Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 9, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

STAR POWER....The LA Times reports on the political lay of the land recently in Tinsel Town:

Here's the buzz these days: Clinton's presidential bid has begun to regain momentum over Obama's in the entertainment industry. In fact, it's become so strong that Steven Spielberg, once considered a solid supporter of Illinois Democrat Obama, is now believed to be leaning in favor of Clinton, according to longtime industry politicos.

....At a celebrity-studded reception at News Corp. President Peter Chernin's house — an event co-hosted by Spielberg and television financier Haim Saban — Clinton brought in $850,000....Later, the junior senator from New York went to director Brett Ratner's house, where she raised $250,000....The former first lady wowed crowds last week, said longtime Hollywood political consultant Donna Bojarsky...."She did a real tour-de-force analysis of the world."

But who is Paris Hilton supporting? And how is Fred Thompson faring? More gossip, please.

Kevin Drum 1:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

A Clinton Presidency will not bring change.

I, for one, am not surprised that Hillary is supported by Big Money interests, who do not want change.

Posted by: bungholio on June 9, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

This is why, no matter when the primary is scheduled, California is never going to be taken seriously in national politics.

Posted by: AJ on June 9, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Scary. Neither Clinton nor Obama, as far as I can tell, have hands on government executive experience (e.g. Governor, big city mayor, head of government agency) and/or hands on foreign policy experience. Given the mess this country is in, on so many levels, what would prompt anyone to support a candidate that did not have real life experience making trains run on time? Despite the cliche, I can't believe people in Hollywood are that star struck and that dense. Maybe they are.

Posted by: Fred on June 9, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

It should come as no surprise that the same media that reports on the box office of the movie as a measure of the movie's worth is fascinated with a candidate's fundraising.

Posted by: Jim 7 on June 9, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Fred- there's difference between being a leader and an administrator. Romney was a do nothing place holder for four years, for example. He appointed a couple of hacks and had a bunch of vetoes overridden, but he got a nice title for resume. Hardly a recommendation for a promotion, though.

Posted by: AJ on June 9, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

What Jim 7 said.

But if you keep pointing out how much money allegedly "left-wing" candidates like Hillary raise from Hollywood, it might give you a tool for selling conservatives on campaign finance reform. Which is what we desperately need.

Posted by: thersites on June 9, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking from the heart of Hollywood, Fred, yes, we're that dense. We back up Prius-loads of money for candidates with a chance at winning and then going on to re-establish common sense in governing this rather large nation. Such a simple, half-considered idea. What are we thinking?

Posted by: djangone on June 9, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

The quality of a candidate's executive resume is a rational concern, and therefore meaningless to the majority of voters.

Gore and Kerry looked like professors. Reagan looked like a sheriff. Voters take great comfort in the idea that all it takes is horse sense, plain talk, and balls. Acknowledging that high intelligence, extensive knowledge, and significant experience are essential in candidates would requite voters to face their own inadequacies.

Posted by: chance on June 9, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Her experience, and knowledge of job-related components are strong.
She's not perfect. But I like getting Bill if we get Hillary.
Billary.
I remember the 90's fondly as a time of peace and prosperity.
The music was great--the Seattle sound.
I long for the days of Bill and Hillary, given this current been around way too long macho
man war - mongering flag draped coffin photo forbidding in denial no plan for the occupation ruinous current in debt social security fund robbing administration.
I want a place for Al Gore in the Clinton administration. Another brilliant, enlightened and articulate person.

Posted by: consider wisely always on June 9, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

One thing I've always wondered about is what happened to the 6 million dollars that the Clintons collected in their 'legal fee trust fund'.

According to Lanny Gunier(sp?), the Clintons lawyer, he was never paid. How was this money used? Did the Clintons ever pay taxes on this money?

What about the money the Clintons recieved as bribes for granting pardons? Were taxes ever paid on this income?

Posted by: mark on June 9, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Is Brett Ratner still dating Stacy Hamilton?

