Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- chossy0
Rand if you leave America come to Scotchland I will see you right :)
- Drno0
I'd vote hillary
only to make her smile and point finger
- Drno0
course #57
"how to fake a smile"
- Iggyboo0
at some point I gotta say stop picking on the woman because it comes off sexist. so what if she looks horrid. candid shots are not fair. picking on a person for looks is stupid. I am more worried about her political alliances than anything else...
- for me it has nothing to do with sexism--just hatred of corruption and the subversion of language********
- subversion of language is normal, its their parsing of meaning that's pernicious: Temple of Isis.********
- "depends what your meaning of is, is"********
- for me it has nothing to do with sexism--just hatred of corruption and the subversion of language
- ********0
"Barack Obama won the delegate race in Texas by picking up 4 more delegates than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton did NOT win Texas, inspite of CNN's constant repetition of her "3 state sweep" meme. The results of last Tuesday were Clinton 2 states (Ohio and Rhode Island), and Obama 2 (Vermont and Texas). Each candidate won one large and one small state. It was a tie.
(I am using a technique of small words, oft repeated, because they keep telling us how complicated it is, how we don't understand, and how unfair this damned caucus process is. In other words they're stupid so we must be stupid too.)NAFTA-gate is a prime example of chanting the media line, having settled on a script and being unwilling to adjust that script, in spite of the many conflicting bits of information that keep leaking out of the Canadian Government. Senator Obama's unpaid campaign economic advisor told the Canadian consulate that the Senator was not going to abandon NAFTA, but would require renegotation of several aspects of the treaty.
Someone took some variant of "minutes" of that conversation which were then leaked as a "memo" at the instigation of a fellow in the Prime Minister's office. When challenged PM Stephen Harper denied any intentions to interfer with the US elections. Turns out that was not true. Those minutes were written to contain statements that all of the principles have denied, but served to give a boost to uninformed voters who favor the Clinton campaign.The Clinton campaign has cast this primary as one of experience. Senator Clinton has no more experience with the day to day details of running the Executive Office than any other Presidential spouse. Standing around with Chelsea while dance groups perform in exotic costumes, staying in palaces, and using the military and Secret Service agencies in droves to protect their persons, and generally making her way around the stage of public appearances, is NOT experience in executive management. It does provide diplomatic experience, however. Maybe Hillary could be made Ambassador to Urdustan?
Hillary Clinton has brow beaten the media into recasting her failures as success. Hillary Clinton does not lead in the popular vote, she did not win Michigan, as she was the only name on the ballot, and her name recognition in Florida (in early January) does not constitute a "win". Given that tens of thousands of voters did not participate in either state since they knew that the primaries, and subsequent delegate selections, would not count at the convention, to claim these as wins is the height of arrogance. Senator Clinton spins reality with the same lack of respect for truth as George Bush. And, the media continues to repeat her fantasies, unquestioningly.
Hillary Clinton is the ultimate example of the "old politics". She brings nothing new to the table. She has been in the pocket of big pharma, the health insurance industry, and the MIC for the past 20 years. She has taken much of her financing from these industries, and she will not be able to effect change that cuts off the spigot to the contracts, activities, and control of the legislative agenda, that these power players demand. Her compaign is working valiently to conceal and distort this record, and present Ms. Clinton as an agent of "change". Can't happen, media. Get out there and track down her real history. Not just the spin of Penn and Wolfson."
- ********0
what chic or dude would bone hilary clinton? she is a scary person and politician.
- my fear is that the majority of people voting are as idiotic as you. You lower the bar for all of us.monkeyshine
- 5timuli0
McCaaaaaiiiinnnn!!!!!!!
- 5timuli0
She's a fuckchunk! (I only said this cause Votechooser.com gave me 10/10 for Obama and I need to break my OCD (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton).
- ********0
Breaking the final rule
by Gary Hart
It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.
As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.
Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.
- ********0
On the Red Phone
By Larry David
Here's an idea for an Obama ad: a montage of Clinton's Sybillish personalities that have surfaced during the campaign with a solemn voiceover at the end saying, "Does anyone want this nut answering the phone?"How is it that she became the one who's perceived as more equipped to answer that 3 a.m. call than the unflappable Obama? He, with the ice in his veins, who doesn't panic when he's losing or get too giddy when he's winning, who's as comfortable in his own skin as she's uncomfortable in hers. There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.
