|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Thank God for PJP!
I hope you realize I wasn't beating up on you for the sake of beating up on you, MEM. If I thought you were a lost cause, I woulda just put you on ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Quote:
PJP said:
MEM... what confuses me the most about you is that I think you actually think these are good and decent people. I mean politicians in general. They are all complete scumbags both Republican and Democrat yet you have the Clintons and the Dems flavor of the week on such a high pedestal. If any of them were ever in a room alone with you and no cameras were recording they would tell you to go fuck yourself and not even blink an eye. These are the scumiest people you could ever imagine meeting. I just happen to like the Republican scumbags better than the Dems scumbags. Get off your high horse and at least be able to entertain the idea that these people that you idolize ain't all that.
It certainly appears that you heavily favor Republicans. Where are your curse words for Rudy? Or Laura Bush? 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
...
I hope you realize I wasn't beating up on you for the sake of beating up on you, MEM. If I thought you were a lost cause, I woulda just put you on ignore.
Were you beating up on me? Didn't know what to make of your last couple of posts to be honest. I certainly didn't mean to affend you by calling you cap & will stick to Captain Sammitch from now on.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
...
I hope you realize I wasn't beating up on you for the sake of beating up on you, MEM. If I thought you were a lost cause, I woulda just put you on ignore.
Were you beating up on me? Didn't know what to make of your last couple of posts to be honest. I certainly didn't mean to affend you by calling you cap & will stick to Captain Sammitch from now on.
 cap doesn't really offend me, I was joking about that. I was poking fun at you for maintaining what I perceived as a double standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
PJP said:
MEM... what confuses me the most about you is that I think you actually think these are good and decent people. I mean politicians in general. They are all complete scumbags both Republican and Democrat yet you have the Clintons and the Dems flavor of the week on such a high pedestal. If any of them were ever in a room alone with you and no cameras were recording they would tell you to go fuck yourself and not even blink an eye. These are the scumiest people you could ever imagine meeting. I just happen to like the Republican scumbags better than the Dems scumbags. Get off your high horse and at least be able to entertain the idea that these people that you idolize ain't all that.
It certainly appears that you heavily favor Republicans. Where are your curse words for Rudy? Or Laura Bush?
Laura Bush isn't a politician....and unlike other first ladies of recent memories she knows her role and doesn't speak unless it's for some cute program that makes it look like she cares about people. I have plenty of curse words for dubya and don't have him on a very high pedestal. I don't think much of him or any politician....he happens to want to make the tax code fair and kill arabs so I vote for him and support him.....other than that there is no love affair. And I swear I will never bea able to understand the anger you have towards Giuliani other than you know he is a very strong candidate without much of a scumbag history. He cleaned up NYC and defeated the mob almost singlehandedly.....Is he presidential time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
If we elect a woman President the Muslim world will certainly want to blow us up. I say we rush Armageddon and elect a female for President. Hillary's slogan should be "Bring on the Apocalypse. Vote Clinton in '08."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
An excellent slogan, Piggie. And I have just the graphic to use for the campaign poster  (I keed. I keed)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Quote:
Clinton begins journey to White House
By Ray Quintanilla
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 27, 2007, 6:48 PM CST
DES MOINES—Sen. Hillary Clinton began her presidential journey in this bellwether state on Saturday, raising energy and health-care issues but remaining conspicuously silent on the war in Iraq.
"I want to renew the promise of America. It starts right here in Iowa. I'm in it to win," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told cheering supporters—many of them women—who packed the gym at East High School here.
"You go, girl," came a shout from the audience.
"You come with me," Clinton replied, generating much applause.
Vowing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and re-ignite a push for universal health care coverage, the former first lady spoke for an hour during what her campaign billed as a "conversation with Iowans." She also talked of a need to change the "traditional roles" of women across society.
Saturday's event was Clinton's first political speech in the state since declaring a week earlier that she would seek the Democratic Party's nomination for president.
She took questions and spoke of boosting production of ethanol, increasing education funding and revamping how health care is delivered, especially to the poor. She said 20 percent of the nation's Medicaid dollars are related to diabetes, an illness that can be prevented or controlled with proper care. Yet the health care system does little to fund wellness care for those who are at risk, she said, adding: "But our system will pay to have your foot amputated. That has to change."
..
Chicago Tribune
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Clinton jokes about `evil and bad men'Wrapping up her inaugural campaign trip to Iowa as a presidential candidate, the New York senator was breezing through a friendly, policy-laden question-and-answer session when one person asked her how she would handle the kind of men who rule Iran and North Korea.
