RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Hillary in 2008

Quote:

---

Hillary Clinton Calls Commentator Ann Coulter 9/11 Remarks 'Vicious, Mean-Spirited'

WASHINGTON Jun 7, 2006 (AP)— New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton accused commentator Ann Coulter of making a "vicious, mean-spirited attack" on outspoken 9/11 widows whom the television pundit described as "self-obsessed" and enjoying their husbands' deaths.
Coulter writes in a new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."
She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Clinton, who has felt Coulter's criticism over the years, responded on Wednesday.
"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,'" the senator said. "I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened."
The New York Democrat and former first lady said she found it "unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country."
New York's Republican Gov. George Pataki also voiced anger and surprise at Coulter's words.
"I was really stunned and I don't think it's at all fair or accurate," Pataki said Wednesday in New York.
"I have spoken with many, many grieving family members and the hurt is real, the pain is real, the suffering four and a half years later has not lessened to any appreciable degree," he said.
...

---

Quote:

---

Actually this is a pretty classy reply to Bush's Chertoff cutting NYC funding by 40% because ... New York has no landmarks?!?
Quote:------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton, GOP Congressman to Chertoff: 'Wish you were here'

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, are responding to a Department of Homeland Security claim that New York City has no "national landmarks and icons" by sending DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff postcards of famous New York sights, RAW STORY has learned.

New York City is home to the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, Brooklyn Bridge, Times Square, Broadway, the Guggenheim, New York Stock Exchange, United Nations, Rockefeller Center, and a host of other world-famous landmarks. The equally famous, now-lost World Trade Center was the site of the bloodiest terror or foreign attack ever on US soil.

The DHS assessment, in which it further found that New York contained just four sites of national interest, was reported by ABC News after the department decided to slash the amount of homeland security funds that the city would receive by 40%.

The postcards that Senator Clinton and Congressman King have sent to Secretary Chertoff can be viewed on Clinton's website. The Senator and Congressman are also encouraging New Yorkers to send postcards to Chertoff themselves.

Earlier today, Clinton, mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly all went on record blasting the process used to determine NYC's relevance.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Too bad...voting for Hillary would help create a dynasty and we all know you're against those.

---

Quote:

---

the G-ham said:...
...
PS--You seem to forget that, in the original "go to hell Hillary" post your whining about, I said it was a joke and then went on to more or less agree with her point.

---

Didn't forget nor whined just noted. Like WBAM, your inserting emotion that just isn't there. I like to joke every once in a while myself

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

the G-ham said:...
...
PS--You seem to forget that, in the original "go to hell Hillary" post your whining about, I said it was a joke and then went on to more or less agree with her point.

---

Didn't forget nor whined just noted. Like WBAM, your inserting emotion that just isn't there. I like to joke every once in a while myself

---

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the scariest top candidate for president, and the prospect that she'll run in 2008 frightens a stunning 36 percent of voters, a new poll found.

By contrast, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is tagged as scariest by just 17 percent, or less than half as many, Al Gore by 15 percent, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is the least scary at 11 percent.

Even among Democrats, 22 percent single out Clinton as the candidate who frightens them the most - compared to Giuliani at 29 percent; McCain, 14; and Gore, 10.

Quote:

---

June 08, 2006
Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls
More Americans say they want to see Clinton elected president in 2008
...

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
The content you are attempting to access is only available to Gallup Poll On Demand subscribers. Please log in to read the full article.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:...
I can't see the entire article you cited because of the above, but unless the poll was actually about which candidates are "loved" or "unloved," your claim "we love hillary" is not supported by the polling data.

---

A shocking new poll in the super-Democratic state of Massachusetts shows Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton could be in trouble there if she faces Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential race.

McCain draws 44 percent to Clinton's 43 - a statistical tie - in liberal lion Ted Kennedy's home state, the Rasmussen Reports poll found. Clinton's surprisingly weak showing comes despite the fact that Massachusetts voters say they'd prefer to vote for a Democrat in 2008 by an overwhelming ratio of 53 to 22 percent.

"It's hard to think of a scarier scenario for Democrats than Massachusetts being a tossup state in 2008. Even George McGovern [who lost 49 states in 1972] carried the Bay State," said independent pollster Scott Rasmussen.

...and while Rudy Giuliani trails Clinton by 8 percentage points (50 to 42 percent), that's still strong for a Republican in such a Democratic state.

....it's a big worry for Clinton that [McCain] even looks competitive.

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Prometheus said:
Just to clarify, I am not a liberal. That is a tag that others here have labeled me. I make my own political decisions based on my own personal opinions and insight....

