Is Hillary A "Monster"?

[Sanslines]

Obama adviser resigns; called Clinton ‘monster’

Power told newspaper rival candidate stooping to low tactics


http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif

LONDON - A Barack Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16438329/) adviser resigned Friday after calling rival Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16123860/) "a monster."
Samantha Power, an unpaid foreign policy adviser and Harvard professor, announced her resignation in a statement provided by the Obama campaign in which she expressed "deep regret."
"Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign," she said. "And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months."

Power's interview Monday was published Friday in a Scottish newspaper, even though she tried to keep it from appearing in print.
"She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything," The Scotsman quoted her as saying.
As U.S. news media picked up on the remark, Power issued a statement of apology and the campaign said Obama decried the characterization.
The Clinton campaign held a conference call with several of the former first lady's congressional supporters calling for Power to be fired.
"Senator Obama has called for change, and a new kind of politics," said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks. "This is the worst kind of politics."
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson noted that those involved in the Clinton campaign had been removed when they spoke of Obama's teenage drug use or helped spread the false rumor that the Illinois senator is a Muslim.

He defended his own comparison of Obama to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, saying he'd been responding to "attacks" from the Obama campaign regarding Clinton's tax returns and real estate transactions. That, he said, was a clear reference to Whitewater and so it was appropriate to bring up Starr in that context.

[Qikdraw]

Considering the attacks Hillary's campaign has done against Obama, they really don't have room to talk. However whoever shouts the loudest gets heard. While the comment was not appropriate neither was the Kenneth Star comment.

Hillary's campaign really takes pages out of Rove's playbook.

Qikdraw

[luvnaturism]

As the campaign gets tighter and tougher, and candidates get more desperate, they'll all take pages out of Karl Rove's playbook. It's the unfortunate nature of campaigns when people desperate for power are pitted against each other.

Anyway, it wasn't Rove's playbook to start with. He didn't do much that hadn't been done before, though he did it more ruthlessly and more effectively than most.

[nudeM]

Question of this topic is, "Is Hillary a Monster"?

My answer, YES

[KirkOntario]

We told you so. A long time ago.

[Qikdraw]

Anyway, it wasn't Rove's playbook to start with. He didn't do much that hadn't been done before

Very true...

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Joseph Goebbels

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
Hermann Goering

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

Originally Posted by luvnaturism http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=186356#post186356)
Anyway, it wasn't Rove's playbook to start with. He didn't do much that hadn't been done before.


Very true...

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
~ Joseph Goebbels


"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
~ Hermann Goering


Qikdraw

Damnit, Qikdraw!

You beat me to it!

Now we will have to hear the caterwauling for sure.

[KirkOntario]

Damnit, Qikdraw!

You beat me to it!

Now we will have to hear the caterwauling for sure.

Its far too old to be worth commentary.

[Sacramento Jesse]

Is she a monster: yes.

If Hilary gets the democrat nomination this year's election will have a major turn out. People will pile in just to vote against her. Just my opinion.

[naturistoftheyear]

I don't like Hillary, but a monster? No.

I would've expected a Harvard professor to be clever enough not to use language like that in a campaign. She damaged Obama more than Hillary.

[usmc1]

Is she a monster: yes.

If Hilary gets the democrat nomination this year's election will have a major turn out. People will pile in just to vote against her. Just my opinion.

BOO!
MONSTER GONNA GETCHA -BETTER SLEEP WITH THE LIGHTS ON!

[Croydon]

Is Hillary a monster? I don't know how to answer that Q. I have great respect for her and her job in politics but I must say that at this time, I am VERY disgusted by her and her campaign.

In that past month, she has become increasingly nasty. To some extent, I fault her for Obama's loss in OH and TX. The weekend before the vote, polls were showing that he was closing in on her lead. Out of desperation, she turned into negative campaigning. Whether we want to believe it or not, it worked. Her negativity was able to change the votes of some and help last minute voters make a decision.