Posted by: Roger Ailes on June 9, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Neither Clinton nor Obama, as far as I can tell, have hands on government executive experience (e.g. Governor, big city mayor, head of government agency) and/or hands on foreign policy experience. Given the mess this country is in, on so many levels, what would prompt anyone to support a candidate that did not have real life experience making trains run on time?"

Excellent point. Maybe it's time we start looking to the states for executive experience. Make it one of the big states, though. Or maybe we should tap someone with the experience of having run a multimillion dollar business. Man, how great would it be if we found somebody like that, and he actually had an MBA.

Speaking of dense...

Posted by: chaunceyatrest on June 9, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Ah for goodness sakes, Mark--the Clintons were hounded for years by the Republican Congress and the vast right wing conspiracy. That was real.

Posted by: consider wisely always on June 9, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Have you heard of the idea that one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons behind Obama's success in fundraising is that he's a relative newcomer to national politics and thus does not have the support and people to reward that Clinton has? It makes sense to me, but I wonder how, if at all, this relates to Obama's early success there.

"Gore and Kerry looked like professors. Reagan looked like a sheriff. Voters take great comfort in the idea that all it takes is horse sense, plain talk, and balls. Acknowledging that high intelligence, extensive knowledge, and significant experience are essential in candidates would requite voters to face their own inadequacies."

You might be on to something there, but it's too simplistic and/or slightly erroneous. It seems as if people are attacked for being an elite, whether it's academic or financial.

Posted by: Brian on June 9, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

"One thing I've always wondered about is what happened to the 6 million dollars that the Clintons collected in their 'legal fee trust fund'."

They spent it on Cognac & blow, but they didn't invite you to that party because -- well -- you're a tool.

"What about the money the Clintons recieved as bribes for granting pardons? Were taxes ever paid on this income?"

Yes, and they used the remainder to buy government bonds.

What . A. Tool.

Posted by: chaunceyatrest on June 9, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

an event co-hosted by Spielberg and television financier Haim Saban

I'm shocked.

Spielberg, who hosts events with the Zionist wingnut Saban is turning from the not-fully-in-the-zionist's-pocket Obama toward the fully-in-the-zionist-camp HRC?

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

Posted by: Disputo on June 9, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

What . A. Tool.

Just click on the "Tool" menu in your browser, select "mark", and turn him off.

Posted by: Disputo on June 9, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

While I'm not sure people in Hollywood are capable of being embarrassed, I do wonder how much they may have been discomfited by the absurd little snit David Geffen got himself into over the Clintons. Somehow the narcissistic creep thought his own perceived snub at the hands of the Clintons, because they rejected a clemency call for his favorite imprisoned hero, trumped all other matters. I mean, if they couldn't attend to the wants of David Geffen, of what use could they possibly be to the nation?

Of course, Geffen went straight to the celebrity gossip queen, Maureen Dowd, to dish as publicly as possible on our former Democratic President. That he enthusiastically repeated the right wing talking points about Clinton didn't seem to trouble the stunted man. Somehow, though, his behavior left the impression that teamwork was not something that Hollywood really grasped.

Maybe, I'm hoping, this kick-started the rest of Hollywood into some serious rethinks about how they should choose their causes. You know, if you're going to oppose Hillary, do it for some reason more compelling than spite, OK?

Posted by: frankly0 on June 9, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

I am looking for a leader who cares about America and Americans, not just what Robert Frank calls Richistan and the Richistanies.

The Chinese have leaders who act in the best interests of China. Same with the Japanese. The Europeans do the same. Those folks are eating our lunch and Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Pro-Richistani candidates don't propose to do anything about it. They like things just the way they are.

Hollywood is one of the centers of Richistani culture. It is not surprising they like Hillary. She is one of them.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 9, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Lots of demonstrations against the prez in Rome, apparently, this truly- not- a- Christian -in actions Bush meeting with the Pope. Photo op for the conservative base, I would say.