---

Yea, John Kerry won't call himself a liberal either. One trait I've found common amongst many liberals is to deny that there is a word to desrcibe thier belif system.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Prometheus said:
You're such a child, Wbam. I stated that I am not a liberal. And, I should know since I am me. And yet, you insist that I am by contradicting me. What is that? That's like me saying that YOU are a liberal. And, it doesn't matter what you think you are. I have already decided that you are a liberal.

Now is that fair?

I'm sad to say that I lose more and more respect for you everytime we get into one of these things, Wbam...

---

Well, I guess it's better to cuss me out, call me a child and say how much respect you've lost for me rather than acctually engage in the discussion. I hesitate to even elaborate on my point seeing as how you've expressed NO intrest in an actual diologue on my staement, but here goes any way. If you called me a liberal I would tell you what belifs make me non-liberal instead of yelling and freaking out at you. I didn't say YOU were a liberal, I was making the point that Kerry and many liberals SAY that they aren't liberals, in as much as it's not enough to just say "I'm not a liberal" It's not even enough for me to say that. I would need to demonstrate that that I'm not wich I believe I've done. If you really want to defend yourself against such labels, prey tell, what are some of your conservitive values?

Again if you read my original post I never called you a liberal, consider my post a challenge to back up your statement. OR tell me how horrible I am and why you don't like me if that makes you happy.

---

Again, forgot about this.

First of all, my beliefs are based on what I consider rational thought, and a compassionate observation of life.

Second, the name "liberal" has been about as degraded and denounced by not only the Repubs, but, the unholy actions of the Dems in certain cases. Thus, describing myself as "liberal" would seem to be a misnomer.

Third, just to get the party re-started again....you're a douche...

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Thanks for not hijacking the thread again with you pointless flame war with WBAM, Ray. Uh, I mean, Pro.

---

A proven fundraising machine, Hillary Clinton's massive campaign war chest is the biggest of any of the 2008 presidential candidates and it's probably because the New York senator is willing to do anything for a hefty contribution not to mention a sound bite.

For the right amount of money, the former First Lady is even willing to sleep with the (political) enemy as she proved during a recent fundraiser hosted by a well-known neoconservative who repeatedly attacks her and a group of his very wealthy, campaign-contributing friends.

Both camps tried to keep it quiet, but conservative billionaire Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for the New York senator this week at his News Corp headquarters in midtown. It was a bit bizarre since the media mogul has spent years attacking Clinton, but money can change things. Now, Murdoch appears to be an ally with extremely deep pockets and equally rich buddies that like to dish out big bucks.

Since Clinton didn't want to make this rather newsworthy event public, her loyal hometown cheerleading squad, the New York Times, limited the rather interesting liberal-conservative cash powwow to a sentence at the bottom of an unrelated story.

Making new friends, albeit out of old enemies, has paid off for Clinton whose latest financial reports show that she has raised $44 million during the election cycle and has $22 million available.

One columnist encourages the media to get a list of those who attended-and thus donated money-Murdoch's secretive fundraising breakfast. He goes on to say that if elections are open and bribes are legal, we should be able to find out the names of the bribers.

If Hillary is getting cash from the man behind "Fox News", given that liberals think anyone associated with Fox is a right wing devil, does this mean that liberals will have to abandon Hillary?

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Read my comment at the end. It is a followup to a point I've made in the past. Is Hillary in danger of alienating the democratic base of angry desperate liberals by cozying up to "right wing" policies and figures such as Murdoch?

---

Madison Ave. ad execs are so bent on taking control of America's children, they'd put computer chips in kids' brains if they could, Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday.
Saying advertisers have found so many new ways to get at kids through video games and the Internet, Clinton warned that we're verging on a society out of a grim science fiction novel.

"At the rate that technology is advancing, people will be implanting chips in our children to advertise directly into their brains and tell them what kind of products to buy," Clinton said at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The New York Democrat said the country was performing a "massive experiment" on kids who average more than six hours a day with media and advertising, soaking it up through TV, computers, games and iPods. She said the fastest growing advertising market is the 6- and under set, and that children's health is already being hurt by products like Camel's candy-flavored cigarettes and junk food sold with tips for video games - used to sell more junk food.

Robert Thompson, a professor of pop culture at Syracuse University, said Clinton and other politicians like to attack advertising because it's easier than trying to ban bad food products or fund broad education programs.

Quote:

---

Sen. Clinton Says Rumsfeld Should ResignAP
WASHINGTON Aug 3, 2006 (AP)— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign, hours after excoriating him at a public hearing over what she called "failed policy" in Iraq.