A few weeks ago, I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already...Who cares...It's not worth it. There's not that much difference between them. She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness. So I switched. I started rooting for her. It wasn't that hard. Compromise comes easy to me. I was on board.
And then I saw the ad.
I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones.
- DUKIE08220
I love people who think that experience doesn't matter. if you don't think experience matters hire a kid right out of hs, or even college, to take on the next major project you are assigned- I'd bet you would say no way, s...
So why would you want your president to have little to no experience. If you think Obama has experience, then name some major accomplishments besides his votes against the war
- yeah, because we all know that people can't change their minds about decisions they made in the past...Jaline
- this has nothing to do with changing your mind, it is about making the right decisionDrno
- How many people do you think were for the war in the heat of the moment, and then changed their minds after?Jaline
- Obviously, it is something to consider and it an important fact. However, this thread is biased. We were warned though.Jaline
- they were all idiots. lots of them around here too. saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. there was no immediacy to this war.mrdobolina
- DUKIE08220
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_…
you can look at his voting record above...
I find this non vote particularly interesting for someone who despises the effort in Iraq
04/18/2005 Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment NV
- TheBlueOne0
I just seriously broke my TV remote throwing it at the talking heads on TV yapping about Hillary's momentum and how she won Texas (SHE LOST THE FUCKING DELEGATE COUNT, MORONS!!! AAARRRGGGHH!!!). I'm getting too old, yelling at the TV....I'm going on a news blackout until this shit is over or I'm going to have a heart attack...
- ********0
"The Curious Myth of Hillary Clinton's Senate Effectiveness
Frankly, I'm tired of listening to Senator Clinton portray herself as being in the solutions business -- as boasting a nice, fat resume of accomplishments -- while mocking Barack Obama for being a rhetorical empty suit.Is she truly a beacon of experience? Because I couldn't think of a single piece of legislation that has her name stuck proudly on the front of it, no equivalent of McCain-Feingold, for example, I headed straight for her campaign website to see what glorious aspects of her vaunted experience I was missing.
Actually, I was missing nothing. There is not one single example of any legislation with her name appended to it. In fact, the page devoted to her Senate biography is a mush-mash, a laundry list of good intentions. When she talks about "sponsoring" and "introducing" and "fighting for" legislation that obviously hasn't passed, that's a smokescreen for failure. By introducing all that legislation that never makes it out of committee, she's guilty of what she accuses Senator Obama of: confusing "hoping" with doing.
Consider these examples:
• "...{she} worked with her colleagues to secure the funds New York needed to recover and rebuild."
• "...she fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims."
• "She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefit to members of the National Guard and Reserves."
• "Some of Hillary' proudest achievements have been her work to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act." (What in God's name does that mumbo-jumbo mean?)
Yes, it's true that for many years, she was in the minority. But if she is the effective legislator she claims to be, she'd be able find co-sponsors across the aisle who share her commitment to specific issues, in the same way that John McCain found his doppelganger, Russ Feingold.
But an inability to get legislation passed is just the beginning of Senator Clinton's shallow record. For many of the bills she introduced, she couldn't even get a cosponsor in her own party!
Below are some perfectly fine, liberal, progressive bills that she introduced, but was unable to attract a cosponsor of any party, according to the Library of Congress.
Note that while her website proclaims that "She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefit to member of the National Guard and Reserves", she wasn't able to rustle up a single cosponsor for legislation that would have extended military retirement credit for National Guard Members called up after 9/11.
So Senator Clinton is right when she claims to be the experienced candidate, although it's not the experience she would like us to believe. It's a track record of legislative failure and futility.
89. S.4065 : A bill to direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on the feasibility of collecting crime data relating to the occurrence of school-related crime in elementary schools and secondary schools. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 11/16/2006) Cosponsors (None)
88. S.4029 : A bill to increase the number of well-educated nurses, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 9/29/2006) Cosponsors (None)
90. S.4103 : A bill to prevent nuclear terrorism, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 12/7/2006) Cosponsors (None)
77. S.3909 : A bill to amend the foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide assistance for developing countries to promote quality basic education and to establish the achievement of universal basic education in all developing countries as an objective of United States foreign assistance policy, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 9/18/2006) Cosponsors (None)
59. S.2993 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 5/23/2006) Cosponsors (None)
26. S.1144 : A bill to provide military retirement credit for certain service by National Guard members performed while in a State duty status immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 5/26/2005) Cosponsors (None)
50. S.2260 : A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to make improvements to payments to Medicare Advantage plans and to reinstate protections in the Medicaid program for working families, their children, and the disabled against excessive out-of-pocket costs, inadequate benefits, and health care coverage loss. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 2/8/2006) Cosponsors (None)"
- ********0
"If you are not worried about a White House under Mrs. Bill Clinton, then take a moment to read this Washington Post Op-ed piece. Some time ago, I blogged that "35 years" seemed like an arbitrary number, mostly chosen as a none too subtle (the Clintons long ago abandoned subtlety) contrast to Obama's age. Here is an useful analysis of the 35 year myth.