And Paris Hilton, in a medical section of the jail, with a glass door, spending two hours with her psychiatrist today, only allowed visitors Sunday and Tuesday. Think about it--she is so into clothes and hair, probably is used to spending hours in front of the mirror. We were scathing yesterday. Today I see her as the little girl she really is. She really was foolish driving when convicted of a DUI.She could have had a driver and avoided all of this--but her self-defeating behaviors persist. Youth is wasted on the young.

Posted by: consider wisely always on June 9, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

because they rejected a clemency call for his favorite imprisoned hero, trumped all other matters.

It wasn't that WJC refused to pardon Peltier -- it was that WJC pardoned Marc Rich instead of Peltier -- that pissed off Geffen.

Of course, Geffen went straight to the celebrity gossip queen, Maureen Dowd, to dish as publicly as possible on our former Democratic President.

If by "straight" you mean a mere 6 years later, then, sure....

I'm puzzled why you are attacking Geffen, who is in fact one of the least evil and narcissitic of the hollywood moguls (admittedly not a very high bar, but nonetheless....)

Posted by: Disputo on June 9, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Youth is wasted on the young.

And money is wasted on the profligate.

Posted by: Disputo on June 9, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

It wasn't that WJC refused to pardon Peltier -- it was that WJC pardoned Marc Rich instead of Peltier -- that pissed off Geffen.

And that additional bit of context somehow justifies Geffen going to Maureen Dowd to repeat the right wing talking point that the Clintons are pathological liars?

I'm puzzled why you are attacking Geffen

How about for the very reasons I mention in my post? It matters that there may be moguls who are still worse in other ways? I'm not sure that there IS a Hollywood mogul who has been a worse DEMOCRAT -- and that's what I care about.

Posted by: frankly0 on June 9, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Dammit Disputo, my IE browser has no such feature on the Tools menu.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 9, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, just now looking at Geffen's Wikipedia entry I find this:

Geffen's Malibu home on the Pacific Coast Highway has been a battlefront in an ongoing struggle between property owners and beachgoers over access to public beaches in front of private residences. In 2002, Geffen sued to block access to the public beach in front of his home. In 2005, facing a rising tide of anger, Geffen relented and allowed access through a non-profit group. Garry Trudeau parodied this dispute in his daily comic strip Doonesbury.

Why do I feel that in his case, as is so often true in Hollywood, narcissism trumps liberalism every time?

Posted by: frankly0 on June 9, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Hollywood agrees with the majority of polls: Hillary is a winner!

Posted by: JoeCHI on June 9, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you've been Eschatoned.

Posted by: Disputo on June 9, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Here's how I see it playing out:

Hillary buys the Democratic Nomination.

Then, in the interest to "reaching out to the center" or the other side, she picks Lieberman for veep. 8 years of Romney/McCain.

Posted by: bungholio on June 9, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Political ... SAY YOUR WORD www.sayyourword.com

Posted by: sayyourword on June 9, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Spielberg, who hosts events with the Zionist wingnut Saban"

The same Haim Saban who created the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute.

Posted by: luci on June 9, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I find it pretty unsurprising that in Hollywood you'd encounter so much unevolved Zionism.

Really, staunch Zionism today is little more than a kind of ethnic narcissism. This makes Hollywood its natural home.

Posted by: frankly0 on June 9, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

This is just one of my conspiracy theories, but I got a feeling that if Clinton had pardoned Peltier, Lenoard would have been a dead man when he hit the street, and that a little birdie whispered this in Clinton's ear.

Posted by: thersites on June 9, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Ron: for 15 years I watched as Hillary focused most of her political efforts on behalf of children. Not just school children in Arkansas, i.e., education issues, but most especially child abuse and neglect issues. Back in those days nobody even thought to accuse the Clintons of anything like defending Richistani culture. I was in Mississippi, but her efforts were well known among the entire child welfare community.

They were also well known among the hard-core racists in the South. As enemies, of course. It was strange to watch the success these ancient racist enemies had in helping create the fake Whitewater scandal. Same old crowd as Bill would say.

I don’t think you have to worry so much about Hillary perpetuating Richistan. I do not see the evidence that she has changed that much. I do know that she has been paying dues all her life.