...with a pause and a shrug of her shoulders that seemed to suggest sarcasm: "What in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men?"
That drew loud laughter, applause, hoots and whistles from the Democratic audience.
Some said afterward they thought she was referring to her suffering with a philandering husband.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Hil can't skip IraqReturning to New Hampshire for the first time in more than a decade, Sen. Hillary Clinton met yesterday with enthusiastic overflow crowds - but also with pointed questions about her past and future stances on the Iraq war.
Holding a town hall-style meeting with an audience of hundreds, Clinton emphasized her relationship with her still-popular husband and lambasted what she called the Bush administration's "incompetence" in handling the Iraq conflict.
But Nashua resident Roger Tilton, 46, who asked Clinton to say voting for the war was a mistake, left unsatisfied.
"She won't take responsibility," Tilton said afterward. "She won't admit that it was a mistake, and until she does that, Barack Obama and John Edwards have her on the war issue."
War questions, among many others on college tuition, abortion and energy, surfaced again in the afternoon, when Clinton addressed a crowd of thousands in Concord. Clinton has a bigger problem than any other potential democrat candidate if she starts claiming that she was "misled", given that her husband's administration made many similar, if not identical, claims about Saddam. If she starts pushing the "Bush LIED" cannard, she risks her opponents dredging up clips of her husband and other officials in his administration, effectively contradicting her. And if she tries to claim that her husband ended Saddam's threat then she can't claim that Bush misled her. Its really her biggest problem at this point, not Edwards and not Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
All the candidates will have problems with Iraq. Will Rudy's thanking God that our President was Bush in the middle of 9/11 really be an asset for him now? Quote:
It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.
Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
Hillary Clinton
I prefer that.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
As liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen sarcastically notes, Hillary is basically saying that she was "tricked" into voting for the war: Yet another man has betrayed Hillary Clinton. This time it's George W. Bush, who not only deceived her about weapons of mass destruction but, when granted congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq, actually did so. This, apparently, came as a surprise to her, although in every hamlet and village in America... knew that Bush was going to take the country to war. Among other things, troops were already being dispatched.
Somehow, Bush's intentions were lost on Clinton, who then as now was a member of the United States Senate. Cohen goes on to note that, basically, what Clinton has done isn't take a principled stand, but flip flop, as public opinion moves about In Clinton's case, she is dead center in American public opinion, foursquare for what's popular and courageously opposed to what's not. Most Americans oppose a precipitous pullout from Iraq and -- surprise! -- so does Clinton.
Too often when a candidate throws his hat into the ring, he tosses principle out the window. Yet this is precisely what we want in a president -- principles and the courage to stick to them. Instead of Clinton saying she had been misled by Bush and his merry band of fibbers, exaggerators and hallucinators, I'd like to hear an explanation of how she thinks she went wrong and what she learned from it. I don't want to know how Bush failed her. I want to know how she failed her country.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Its also important to note that Clinton's claim that a President needs to get Congress's permission to react to killing American troops and making war on the United States is a new one for her.
She didn't always feel that way — especially when her husband ignored Congress in using force in the Balkans (where, of course, no one was murdering American forces or making war on the United States):
"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization," Mrs. Clinton said [yesterday]. "Nor should the president think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority."
That position is at odds with President Clinton's unilateral decision to bomb Serb military targets beginning on March 26, 1999, when America and NATO launched a war to stop Slobodan Milosevic from cleansing the province of Kosovo of ethnic Albanians.
Twenty-six members of Congress later sued the Clinton administration on the grounds that the bombing campaign constituted a violation of the War Powers Act. Mr. Clinton's Justice Department argued at the time that the War Powers Act not only gave the president the authority to drop the bombs on Belgrade — over two congressional votes rejecting a declaration of war on Yugoslavia — but that he was not required to seek congressional approval because Congress had appropriated the funding to launch the air offensive.
Mrs. Clinton defended the Kosovo campaign in a speech on October 10, 2002, before casting her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. "We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak," she said in the 2002 speech. Milosevic died in prison in the Hague in 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Presidents have been allowed/trusted to use the military without congress declaring war. Bush has damaged that trust. If Clinton had gotten over 3 thousand troops killed & billions of dollars spent in poor planning in Kosovo I'm sure he would have been put on a short leash too.
