Reply #25: NYT 11/16/06 [View All]

[creeksneakers2]

"Aides to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Carville had not cleared his attacks on Mr. Dean with them."

Your article also points out that the Clintons have nothing to do with any attacks on Dean.

Nobody is as clear as the driven snow but the idea that the Clintons are constantly engaged in sinister plots to control everything is a right wing manufactured fiction. The evidence that the Clintons scheme is based on other accusations that the Clintons scheme which in turn are based on other hoaxes. I can't think of a time anybody ever proved the Clintons did anything backhanded, unless you count "The Clintons must be guilty because everybody knows they do things like this" as evidence. (Which is the sum total of evidence here)

Hillary is depicted as a woman who is consumed by lust for power. Many books have been sold with stories about how Hillary conspired to run for president in 2000 and 2004. She didn't, but she easily could have. I believe she would have done better than John Kerry. Anyway,those books go to show how there is an entire industry that makes up hoaxes about the Clintons scheming. There's an article in Richard Mellon Scaife's rag today alleging Hillary is behind the attacks on Dean. (Which side is Richard Mellon Scaife on and why would the article run in his paper?)

For contrast,compare Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan ran for president four times, once against an incumbent of his own party. If there ever was anybody who was insane with the desire for power it was Ronald Reagan. Yet, no stories are ever told about Reagan scheming. That goes to show who writes the narrative about Hillary, who as of yet, has not run for president once. It all starts with the vast right wing conspiracy.