However, I will watch her. If she turns her back on the Palestinians, I will then think she has changed. Or, that I misjudged her in the first place.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 9, 2007 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

Fred Thompson, the macho man action figure that repugs think is the next coming of Reagan. Movie actor. Cigar smokin' tough guy...fits in with the conservative view that a prez has to be macho, tough...that is the crap they sold about Dubya. Successfully, I might add. (And look how THAT turned out!)
But what about substance of the person versus image? Let's see:
Fred Thompson on FOX News Sunday with creepy Chris Wallace
3/11/07
On immigration: "You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen..."

On Iraq: Thompson responded, "I would do essentially what the president's doing."

WHAT????

Posted by: consider wisely always on June 9, 2007 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Is Brett Ratner still dating Stacy Hamilton?
Posted by: Roger Ailes

That would be Mark Ratner.

Posted by: Warren Terraplane on June 9, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

mhr: "All those multi-millionaire socialists who inhabit Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Holmby Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu etc ..."

Jealous, aren't we?

Well, suffice to say that we'd gladly gossip and traffic in scandalous rumors about you, mhr -- only there's really nothing salacious or scintillating to say about an under-employed, emotionally-stunted 35-year-old virgin who lives in suburban Cincinatti with his maiden aunt.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 9, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

But who is Paris Hilton supporting?

She's supporting her habit.

Posted by: has407 on June 9, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

AJ: "This is why, no matter when the primary is scheduled, California is never going to be taken seriously in national politics."

That's a supremely ignorant statement.

California is home to one in eight Americans, possesses the world's sixth-largest economy, and collectively pays approximately $70 billion more in federal taxes and fees annually than it receives in corresponding federal spending.

That's right -- your country currently enjoys, and freely spends, an annual $70 billion windfall, courtesy of the Golden State's tax base.

In other words, California subsidizes the lifestyles of its many sanctimonious and ungrateful critics who reside in the country's "family values" heartland and Bible Belt. And therefore, the state's voters have more than ample reason to stake their claim to a pivotal role in the upcoming presidential primary season.

Given your condescending attitude and dismissive tone -- which is unfortunately representative of views held by far too many people throughout the rest of the United States -- it's no small wonder that Californians have begun to exercise seriously their still-nascent but nevertheless very formidable political potential.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 9, 2007 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

I've heard some really silly arguments for not liking Hillary but I think she's still the best shot we have for a good if not excellent next president. She's obviously a very strong, courageous human being, whether we're talking about a man or woman. She's savvy enough about foreign affairs and has a tool that others don't have (Bill Clinton) for fixing some of the problems we currently have due to Bush's presidency. She appeals to all kinds of people and I'm glad to see that she's appealing to the Hollywood crowd. Will America punish itself again with another Bush or someone even worse? Who knows? I think that out of the entire bunch of candidates, she would probably make the best leader. Unfortunately, I think there might be enough anti-Hillary people for another Bush type disaster to get elected.

As for all the Paris Hilton bashing. . .I still don't see the enjoyment in it. I used to love partying when I was her age, just like most people I knew. Hopefully this didn't ruin her ability to have fun and enjoy life as people her age normally do.

Posted by: Don on June 9, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Oh good Dog...Am I the only person here who owns a copy of Idiocracy

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 9, 2007 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

I heard all the "liberal" blogs during the past week mentioning the passing of another "liberal" blogger by the name of Steve Gilliard.

Posted by: aginghippie on June 9, 2007 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Big Money Democrats in Hollywood have exactly the same political opinions and candidate preferences as big money Democrats in any other city or state in the union. What's the big deal?

Posted by: Alan in SF on June 9, 2007 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Where are the Edwards supporters in Hollywood?

Posted by: Vincent on June 9, 2007 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

spielberg was never an (exclusive) obama supporter. he's given the maximum to hillary, obama, and edwards. his partners, geffen and katzenberg, gave the max to obama and edwards, but not to hillary. this is pro-hillary spin.