Bush isn't going to be allowed to make a bigger mess.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
That's a clever way to explain her latest flip flop. However, it ignores the fact that Clinton is speaking of legal principles, not personalities.
Legal principles aren't supposed to change depending on who occupies the White House.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Presidents don't have blank checks when it comes to the military. There are a whole set of checks & balances written into law (legal principle) to prevent a President such as Bush from making bigger messes. Congress isn't there just to cheer or heckle a Presidents decisions.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,227 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,227 Likes: 35 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Presidents have been allowed/trusted to use the military without congress declaring war. Bush has damaged that trust. If Clinton had gotten over 3 thousand troops killed & billions of dollars spent in poor planning in Kosovo I'm sure he would have been put on a short leash too.
Bush isn't going to be allowed to make a bigger mess.
I think Hillary Clinton would damage that trust far more.
She endorses Bill Clinton's action in Kosovo (1999)
She authorizes similar use of U.S. military force in Iraq (Sept 2002)
She now condemns W. Bush's military invasion of Iraq, that she voted for.
At least Bush is consistent and believes unrelentingly in overcoming past setbacks, and to ultimately winning the war in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton, like the rest of her party, remains committed to saying and doing whatever will get her elected, and will abandon anyone (the Iraqi people risking their lives to establish democracy in Iraq , our troops on the ground in Iraq, and any foreign allied nation) the moment they become inconvenient, and become a political liability for her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:....
I think Hillary Clinton would damage that trust far more.
She endorses Bill Clinton's action in Kosovo (1999)
Kosovo wasn't Iraq. Bush Sr. recognized the problems with invading Iraq & wisely avoided making a mess of Dessert Storm.
Quote:
She authorizes similar use of U.S. military force in Iraq (Sept 2002)
Recently the Pentagon investigated itself & found that about 50% of it's Iraq intel was wrong. She was told that Iraq was an imminent threat & unlike previously there was phony intel backing it up.
Quote:
She now condemns W. Bush's military invasion of Iraq, that she voted for.
Pretty easy call when a leader wastes thousands of lives & billions of dollars IMHO.
Quote:
At least Bush is consistent and believes unrelentingly in overcoming past setbacks, and to ultimately winning the war in Iraq.
Conistency in being a poor leader isn't a good thing. Setbacks is about the kindest word you could pick for all his errors.
Quote:
Hillary Clinton, like the rest of her party, remains committed to saying and doing whatever will get her elected, and will abandon anyone (the Iraqi people risking their lives to establish democracy in Iraq , our troops on the ground in Iraq, and any foreign allied nation) the moment they become inconvenient, and become a political liability for her.
G-man proves your wrong about Clinton saying or doing anything to get elected. Review this thread, he's been enjoying Hillary's friction with liberals because she won't "say or do anything".
This current President has thrown away & damaged so much. Great Britain & our allies won't be so quick to jump in with us the next time something even looks like another Iraq. Our military has been stretched to the limits with poor planning & find themselves trying to help a people that think it's OK to fire upon US troops. It's the GOP that has for years adopted the brightest & cheeriest position on Iraq now changing it's tune. They can "say or do anything" to stay elected but I hope people remember what these guys have said & done.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
G-man proves your wrong about Clinton saying or doing anything to get elected. Review this thread, he's been enjoying Hillary's friction with liberals because she won't "say or do anything".
Actually, I think I've demonstrated that Hillary is trying to say and do anything she can on Iraq. At least what she think she can get away with.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
SHOCKING 200G HILL DEAL
Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign reached a deal to pay a key South Carolina black leader's consulting firm more than $200,000 just days before he agreed to endorse her run for president, it was revealed yesterday.
The arrangement involves South Carolina state Sen. Darrell Jackson, a well-connected African-American leader and pastor whose support is coveted by national campaigns.
Jackson confirmed that his public-relations firm struck a deal with the Clinton campaign just days ago for a contract worth up to $10,000 a month through the 2008 elections.
Jackson had also been in talks with Sen. Barack Obama's campaign about endorsing him and entering into a consulting contract for more than $5,000, sources said - raising questions about whether Jackson's endorsement was bought by a higher bidder.
I'm sure Raw Story or Media Matters will explain how this is completely kosher. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Or perhaps the New York Post will find something "shocking" about a Republican candidate? (that would really be shocking) RAW & MM at least don't try to fool anyone by pretending to be something other than having a liberal bias.
