her public persona, but not more left than I think she actually is. I support gay marriage, and I am anti-war.

I also imagine they have probably done what I did with that hit list long ago... discarded it forever.

[Skip Intro]

45. Meh. Why does the author point out her age?

How is that relevant?

Why not also point out her race, gender, faith, etc?

There's a reason, and it is to use her age against her.

That's fine, the writer has every right to assemble facts as he/she sees fit. But it is illegal in this country to discriminate on many factors, including age, when it comes to employment. So it is kind of a shame that a reporter, who should be unbiased, would use such a fact as a subtle slant, even though there are laws against just such discrimination in employment, and Hillary will, most likely, be asking us to hire her.

Just thought it was a weird thing to point out her age.