Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

spacefreak · Dec 4, 2003, 01:40 PM

Clintons Behind L.A. 'Hate Bush' Event - 12/03/2003

The invitations to the gathering labeled a "Hate Bush" strategy session by the Drudge Report may have come from Seinfeld producer-spouse Laurie David. But the agenda for the event held Tuesday night at Los Angeles' Beverly Hilton was scripted by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Ostensibly, the session "was an attempt to acquaint the liberals with Americans Coming Together, an initiative to mobilize Democrats in 17 states that may prove crucial to the outcome of the 2004 presidential race," reported the Los Angeles Times in Wednesday editions.

The meeting was "also intended to build support for the Media Fund, an effort organized by Harold M. Ickes, a former key aide to President Clinton," the paper said.

But according to CNN, it was Hillary Clinton who dominated last night's ACT event, albeit in absentia.

"Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) won't be in attendance, but her name is 'written all over' the event," reported the network's "Morning Grind" on Tuesday. "HRC's HILLPAC 'is the force behind' Americans Coming Together."

ACT, whose official chief is EMILY's List president Ellen Malcom, was created to find loopholes in recently implemented campaign finance reform law, so Democratic Party fat cats like billionaire George Soros can pony up tens of millions of dollars to defeat President Bush next year.

The tip-off to the Clintons' involvement in the "Hate Bush" gathering is the presence of Ickes, whose characterization by the Times as a former key Clinton aide tells only part of the story.

According to one-time Clinton insider Dick Morris, "Ickes is about as independent of Hillary as Bill is."

Writing in the New York Post last week, Morris described Ickes as Mrs. Clinton's "chief advisor."

"His photo graces her memoirs. He was her key operative in securing the Senate seat in New York. To pretend that anything he would do is independent of Hillary is like saying that the left hand is independent of the right hand."

Morris says the Ickes-Malcom-Soros effort is a bid by the former first couple to retain control of the Democratic Party's money machine at the expense of the party's probable 2004 nominee, Howard Dean.

Of course, should Mrs. Clinton decide to jump into the presidential race at the last minute, it wouldn't hurt that the former first couple already controlled a huge chunk of their party's campaign cash.

BRussell · Dec 4, 2003, 01:46 PM

So was the Drudge report accurate - was there really something in writing that said "Hate Bush?" I really doubt it, especially if the Clintons were involved, because Bill has specifically said that Dems shouldn't "hate Bush" but rather should offer a positive program of their own. But if it is true, that's really a) tasteless and b) politically stupid.

petehammer · Dec 4, 2003, 01:56 PM

More from Newsmax:

Clintons Behind JFK Assassination

Lerkfish · Dec 4, 2003, 02:43 PM

This just in...Clinton likes bjs and sacrifices small children to his own private altar. Drudge says so so it MUST be true...after all, he is completely impartial.

thunderous_funker · Dec 4, 2003, 02:49 PM

So I guess this blows away the original theory that it was all a conspiracy of the "Hollywood Dems". Its the "New York Dems" that are behind it all.

davesimondotcom · Dec 4, 2003, 02:50 PM

I don't even trust articles on NewsMax...

This one is pure speculation, if anything.

BRussell · Dec 4, 2003, 02:52 PM

I've just been doing some internet searches on this, and I can't find any confirmation, outside of Drudge, that this even actually happened, let alone was really called a "Hate Bush" event by the attendees themselves. I'd be willing to be proven wrong on this. Can anybody confirm that this story wasn't just more Drudge drudge?

davesimondotcom · Dec 4, 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
I've just been doing some internet searches on this, and I can't find any confirmation, outside of Drudge, that this even actually happened, let alone was really called a "Hate Bush" event by the attendees themselves. I'd be willing to be proven wrong on this. Can anybody confirm that this story wasn't just more Drudge drudge?

The event did occur. But the language "hate Bush" and it's origins are in dispute.

The words appeared in an email sent by Laurie David, but she disputes that she did anything but sending it along.

Susan Estrich has an article about it today. She offers some advice for her fellow democrats for winning the election in it - basically that any "hate" message or vitriol will do nothing to attract the middle of the road voter. It may win a nomination, but not an election. To win, Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) have to run to the Center - as proved by Bill Clinton.

I could care less if there is Hate Bush rallies in Hollywood or anywhere else. I'd love to see George Soros spend money trying to unseat Bush. It'll be fun.

typoon · Dec 4, 2003, 03:58 PM

While Drudge's politcs lean one direction his site is pretty objective. He seems to have a lot of different articles you won't find anywhere else or ones you hear about a few days later from everyone else. He is still a reporter and has his sources which give him stories.

petehammer · Dec 4, 2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by typoon:
While Drudge's politcs lean one direction his site is pretty objective.

And, like Newsmax, laid out professionally, not like a four year-old wrote the html.

Oh, wait, were we both being sarcastic?

spacefreak · Dec 4, 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I don't even trust articles on NewsMax...

This one is pure speculation, if anything.

Actually, if you read the article again, you'll see that much of the content is pieced together from articles printed in the LA TImes, CNN, and NY Post. This piece simply connects the dots.

thunderous_funker · Dec 4, 2003, 05:25 PM

I'm still looking for the point.

First we have a thread where Drudge exposes the secret cabal of Hollywood Dems. Now Drudge says its really just the old Clinton cabal.

What on earth is the story here?

That Democrats are organizing? That they oppose Bush in 04? That the Cintons are Democrats?

What the hell is the scoop here?

spacefreak · Dec 4, 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What the hell is the scoop here?

It's just another confirmation that the Clinton's control the Democrat party and a little insight into the intra-party battle for power and money between the Clinton machine and the Howard Dean folks. Last 2 lines:

the Ickes-Malcom-Soros effort is a bid by the former first couple to retain control of the Democratic Party's money machine at the expense of the party's probable 2004 nominee, Howard Dean.

Of course, should Mrs. Clinton decide to jump into the presidential race at the last minute, it wouldn't hurt that the former first couple already controlled a huge chunk of their party's campaign cash.

thunderous_funker · Dec 4, 2003, 05:42 PM

That's a scoop?

Jeez, I thought the DLC had made that abundantly clear from the start. I've been saying this in nearly every thread about the Democratic nominees since the beginning.

Not only is it transparently obvious to anyone paying attention, its not even supposed to be a secret. The DLC has been leading the charge against Dean from the beginning and they haven't exactly been subtle about it.

petehammer · Dec 4, 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

What the hell is the scoop here?

Clinton got a bj?

davesimondotcom · Dec 4, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm still looking for the point.

First we have a thread where Drudge exposes the secret cabal of Hollywood Dems. Now Drudge says its really just the old Clinton cabal.

What on earth is the story here?

That Democrats are organizing? That they oppose Bush in 04? That the Cintons are Democrats?

What the hell is the scoop here?

I really don't think the second article was Drudge. It was NewsMax...

And I agree. Shouldn't the opposition party do just that - oppose?

The news for Drudge was in the language of the "hate Bush" memo � after all, these are supposed to be tolerant liberals who don't hate. Not that there was an organization moving against Bush's reelection.