As I think you've noted on another thread, Clinton's been doing pretty well getting backing from black leaders over Obama. It doesn't really appear that she needs to pay for support. The story works good as a bit of a hit & run piece on Clinton though.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Or perhaps the New York Post will find something "shocking" about a Republican candidate? (that would really be shocking)
The Post also called Rudy whom, you might recall, is a GOP candidate, a "diva" for his high speaking fees.
Heh. MEM is living proof of that whole "when you assume" axiom.
But thanks for admitting that your sources are liberal blogs, MEM.
Quote:
RAW & MM... don't try to fool anyone by pretending to be something other than having a liberal bias.
I hope Soro doesn't fire you for outing his work, however.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Actually I've found that Raw runs negative stories about Hillary like this one, where she was heckled. That doesn't make Raw any less liberally biased. Perhaps for you that is proof that they are not biased though?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Clinton will fight tough but I saw that particular bit of "speculation" just a bunch of conservatives with very little credability saying Clinton was really the one behind all their "speculation".
Quote:
the G-man said:
So you believe that Clinton is "tough" enough to have her staff misrepresent the relationship between Obama and Geffen but not "tough" enough to spread stories about Obama's Muslim background?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Answered on the Obama thread. Do we really need to multi-thread this?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 40,854
Schlub 15000+ posts
|
|
Schlub 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 40,854 |
no, its just g-re-re's way of expressing his pain
And, to be fair, one of my favorite friends there is blind and I take every opportunity available to make fun of that and we're still friends. That guy never fit there. He never got the spirit of the RKMBs. We're gonna keep an eye on the obits, see if he finally left or if he really did have a heart attack.
2,506,410.81 CAD Rack points
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I thought we should move our discussion about Hillary to the Hillary thread, rather than the Obama thread, MEM.
How dare you try to deny Barack Hussein Obama his own thread MEM?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Over at National Review, columnist Larry Kudlow argues that David Geffen has reminded folks what it was like when the Clintons were in the White House: Whatever the mighty Clinton spin machine is saying about the front-page catfight between Hillary, Barack Obama, and David Geffen, the fact is, the Geffen-Obama forces put a big hurt on the presidential aspirations of the former First Lady.
Geffen’s shot across the bow, with its huge media echo chamber, reminds folks what it was like when the Clintons were in the White House. Geffen has single-handedly pried the lid off the rusty old can of Clinton lies, reminding voters of what will happen if this truth-challenged couple ever returns to the Oval Office.
Geffen, unwittingly or not, reminded voters of the moral impoverishment and constant chicanery of the old Clinton White House.
Do voters really want to watch this low-grade C movie once more?
I’ve always believed that the Clinton White House past would be Hillary’s biggest problem in the future. Now, suddenly, it’s been put into the campaign in startling Hollywood Technicolor.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,227 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,227 Likes: 35 |
Yes. William Kristol, in The Weekly Standard, summed up the political fallout on Hillary Clinton pretty well:
Geffen's comments get repeated in three days' worth of stories--because how can you report about the spat [between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign]without reporting the remarks that started it?--and Obama gets to rise above the fray.
And consider the original response by Gibbs [Obama's political spokesperson]. He went out of his way to respond not to Hillary Clinton, and not to Howard Wolfson [Hillary Clinton's political spokesperson], but to "the Clintons": "We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons. . . . The Clintons had no problem . . . "
Very nicely done.
Is Sen. Clinton not her own person?
Are we again getting two for the price of one?
Hillary Clinton's popularity soared after the Monica affair, when she achieved a kind of political separation from her husband. That's what made her Senate race possible, and her current presidential candidacy plausible. Relinking her to Bill makes her political life more complicated.
This may be the epitaph on Hillary's presidential bid.
I've thought for several months now, that Al Gore is more popular now than he was in 2000, and would have a good shot at an 11th-hour Democratic bid, after the other Democrats muddy each other, and he remains clean by witholding his bid till late in the race.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Like I said Hillary is going to fight tough & Obama has shown he's going to fight hard to. Since Geffen isn't part of the Obama team officially, I think Clinton overstepped here though.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Hillary isn't going to get a pass on [her] private or public lives. ...Hillary has the balls to face such scrutiny
Wrong again.
According to the Washington Post, she wants the whole topic to be off-limits:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a new commandment for the 2008 presidential field: Thou shalt not mention anything related to the impeachment of her husband.