Item: Hillary's claim to "35 years of experience." Subtract her years spent as first lady of Arkansas and in the White House, and her time working as a lawyer in the Rose Law Firm and in other jobs. As Reason Magazine's Steve Chapman reported in November, Hillary Clinton has "just under eight years of experience in elective office -- one more than John Edwards and four fewer than Obama." And, to boot, Hillary the Feminist has her man to fight her battles.
Item: Bill Clinton's jab at Obama's lack of experience. To elect Obama would be to "roll the dice," sniffed the former president. When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he was governor of a small state, had no foreign policy experience and didn't know how to salute. He got his on-the-job experience in the White House.
The Clintons are effective gut punchers because they know the electorate has to work hard to debunk their lies, distortions and fantasies. There is an ugly streak in politics that is about creating a wildly exaggerated narrative that is seemingly plausible and sticking to it. (BTW, this is also the nature of a narcissist.) More than stick to the exaggeration, the Clintons attack anyone who questions their falsehoods with such ferocity that it reinforces the original tale. "How could it be a lie if they seem so passionate about it?"
- Bill did have state level executive experience before becoming the chief executiveDUKIE0822
- although that doesnt qualify his wife to be pres. Hi, My wife is going to perform brain surgery on you.mrdobolina
- I didn't say it did..I was reacting to the comment that Blill had no executive experienceDUKIE0822
- ********0
- ********0
With not a shred of authentic evidence to bolster this assertion, Hillary's campaign continues to perpetrate the fraud that she will be ready from Day One to lead. In this regard, her campaign spiel is an object-lesson in false advertising. There does exist substantive evidence, recently acquired, about her management expertise and ability to lead an enterprise. And here, the evidence is rather damning. An unbiased examination of the gross mismanagement of her own campaign, in and of itself, puts the lie to the bogus assertion that she is capable of leading from Day One. As press reports are now beginning to make clear, Hillary's campaign will be recorded as one of the most inept and dysfunctional in recent political history. Bereft of any strategic planning, she had no Plan B in place to carry-on the fight after a loss on Super Tuesday. Her campaign manager, chosen solely for her loyalty instead of her competence, burned through the campaign cash at an alarming rate and with reckless abandon, leaving the organization broke when Hillary needed money the most and having little to show for the expenditures. To this day, the very public bickering, backstabbing and internal conflict that has plagued her campaign continues unabated. Voters viewing this spectacle may wonder in trepidation that if a Clinton II Presidency in any way mirrors the inept handling of her own campaign, it would be a national catastrophe.
When Hillary's campaign staff was asked recently during a conference call with reporters to name a single instance in her career when she was tested in a foreign policy crisis, there was a marked silence on the other end of the line. The uncomfortable pause was hardly a rousing affirmation of her genuine qualifications to be commander-in-chief. In the end, it was a question for which her advocates had no honest answer.
Her chief political "experience" consisted of heading up a damage control department to deal with the numerous bimbo eruptions and other scandals that defined the Clinton Presidency. Her job was to ruthlessly crush the Clintons adversaries. Does this type of experience qualify her for the presidency? Since Hillary has no substantial relevant experience, her campaign has resorted to the fraudulent pretense of rewriting her role as first lady. There was the high-risk and daring descent by plane into Bosnia; there was her integral role in the Irish Peace Process; there was her lasting work on behalf of "children" during her brief one year stint at the Children's Defense Fund. The make-believe list goes on and on...
Scrutiny reveals however, that each one of her major accomplishments touted to the public are wholly fictional. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Clintons have not been forthcoming about releasing her White House records so inquiring minds can compare the perception purveyed with the dismal and baneful reality. The dirty little secret of the Democratic race is that neither Obama nor Hillary have any substantive experience that would qualify them for the highest office in the land.
- _eh_0
MIKE GRAVEL FTW !