"I just don't understand why we can't get new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late," the New York Democrat and potential 2008 presidential contender said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think the president should choose to accept Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation."

"The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people," she said. "It's time for him to step down and be replaced by someone who can develop an effective strategy and communicate it effectively to the American people and to the world."
...

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I don't agree with the political motivations you accuse & assign to Hillary Wonder Boy. It boils down to she was in the right & the person you should be questioning is our leader. Why is the President keeping Rumsfeld in place?

---

Quote:

---

W B said:

Hilary's actions are based on political expediency, not principle.

She's seen how support of the war has put Sen Joseph Lieberman's re-election in serious jeapordy.
And so she's setting aside the best interest of the nation, and taking up the mantle of the Angry anti-American Left, and begun mouthing liberal rhetoric that bemoans failure, but offers no alternatives, in order to suck up to her Democrat voter-base, and remain a potential nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

Just like Kerry before her, I might add. Who took on Howard Dean's angry rhetoric, to steal Dean's thunder and get the 2004 nomination. We all know how well that served Kerry.

---

Quote:

---

M E M said:
You also take Clinton for task for not giving any alternatives but realistically if she suggested any replacements like you did it would pretty much guarentee them getting torpedoed.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:...

I find Hilary Clinton's timing for such a 180-degree shift to be just too coincidental.
A week ago, Lieberman was projected to win his re-election primary. Hilary still supported the war unwaveringly.
Now, 7 days later, Lieberman has been alienated by the Angry Left and is projected to lose. The message is clear: Democrats will bitterly oppose even their most favored, who dare to support the war. And what a surprise, Sen. Clinton suddenly abandons her principles and condemns the war.

It's way too coincidental to be anything else.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:...

I find Hilary Clinton's timing for such a 180-degree shift to be just too coincidental.
A week ago, Lieberman was projected to win his re-election primary. Hilary still supported the war unwaveringly.
Now, 7 days later, Lieberman has been alienated by the Angry Left and is projected to lose. The message is clear: Democrats will bitterly oppose even their most favored, who dare to support the war. And what a surprise, Sen. Clinton suddenly abandons her principles and condemns the war.

It's way too coincidental to be anything else.

---

What your saying is just untrue Wonder Boy. I think it's fair to say that Hillary has been a vocal critic of our President's poor leadership concerning Iraq for quite some time now.

---

"Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician."

"Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak."

Satanic.

"Political wh***."

Quote:

---

page 31:

In the 1960's both a student rebellion and a cultural revolution rolled over campuses. When the rebels graduated, got jobs, and got married, they ceased to be rebels, taking their place in the country of their parents and voting for Ronald Reagan; though it took some --our president [George W. Bush] comes to mind-- perhaps longer than others to "break away".

The sixties rebels, however, were not revolutionaries. Converts to the revolution came to college thinking and believing one way, and left thinking and believing an entirely different way, that changed their whole lives. Hillary Rodham, the Goldwater Girl who came to Wellesley in 1965 and left as a social radical in 1969, with new values, a new moral code, and a steely resolve to change the [according to her liberal indoctrination] corrupt society in which she'd been raised, is as good an example of the revolutionary as Bush is of the rebel.

The cultural revolution that swept America's campuses was a true revolution. In a third of a century [since 1965] the Judeo-Christian moral order it defied has been rejected by millions. Its hostility to Ozzie-and-Harriet America has been internalized by our cultural elites, and through their domination of our opinion and value-shaping institutions --film, TV, the theater, magazines, music-- these evangelists of revolution have spread their gospel all over the world and converted scores of millions.

---

Quote:

---

page 45:

When America's most public lesbian couple, actresses Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres broke up, the president of the United States called to offer his sympathy.
Hillary Clinton became the first First Lady to march in the New York City gay pride parade. Did the New York Times, the good Gray Lady of Forty-third Street, editorially question the wisdom of America's First Lady parading with drag queens and men in thongs?
Not at all.
As Times national political correspondent Richard Berke told colleagues at the tenth-anniversary reception of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association:
"Three quarters of the people who decide what goes on the front page [of the Times] are 'not-so-closeted homosexuals' ".

Nine months after marching for gay pride, Mrs Clinton refused to march in the 240th St. Patrick's Day parade, once a must for all New York City politicians. The Ancient Order of Hibernians, the fraternal Roman Catholic group that runs the parade, does not permit the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization to march as a unit; and Mrs. Clinton had been chastised by gay rights groups for marching on St. Patrick's Day in 2000.
That Senator Clinton would appease the homosexuals, even if it meant affronting Irish Catholics, testifies to the new balance of power in the Democratic party, and the new correlation of forces in the culture war.

---