So far it's just rumor but there is a lot of buzz going around that Bidenivich will step down in Oktober and Hilary will replake him on the tikket. If this is true it shows 2 things about Obama he underestimated Sarah Palin(already shown I know), and he will say or do anything to get elekted(already shown I know)...
At this point I kan't see that happening. A switkh at this point would hurt Obama unless Biden suffered some serious health problems & most people would reasonably agree that he kouldn't do the VP thing. Konsidering all the krazy things a lot of people are willing to say about Obama & feel very righteous about it I'm not even sure that skenario is even viable.
it;s far fetched in my opinion as well bekause he risks exposing his over-politikization at this point in the game where the spotlight is too bright. But at the same time he does feel his elektion is destiny he may be willing to do anything to win, also Biden would have to be in agreement, and have to "fake" a reason to drop out. A lot of big ifs, but like I said mostly rumor.
ALBANY - A powerful labor leader with strong ties to Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday joined the growing ranks of Democrats bashing Caroline Kennedy as a possible successor to the former first lady in the US Senate.
"Caroline Kennedy, although I'm sure a fascinating and engaging person, simply doesn't have the experience or Washington know-how to get it done for New York," said Stuart Applebaum, president of the 100,000- member Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union.
Yeah...how DARE Caroline Kennedy think that a woman could get named to the US Senate from New York on nothing but her last name and familial relationship with a famously philandering former US President?
I can see why Hillary's supporters would be outraged by the mere thought of it.
Mideast Donors Big on Bill's List: Foreigners gave big cash to Clinton Foundation, which ends decade of resistance to identifying the sources of its money
ALBANY - A powerful labor leader with strong ties to Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday joined the growing ranks of Democrats bashing Caroline Kennedy as a possible successor to the former first lady in the US Senate.
"Caroline Kennedy, although I'm sure a fascinating and engaging person, simply doesn't have the experience or Washington know-how to get it done for New York," said Stuart Applebaum, president of the 100,000- member Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union.
Yeah...how DARE Caroline Kennedy think that a woman could get named to the US Senate from New York on nothing but her last name and familial relationship with a famously philandering former US President?
I can see why Hillary's supporters would be outraged by the mere thought of it.
I don't personally have an opinion about Kennedy's qualifications. I don't really know much about her, however I do know Clinton wasn't given her seat but worked for it and was elected twice by the people for that office. She's proven that she's got more than just a last name to must people who are not avid Clinton haters.
Let's be real, MEM. Clinton might not have been appointed to fill Moynihan's vacancy but she was selected by the state party bosses to run on her name and not her (then largely non-existent) experience.
Caroline Kennedy is at least as "qualified" as Hillary was when she ran.
On the other hand, it might be a moot point. The way that Bill's donor list is shaking out Hillary might not get confirmed as Secretary of State due to all the potential conflicts of interest. If so, there won't be a vacancy for Kennedy to fill.
SOME of those who are owed $6.3 million by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign are annoyed at the senator's grandstanding. Clinton received a $2,300 contribution from Caroline Kennedy, but returned it after Kennedy very publicly endorsed Barack Obama. "I don't see anything wrong with Caroline Kennedy's money," said one source. "Returning it was just an act of spite." Clinton can't raise money after she becomes secretary of state, and she recently wrote off $13.1 million in loans she personally made to the campaign
With a face like that, might I suggest that, instead of taking the Secretary of State job, she ask Nolan to cast her as Heath Ledger's replacement in the next "Batman" movie. That smile looks like a fucking Brian Bolland drawing.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has long been fighting suggestions that she's been sidelined or overshadowed by others in making foreign policy decisions. But Monday, her heated response to a question about her superstar-status husband may put the question back into the spotlight. On Monday, at a town hall in Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a Congolese student asked the secretary and former NBA basketball player Dikembe Mutombo a question through an English translator.
"We've all heard about the Chinese contracts in this county, the interferences from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton, and what does Mr. Mutombo think on this situation?" the translator said.
Clinton paused nearly nine seconds before responding.
"Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state. I am. So, you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I'm not going to be channeling my husband," she said sharply.
It turned out the translator had misstated the question, which actually involved President Obama's opinion, not former President Bill Clinton. The student apologized to Clinton after the event.
But the damage had been done: The raw nerve was not only struck, it was seared.