With a swift response to attacks from a former supporter last week, advisers to the New York Democrat offered a glimpse of their strategy for handling one of the most awkward chapters of her biography. They declared her husband's impeachment in 1998--or, more accurately, the embarrassing personal behavior that led to it--taboo, putting her rivals on notice and all but daring other Democrats to mention the ordeal again.
the entire episode had been largely airbrushed from the public Democratic dialogue about the 1990s -- particularly Hillary Clinton's
And then this from Newsweek:
a NEWSWEEK reporter tentatively broached a delicate subject with a longstanding adviser to Hillary Clinton: was there a concern in the Hillary camp that her husband might somehow embarrass her in the campaign ahead? The reaction was swift and fierce. "If that's what you want to talk about, I'm hanging up right now," said the adviser, who did not wish to be identified even entertaining such a question.
Sounds like an attempt to avoid, not face, scrutiny about her marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
She's still getting scrutinized though. When Rudy is asked personal questions about each of his wives that he fucked over, do you think he'll delve right in?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
You just changed your premise.
Above it was that Hillary "had the balls" to face scrutiny.
When faced with proof that she was trying to avoid that scrutiny, you retreated and said "she's still getting scrutinized." Not the same thing.
Or are you saying you don't read your own posts either?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,227 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,227 Likes: 35 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Hillary isn't going to get a pass on [her] private or public lives. ...Hillary has the balls to face such scrutiny
Wrong again.
According to the Washington Post, she wants the whole topic to be off-limits:
That's something that amuses me most about Democrats.
They condemn their Republican opposition for "dirty" politics, for giving exposure to character flaws and past indiscretions of Democrats.
But the Democrats who first attack Republicans on these character points, then have the audacity to say "How DARE they !" when Republicans reciprocate and expose the greater indiscretion and hypocrisy of Democrats on the exact same issue !
One example is John Kerry in the 2004 campaign, constantly dredging up unproven allegations about Bush's National Guard service. Then Kerry was all outraged at the Swiftvets ads, exposing his highly questionable service in Vietnam, and in anti-war V V A W protests in the early 70's.
It amazed me how Kerry could condemn attacks on his own service record, even as he literally attacked Bush's service record in the same sentence.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
New York Daily NewsShe says she just goofed.
Sen. Hillary Clinton "inadvertently" omitted from her Senate ethics forms a family charity that has allowed her and her husband to write off millions in taxable income, her staff says.
Federal tax forms list Hillary Clinton as the charity's secretary and treasurer, her husband as president and her daughter, Chelsea, as director. Donations have included $100,000 for Asian tsunami relief and $10,000 to the Columbine Memorial Committee. Yeah, I can see this. Who among us hasn't forgotten they are the secretary and treasurer of a multi-million dollar corporation from time to time? To be fair, I suppose given all the Clinton's other financial affairs, it is possible that the nondisclosure of inadvertent. But doesn't that, in and of itself, tend to demonstrate a certain lackadaisical attitude toward financial details that one would prefer not to see in the nation's chief executive?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Wow. Nearly 24 hours and MEM still hasn't found a "Raw Story," "Media Matters" or Clinton staff talking point to address this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Wow. Nearly 24 hours and MEM still hasn't found a "Raw Story," "Media Matters" or Clinton staff talking point to address this.
Didn't really see it being a big deal. Once it was brought to her attention, she fixed it. From what I saw from her filing there was nothing to hide. The only negative I see is what you pointed out in her forgetting to include it.
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2007-03-01 11:56 PM.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Daily News
Sen. Hillary Clinton won't come alone to this weekend's Alabama showdown with Barack Obama for black votes: Show-stealing husband Bill Clinton is riding to her aid.
the former President will be inducted into the Voting Rights Hall of Fame, possibly stealing more of Obama's thunder.
The former President "is a tremendous piece of political artillery for Sen. Clinton," said veteran Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf. "Alabama is not just about Alabama - it's about African-American voting patterns in the South."
"There is no condition under which Bill Clinton would not be received with round applause by African-Americans in this country," Sheinkopf added. "It's a very good use of him."
Let me ask a question: a lot of people think of Hillary as some sort of "feminist icon." However, it is a really a good example of feminism, of female independence, to have to enlist your husband to get every job you've had, or hope to have, over the space of twenty or so years?
Oh, and don't waste our time saying "yeah, but George Bush's daddy, blah, blah..." I'm not asking about nepotism. I'm asking about feminism and whether Hillary is a good example of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Doesn't it make more sense using every available asset at your disposal? For example, isn't Rudy going to milk the 9/11 teat dry aftter making a bundle off it?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