Posted by: benjoya on June 9, 2007 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

I just want to know who Adam Sandler is supporting.

Posted by: pbg on June 9, 2007 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

i was at the ratner affair, and i have to say (having written a not unsubstantial check) that i was deeply disappointed in hilary's speech. not in what she had to say, but in what she didn't mention--supreme court justices (an argument that would be eaten up by the young 'uns at the ratner party, who believe you me were a very different crowd than at peter chernin's house) are going like flies, three probably for the next president. and you've got a bunch of young kids who are eager to eat up a "do you want your rights restricted for the next 30 years by scalia and co?"

but nothing. generally uninspiring stump rhetoric that left us all feeling let down.

Posted by: robert green on June 9, 2007 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Have you people even been to LA? Its not what you see on TV.

Posted by: none on June 10, 2007 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

Robert Green,

You make a good point. This is an issue that I wish more Democratic nominees would address.

Posted by: adlsad on June 10, 2007 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton, Obama, Edwards and possibly Gore. Or any kick-ass combination of these 4. Let's face it, the Democrats have an embarassment of riches when it comes to potential candidates. Any & all of them would lead an administration that is vastly superior to the current laughing stock by countless orders of magnitude. Equally, all 4 leading Dems spectacularly eclipse every possible candidate the Republicans can fractiously extract from their mendacious, stagnant, morally putrescent pool of unctuous, jibbering old white guys. The more they bellow their fact-free polemic, bitch-slapping eachother over who'd be your scariest, Jack Bauer-est Daddy, the better every Democrat candidate looks.

And what, really, are the criticisms being made of the Dems top 4? Hilary's too calculating & ambitious? I'd be worried about any presidential candidate who wasn't. Obama's too young & idealistic? After 8 years of Cheney-Bush I don't think those are exactly negatives. Edwards is too handsome, earnest & rich & not beloved by jaded Beltway elites? Jeez, I should have such problems. And Gore is too smart, too experienced, too professorial? After an imbecilic, inexperienced, frat-boy-in-Chief has run your country into the ditch, having an IQ higher than room temp may no longer be considered an electoral liability. What passes for flaws among Democrat candidates would be seized upon as assets by Republicans for their field of philandering, decrepit, flip-flopping rubes. The Democratic party & its' supporters should stop cataloguing the laughably minor imperfections among its' candidates & begin deciding who among them is the best of an outstanding field. Leave the petty attacks on Democratic candidates to the Republicans: it's the only thing they do remotely well & every time they do it, they make themselves look worse.

Posted by: DanJoaquinOz on June 10, 2007 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton is a good candidate, far better than anything on the Republican side.

But we can do better. Frankly, she still strikes me as Republican light.

But than again, so did her husband.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on June 10, 2007 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

Sunday, June 10, 2007
By David Shribman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

TWIN MOUNTAIN, N.H. -- Not a good sign when, six months from the Iowa caucuses, a lot of the talk is about two people who are not running for president.

"On the Republican side, that talk is about Fred Thompson, actor, former senator, possible savior of the GOP from whatever it is -- too close an identification with the Iraq war, too changeable a position on abortion, too much divergence from conservative orthodoxy on social issues -- that ails it..."

And from Pete Wallsten of the LA Times:

"...Fred Thompson, who said in a television appearance that is he were president, he 'absolutely' would pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby because Mr. Libby was the victim of a "gross injustice."
MR. THOMPSON SITS ON THE ADVISORY BOARD OF MR. LIBBY'S DEFENSE FUND."

Posted by: consider wisely always on June 10, 2007 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

Spielberg is now leaning toward Clinton? Well shit, I guess I have to vote for her now. Though it would really be fucking nice if they would stop persecuting Paris. If she could just get back to partying and driving her new Bentley, I am sure we could find out who she is supporting and that would just sew it up for me. (sigh)

Posted by: j swift on June 10, 2007 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

j swift, yes, the press corps would indeed be following Ms Hilton to discover her inner thoughts. However, they have not and will not be in Iraq covering the thousands of women, many of whom are held without charges, in Prisons, with a Capital P, in Iraq, not LA County Jails. Some may have been killed in the latest mortar attacks by the insurgents. Hmmm, how much incoming has occurred in LA County?

