Hating Bush ...
... hating Clinton: ["Hatred, anger, and the 2004 election"]. Pretty good blog post here via Smirking Chimp about some political history which gives me the chance to do a little ranting. I especially like this part of the blog:

We can all recall the Clinton hatred of the 1990s: wild accusations that he planned to enslave America in a "New World Order," that he'd had Vince Foster murdered, that he ran drugs out of the Mena airport, that he had fathered a black "love child," and on and on and on.

True, but don't miss the larger point: All of those accusations about Clinton were not hateful or delusional, but logical - especially if a person looks at the evidence that goes with the conspiracies with an open mind. As well, these conspiracies are not unlike the accusations now pressed against Bush.
Vince Foster may not have been murdered by Clinton; but he didn't commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park, which is the official Clinton FBI line. The evidence is overwhelming that he was dumped in the park from somewhere else. Also, the placement of the bullet in his head and where the gun was dropped after the shot, are not consistent with a suicide. Clinton may not have been involved in the drug-running/Contra operation out of the Mena Airport, but both he and Hillary supported the Contras butchering socialists in Nicaragua and drugs were run out of Mena. Both Bush 41 and Clinton knew the CIA was running drugs out of Arkansas. Liberal reporters like Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn have done thorough investigations in this matter and have found the Mena story to be true. The black love child issue was never resolved since Clinton's complete DNA was not released to investigators. Only part of his DNA was released to investigators - to protect his genetic code - and when the media said it didn't match, people took it as gospel even though the complete code wasn't released. In a criminal court, the partial DNA would not have been taken seriously and the complete DNA evidence would have been ordered. Anyone can read the Army's plan for civilian control in Operation Garden Plot or look at what happened at Waco and understand that there should be great fear of some sectors of the government whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office. Just because rightwing radio hosts were fanning the flames in 1993, doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. In fact, the same citizen control fears are being fanned against Bush by both rightwingers and leftwingers so, get a grip already.
I know a lot of this because I have done a lot of investigating of rightwing organizations and the militia movement. During the 1990s, I made numerous speeches and talks about the problems with NAFTA and GATT, and many of the people I spoke to were a part of the these movements. While their beliefs may be a little wild-eyed, these people are normal - truck drivers, mechanics, hunters, school teachers, etc. - who have serious and relevant fears of their government. I also read a lot and try to do so with an open mind. If you look at any of the claims by those people with an open mind yourself, you would find the same logic.
As well, on issues of media consolidation, trade deals, and civil rights, rightwingers have been at the forefront of fighting for the interests of Americans, while all these so-called progressives and liberals, who came late to the issues because it was trendy, were worshipping at the alter of Clinton/Gore.
Where the hell were you people?!? It's almost too late now to fix because of your actions between 1991 and 2000!
Lastly, let me leave you with this thought, and please, take it seriously and with an open mind: For all the talk about the dangers of AG John Ashcroft - and I do believe he and the PATRIOT Act are dangers - is the blood of any American on his hands? No.
However, no one can say the same for Clinton's former AG Janet Reno, who ordered the raid at Waco which led to the deaths of 80 Americans who weren't harming a fly [As an aside, give yourself a history lesson: Rent the documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" and see what the Clinton administration did to those Americans].
And don't forget the deaths of hundreds in the Murrah Federal Building bombing which would not have been perpetrated had Waco not occurred. The building also might not have been blown up had the feds listened to sources warning them the building was going to be blown up. Rightwingers have tried to get people to listen to them on this issue. Their fears are eerily similar to ones floated by many now - that the feds under Bush 43 could have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
How come one is perceived as logical and the other isn't? If these people could look beyond the partisan politics, they could find the logic in both arguments.

Kerry having money problems?
TIME Magazine is set to report Monday that John Kerry is having serious money problems. From Drudge:

Senator John Kerry's fund raisers are telling him it's getting next to impossible to find anyone willing to write a check to his campaign, TIME's Karen Tumulty reports in this week's issue (on newsstands Monday, Nov. 17). Last week the Senator fired campaign manager Jim Jordan, announced he's following Dean's lead in opting out of spending limits for his campaign and vowed "to get really real and focused." That declaration, of course, only raised the discomfiting question of what he's been doing until now.

In addition, it doesn't look good when the Kerry effort keeps sending out beg emails for cash to people subscribed to his media list:

"Now is the time to stand together and gather our resources, for this may be the most important election of our lifetime. Please donate now."

The Hillary story that won't die ...
Some still think, with the help of those in the media, that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee: ["2004: Wishful Thinking?"].

The scenario, as sketched by this hard-boiled insider, calls for Clinton to make an entrance as healer and unifier at the end of the primary season in May or June in the unlikely - but not impossible - event that none of the existing contenders has amassed a majority of the convention delegates. "You'd have to have Howard Dean not wrapping it up, and being an angry, wounded front runner," this adviser said. "You'd have to have two of the other challengers tearing each other apart in primary after primary. Then Hillary could come in, well in advance of the convention, and say, 'Look, somebody has to save the party'."

I have always said that I didn't think Hillary would run, especially in a tight primary field. With Wesley Clark jumping in, with the backing of many Clinton insiders, a Hillary primary campaign seemed unlikely. But this hypothetical elevation at the convention could have some weight, especially when you look at the front-loaded primary season and the power of the super-delegates.
First, because of the front-loaded primaries, there is a good chance a nominee will be clear by the middle March. I don't think this will happen but it is the standard assumption. I think, because there are so many egos in this battle and so much money, it will be a long bloody battle - which gives the healing Hillary effort even more cred. If the super-delegates - the thousands of party insiders and elected officials who will be at the convention - aren't happy with the nominee, there is a good chance they could work to forward Hillary at the convention.
I think, in the end, this will rip the party apart and create so much disillusionment within the ranks of volunteers - especially those of the nominee - that it could kill the party's chances. Let's say Dean wins and Hillary and the insiders swipe the nomination from him. What do you tell the thousands of volunteers he has? How can you tell them with a straight face that they shouldn't feel betrayed and instead, do what their told? It would be a huge risk and alienate thousands of people who are energizing the party while the insiders are contuning to wreck their chances of beating Bush by listening to Terry McAulliffe and the former President Clinton.