DiscussionsView Results
Clinton's intense irritation followed the successful surprise trip Bill Clinton took to North Korea to free two American journalists detained there, a trip that eclipsed her own exhausting mission to Africa.
Her response -- albeit, due to a misunderstanding -- showed how unwelcome the suggestion was that Clinton is her husband's spokesperson.
The news of his visit broke after Clinton had left for her trip to Africa last Monday. Since then, she has been peppered with questions about her husband's trip, and whether she had played a role in it, rather than what she planned to accomplish in Africa.
Wow. She was openly PISSED. Aren't diplomats supposed to be...well...diplomatic?
This just demonstrates that she wasn't really qualified for this job to begin with. She spent her whole life riding Bill's coattails and now she's cracking under the strain.
I think it's why she is so pissed, she has no identity outside of Bill. she would be practicing law in some cubby hole in AK if not for him and she knows it. It just hurts her that the rest of the world knows it too.
Clinton Loses Her Cool: Secretary of state's outburst in Congo over misinterpreted question raises concerns about her diplomatic skills.
She and Obama really screwed up putting her in this position. She had no diplomatic experience beyond her marriage to Bill and even during the campaign she made herself look foolish when she tried to bolster her foreign policy credentials (for example, her lies about dodging sniper fire).
If they had been smart she would have been nominated to the Sotomayor spot on the SCotUS. Agree or disagree with her politics she was at least as qualified as Sotomayor (except for not being Hispanic, of course) for that gig. In the alternative, she could have been the Attorney General and, again, while you might quibble with her politics, she would have been at least as qualified as Holder (and it isn't as if Holder is nonpartisan).
Hillary Clinton's trip across Africa just got more controversial.
Clinton caused another firestorm during her trouble-plagued Africa tour last night by drawing comparisons between political corruption in Nigeria and President Bush's contested election win nine years ago in Florida.
The Secretary of State made the bizarre comparison during a speech to a group of political activists in the Nigerian capitol of Abuja, another stop on her 11-day, seven-country tour of the continent.
She singled out former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- the former president's brother -- with helping the GOP grab the White House from Democrat Al Gore.
"Our democracy is still evolving. You know we had some problems in some of our presidential elections," she said. "As you may remember, in 2000 our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of one of the men running for president was governor of the state. So we have our problems too."
I'm trying to imagine the outcry if Condi Rice or Colin Powell had gone around to other countries and told people that the Clintons were corrupt. Telling other nations our previous leaders were crooks is hardly the way to inspire confidence in our government.
Her implication that Jeb being governor of Florida somehow allowed his brother to steal the election (ie, created a problem), is certainly open to dispute.
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 6000+ posts 6 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Hillary's Short Fuse
Her implication that Jeb being governor of Florida somehow allowed his brother to steal the election (ie, created a problem), is certainly open to dispute.
None of that was said however. She stuck to a very simple basic truth that one brother was govenor of the state that decided the election. I think no matter what side you're on it's hard to dispute that didn't cause problems. BTW, why would you title this as Hillary having a short fuse? It's the conservatives that are getting upset and going on the warpath.
She stuck to a very simple basic truth that one brother was govenor of the state that decided the election. I think no matter what side you're on it's hard to dispute that didn't cause problems.
That didn't cause a problem, except in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
Yes it was and apparently it still upsets some people if it's briefly referenced.
Yes, you do need to get over it. Your lord and savior is now president. You and rest of the brain aids crew needs to get over bush winning the election.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
These republicans staging a phony mob back in 2000...
Putting aside Zick's DNC talking point that any time a Republican speaks out it's either (a) a phony mob; or (b) a racist right wing militia...
Hillary was the one who said that Bush's brother being governor of Florida created a problem. She obviously wasn't talking about the fact that it resulted in protests by Republicans (as Zick suggests), given the context of her remarks. She was speaking in a country having problems with democracy and making reference to corrupt elections. As such, unless she just strings sentences together at random, she was clearly implying that the 2000 US election was corrupt.
And, if she was trying to claim that the 2000 GOP protests were something that equates to "corruption," then we're back to the point that Democrats think opposing views being heard are a "problem."
Either way, it reflects poorly on the supposed diplomatic skills of our nation's top diplomat.
These republicans staging a phony mob back in 2000...
Putting aside Zick's DNC talking point that any time a Republican speaks out it's either (a) a phony mob; or (b) a racist right wing militia...
Hillary was the one who said that Bush's brother being governor of Florida created a problem. She obviously wasn't talking about the fact that it resulted in protests by Republicans (as Zick suggests), given the context of her remarks. She was speaking in a country having problems with democracy and making reference to corrupt elections. As such, unless she just strings sentences together at random, she was clearly implying that the 2000 US election was corrupt.
And, if she was trying to claim that the 2000 GOP protests were something that equates to "corruption," then we're back to the point that Democrats think opposing views being heard are a "problem."
Either way, it reflects poorly on the supposed diplomatic skills of our nation's top diplomat.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Now you'll never vote for Obama
In other words, you can't respond to my points and had nothing to say. But you wanted to post something so you could edit the thread title.
These republicans staging a phony mob back in 2000...
Putting aside Zick's DNC talking point that any time a Republican speaks out it's either (a) a phony mob; or (b) a racist right wing militia...
Hillary was the one who said that Bush's brother being governor of Florida created a problem. She obviously wasn't talking about the fact that it resulted in protests by Republicans (as Zick suggests), given the context of her remarks. She was speaking in a country having problems with democracy and making reference to corrupt elections. As such, unless she just strings sentences together at random, she was clearly implying that the 2000 US election was corrupt.
And, if she was trying to claim that the 2000 GOP protests were something that equates to "corruption," then we're back to the point that Democrats think opposing views being heard are a "problem."
Either way, it reflects poorly on the supposed diplomatic skills of our nation's top diplomat.
In addition, if liberals in the media hadn't falsely called Florida for Al Gore in 2000, suppressing Republican turnout, and the error was not corrected until after the polls closed, then Florida would have decisively gone to W. Bush, and there nmever would have been an angry crowd demanding a fair re-count of ALL the votes.
Ann Coulter proved this by looking at past elections:
Originally Posted By: SLANDER, by Ann Coulter, page 102-103
"Looking at past Republican and Democrat voting patterns across Florida in every presidential election since 1976, economist John Lott compared the vote in the Panhandle to that of the rest of the state in the 2000 election. He found an "unusual drop-off in Republican voting rates in Florida's 10 western Panhandle counties in 2000". The dropoff was evident relative to both the prior presidential elections and the rest of the state. Lott estimated that the erropneous projection for Gore [the networks falsely calling the state for Gore prematurely, only correcting the projection after the polls were closed] cost Bush between 10,000 and 37,000 votes.
Which would have decisively given the state to Bush, beyond any dispute.
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.
It took just a moment for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to successfully grab the attention of Africans, speaking in a voice that many could find respectful and galvanizing even as she broached old complaints about corruption, bad governance and human rights violations.
In Nigeria, her third-to-last stop on an 11-day tour that ended Friday, Clinton acknowledged that democracy was still evolving even in the United States, citing the George W. Bush-Al Gore election controversy from 2000. The reference to less-than-perfect events back home acknowledged to Africa’s leaders that democracy is a work in progress in every corner of the world.
Democracy isn’t easy, so problems are to be expected.
Africa’s leaders, even the less autocratic ones, sneer at patronizing foreigners. They have often used this perceived arrogance to divert attention from legitimate issues outsiders raise.
Clinton’s straight talk denies Africa’s corrupt governments that opportunity. It also addresses critics’ doubts about whether her strong personality could fit in the highly subtle world of diplomacy. Her Africa tour ends as a diplomatic coup.
As Clinton said in a major speech in Kenya, the U.S. is now seeking Africa as a partner instead of patron. Clinton seemed to read the minds of Africans who, correctly or not, believe that U.S. transactions with Africa are often disrespectful. Her candor disarmed them.
what exactly was the point of that article? i read it twice and it seems to point out that she is a paper tiger secretary of state, i thought you liked her?
It really is a weird editorial. It expresses the opinion that her trip was a success, but that bases that opinion on things she did that would indicate the opposite, such as attacking our own electoral system in front of other countries.
what exactly was the point of that article? i read it twice and it seems to point out that she is a paper tiger secretary of state, i thought you liked her?
It was a different perspective than G-man's typical fringy stuff. While she upset the usual suspects here (and really these days it's pretty easy to do that) it sounds like she had a good trip in general.