For a much better perspective of this, read Juan Cole at Informed Comment, today. You won't find it in any MSM report or on the newsstands, because it is not "News" worthy.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on June 10, 2007 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

Excellent cite, ThirdPaul. "No one cares if they are depressed." What a profound read from
Juan Cole

Posted by: consider wisely always on June 10, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton probably isn't higher than number three on my list of preferred Democrats, but it would give me great joy to watch all the wingnuts throw fits over another President Clinton. In fact, it would make all of the so-called Bush haters look like fanboys by comparison.
The comments by some moronic trolls on this thread are just the tip of the iceberg. Fortunately, the Repubs won't control congress, so we won't have any more wasteful investigations into non-scandals.

Posted by: Ringo on June 10, 2007 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary's not a bad candidate, if you like endless war, DLC economics, the flag burning amendment, and a record of massive incompetence. You're probably right that this represents the best the Democratic Party can do.

Posted by: Alan in SF on June 10, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Fortunately, the Repubs won't control congress, so we won't have any more wasteful investigations into non-scandals.

They didn't in Jan 93 either.

Posted by: Disputo on June 10, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Paris supports whoever carries the biggest stick.

Posted by: ogmb on June 10, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

It would appear Hillary has given up on winning Iowa and New Hampshire and has shifted her concerns to winning big states (or on days when there are many states in play at once), so her big money-style campaign can win by hiding from the voters what her positions truly are.

She says 'withdraw' from Iraq, but would really keep us there the way Bush wants to (as in S. Korea).

She went to AIPAC and now gets big money from West-coast Jews. Is she going to just do Israel's bidding? Does America really need more of that?

Hillary can raise money. Nobody doubts that.
Can she govern well for America? E lot of Dems doubts that.

Posted by: MarkH on June 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

And how is Fred Thompson faring? More gossip, please.


How much is Fred Thompson farting???

This is what passes for commentary these days? How much a big man farts?

Outrageous.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 11, 2007 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

Mark, I can't take seriously your allegation that the Clintons took bribes for pardons when you can't even get the name of their lawyer right. Lani Guinier (whose spelling and gender you get wrong too) was Clinton's failed nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights -- she's a law prof at Harvard. Bill Clinton's primary lawyer for Monica was Robert S Bennett, the Democratic-leaning older brother of the Reagan Administration education secretary and conservative pundit William Bennett.

Posted by: db on June 11, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii -- interesting idea. If all the Democratic leaning states got together and decided to get serious about withholding funds from the federal government, the Republican states would be bankrupted very quickly. California's $70 billion subsidy to the rest of the country isn't even the half of it. Overall, in the last Congress, about $200 billion a year was being transferred from Democratic Congressional districts to Republican ones through federal taxation and spending. My Democratic-voting home state of Illinois is another big subsidiser of the rest of the country through federal taxes, even though our own state government is broke and our economy is suffering. It's time for Red America to be made to learn where exactly their bread gets buttered, time to wean them off the government that we blue states pay for.

Posted by: db on June 11, 2007 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

There is no difference between the Clinton's and the bushes. Bill Cliton vacations with the Bushes. The daughter of Aleister Crowely, Barb Bush, calls Clinton "her son". Also, Hillary has weekly dinners with Rupert Murdoch. Wake up people and don't be snowed by this Bush-Clinton_Bush_Clinton puppet show. While I lean left in general, the only decent and honest candidate is Ron Paul. And the msm is burying him. He has won every online poll taken after the 3 debates and none of the press will even report this. We are being snowed. Vote Ron Paul.

Posted by: mondo on June 12, 2007 at 7:27 AM | PERMALINK

re: Clinton + Obama lacking executive experience

I recall much talk being made about how Texas' size made being its governor excellent executive experience relevant to running the Federal government. Oops, maybe not.

Posted by: Adam on June 12, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly