Have Clintons been NeoCons in Dem's clothing all along, and we just didn't notice?

[99th_Monkey]

Yes, eight years of Bush/Cheney has been mind numbing. But maybe there's a silver lining around that murky cloud of
unknowing. Maybe things are finally being fully unmasked and revealed to be what/who they really are, when push comes
to shove. And believe me, push has come to shove with the '08 Democratic nomination.

Seriously though, in light of how much Hill & Billy have pretty much always been a part of the shady pro-globalization
Bohemian Club Elite that's been chomping at bit for global domination for decades, could it be that the Clintons have
always been NeoCons? Granted, I think Bill Clinton's presidency pretty much exemplified a very best case scenario of
deep DNC penetration via collusion with the GOP Darker Side.

At least Bill started no major wars and gave us a balanced budget; and for that I'm grateful. Those were better
years by most any measure. We need to give credit where it's due: Good job Bill.

But that was then and now is now. And speaking of now ...

Now Hillary's all but openly endorsing the GOP nominee McSame (over Obama) not once, but numerous times on national TV.

Now Hillary's reaching into Rove's grab bag of filthy tricks in an apparent to attempt a deliver a knock out blow
to the Democratic Party nominee-apparent.

>A knock-out blow to any semblance of an American Dream for anyone, well except
for the super-rich. They get ALL the marbles, fuck "we the people". Game over.

>A knock-out blow to any chance of affordable health care.

>A knock-out blow to Supreme Court appointments needed to escape the head-lock the NeoCons have already had on our
Judiciary branch of government for WAY to long already.

>A knock out blow to ANY chances of ANY investigation or ANY prosecution of the legendary multiple high crimes of the
Bush/Cheney cabal.

>A knock out blow to any chance of ending the war in Iraq in less than 100 years,

I cannot help myself from wondering who the fuck's side Hill & Bill are on. The best face I can put on this is: "Gee,
maybe the Clintons have been NeoCons all along and not even known it." I suppose that IS a possibility.

But I ask you, who but a NeoCon (consciously or not) would chose this hand-maiden of Hell role she's playing?

[baldguy]

1. The Clintons are not neocons.

Neocons are fascists in the mold of Franco & Mussolini.

The Clintons are old-fashioned cloth-coat conservatives.

[99th_Monkey]

3. Well then, they are willing dupes at the very least.

[baldguy]

8. I wouldn't argue with that.

[billyoc]

2. No. They're neo-liberals. nt

[99th_Monkey]

5. I think I like the Ol' Fashioned Libs the best, like FDR & JFK.

[Imagevision]

4. eh! I don't know, I think Bill hangin with poppy, some of it rubbed off.

[99th_Monkey]

9. I know. The cozy pictures of those two are disturbing.

I'm just kind of mind blown right now ... I really used to respect and admire the Clintons. I hate
them acting like this. Arrrggghhh.. :mad:

[dailykoff]

6. Yep. They've been cutting deals sice before 92.

But Bill looks a little like Elvis and says he feels our pain. :shrug:

[99th_Monkey]

11. So have the scales fallen off the public's eyes yet?

I can't wait.

[dailykoff]

13. My impression is that they're falling, yes.

Don't count on CNN to tell you about it.

[DJ13]

7. Yes

One of the co-founders of the DLC with the Clintons signed the PNAC letter
(http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) to Clinton pleading for an invasion of Iraq back in 1998.

[dailykoff]

12. Before 911, there was WTC '93, OKC '95, Waco,

Iraq sanctions, welfare reform, nafta, and etc., all on Clinton's watch.

[VenusRising]

10. Since the founder of the DLC was a PNAC signatory

I would say YES!!!!!!! Bill and Hillary have been DLC members since the beginning.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295.html

[99th_Monkey]

15. Call me shocked & awed.

I was bamboozled. I actually thought the Clintons were pretty cool until all these sleazy attacks on Obama
opened my eyes ... woo-hoo .. now I can see!!

[VenusRising]

17. It took a while for me to wake up to it.

I really thought that she was going to get into the Senate and do really great things. Mostly, she sat idly by or used her vote to allow the most horrible atrocities. It was so upsetting. And then to see Bill hanging out with Poppy Bush it just made me sick. I gave up on the Clintons after that for the most part.

[Beaverhausen]

14. Just when I thought I had seen and read it all, now this

the Clintons are not neo-cons, but please, don't let me rain on your parade. Enjoy yourselves.

:rofl:

[99th_Monkey]

16. Why is she deliberately undermining Obama's chances or beating McSame then

complete with virtual endorsements of the GOP nominee numerous times on national TV.

That's the part I can't quite wrap my head around.

[Beaverhausen]

18. Undermining Obama's chances? It's called a campaign. Maybe you've heard of it

[99th_Monkey]

19. A "campaign" so called, sans a winning strategy, adequate funding, enought delegates. Whatever.

a "campaign" using sleazy Rovian tactics ... oh well.

[Armstead]

20. Same Clintons as always -- Neoliberal Phonies

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000214/greider

Unfinished Business: Clinton's Lost Presidency

William Greider

...Clinton, as President, consigned the malfunctioning global economy to the reform energies of the ...usiness Roundtable and Wall Street. His Administration led cheers for multinational commerce, opened fragile economies to the manic surges of global capital and created the World Trade Organization to judge whether new social standards are, in fact, barriers to trade and therefore forbidden.

When Bill Clinton recites the big challenges, he reminds us of all he danced away from as President. The spirited reformer is the young man we met back in 1992, brimming with big ideas, but he is utterly unconvincing now. One feels sadness for the lost promise of this extraordinarily skillful politician. One also suspects that Clinton is trying to revise the public memory of his presidency, polishing his reformer image so that when future Presidents actually do take up these big ideas and confront the challenges, he will be able to claim parentage.

Clinton has taught Democrats to think small. And it works as politics in this media age, given his talent for emotive communication. Republicans are learning from him too, smoothing over their big ideas with more charm, less snarl. Clinton's many retreats from large purpose--accompanied always by small, symbolic gestures--were supposed to restore faith in government, bit by bit, and raise public expectations for genuine action. Instead, his political success has deepened the skepticism. For the cynical and disengaged, he confirms their assumption that politics is not real. For idealistic young people, who feel Clinton did the best he could, the message is that large ideas are simply impossible to achieve in this era.

Clinton's shrewd politics did lead the Democratic Party onto new ground, but it looks like a trap. When the President was elected in 1992, the Democrats had fifty-seven senators; now they have forty-five. They controlled Congress, with a House majority of 266; now they have a minority of 211. They held twenty-eight governorships and a majority of state legislatures; now Democrats have seventeen governors and a minority of the state assemblies. Republicans have their own problems in establishing a stable majority, but for the moment, their guy is running ahead in presidential polls despite a glowing prosperity that ought to insure easy victory for White House Democrats.

The "New Democrat" straddle--the money comes from business and finance, the votes from ordinary people--worked for Clinton, but it is a cul-de-sac for the party that claims to speak for the working class and poor, that built its reputation by leading bravely on the toughest questions of reform. The Clinton success actually confines Election 2000, limiting what his party's candidates can say and think. One important subtext of this election is whether the Democrats will find a way out of the dilemma or simply become smaller in number, weaker in purpose.....

MORE

[99th_Monkey]

21. good read. thanks. nt

[pop goes the weasel]

22. As my son-in-law says

Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

[Tesha]

23. Yes. But some of us noticed. (NT)

[shadowknows69]

24. They're part of the same power elite,oops there's that word again.

I honestly think the Corportacracy would be satisfied with either McCain or Clinton because they believe they can control them. Obama has promised some things that would definitely upset the "New World Order" of the universe.