I understand that negative campaigning is the nature of politics but I think Clinton has crossed the line.

1) The pictures that came out few weeks ago of Obama in Kenya wearing traditional Kenyan attire (they keep saying it is Muslim, which it isn't) was the work of the Clinton campaign. Clinton denied she had nothing to do with it but I am convinced that it all started with members in her campaign.

2) On a 60 minutes interview, Mike Wallace questioned Clinton about rumors that Obama is Muslim. Her response, "As far as I know, he is not." What kind of answer is that? "As far as I know?" That is quite an odd answer to a question about someone you state you have great respect for, have met with his family and enjoyed spending time with, have invited to your home and vice versa, and display a picture of him and his family on your desk. You claim you are close to him and his family yet the best answer you can give is "as far as I know?"

3) NAFTA. Obama was accused of speaking to Canadian gov't about NAFTA and that he told Canadian not to take his criticisms of NAFTA seriously. Canadian gov't denied the store yet Clinton camp used it as a tool to say that Obama is hypocritical and untrue. Two days after OH voted, a confirmed report came out showing that Clinton did speak with Canadian and warned them that she will be criticizing NAFTA but do not take anything she says seriously.

Right now, if Clinton wins nomination, she will NOT be getting my vote (nor is McCain). In the beginning, I was for Obama (still am) but would gladly support Clinton if she won nomination. Today, I don't think I will support her.

[Sanslines]

1) The pictures that came out few weeks ago of Obama in Kenya wearing traditional Kenyan attire (they keep saying it is Muslim, which it isn't) was the work of the Clinton campaign. Clinton denied she had nothing to do with it but I am convinced that it all started with members in her campaign.

What about those (in this forum) who would rather only talk about Fox news involvement in starting false rumors about Obama being a Muslim and yet those same individuals remain silent about Hillary's campaign involvement in spreading false rumors about Obama being a Muslim? It just goes to show how some would rather play party politics and selectively promote partial truths which hold accountable only one political party rather then promote the whole truth which holds both parties accountable.

2) On a 60 minutes interview, Mike Wallace questioned Clinton about rumors that Obama is Muslim. Her response, "As far as I know, he is not." What kind of answer is that? "As far as I know?" That is quite an odd answer to a question about someone you state you have great respect for, have met with his family and enjoyed spending time with, have invited to your home and vice versa, and display a picture of him and his family on your desk. You claim you are close to him and his family yet the best answer you can give is "as far as I know?"

Hillary is a politician and will speak only in political terms as will most politicians. When asked a direct question that she does not want to answer directly (if that is even possilble for a politician) she will carefully slant her answer or answer an entirely different question.

3) NAFTA. Obama was accused of speaking to Canadian gov't about NAFTA and that he told Canadian not to take his criticisms of NAFTA seriously. Canadian gov't denied the store yet Clinton camp used it as a tool to say that Obama is hypocritical and untrue. Two days after OH voted, a confirmed report came out showing that Clinton did speak with Canadian and warned them that she will be criticizing NAFTA but do not take anything she says seriously.

Right now, if Clinton wins nomination, she will NOT be getting my vote (nor is McCain). In the beginning, I was for Obama (still am) but would gladly support Clinton if she won nomination. Today, I don't think I will support her.

As recent results have shown, negative campaigning wins votes as enough people, regardless of what they say to the contrary, do want to see mudslinging. You can be certain that the campaign will continue to get nastier until a clear winner - either Hillary or Obama - emerges. I still hold out much hope for Obama.

[naturalmanwa]

Doesn't anyone remember what it was like when she was in the White House for 8 years? Seems like everytime one turned around, congress was investigating something the Clintons were involved in. I think McCain and Obama can stand on their records of voting while in office. Hilary can't and I cannot imagine anyone wanting her back!

[Qikdraw]

Doesn't anyone remember what it was like when she was in the White House for 8 years? Seems like everytime one turned around, congress was investigating something the Clintons were involved in.

Well to be fair to Hillary, that was political crap the republicans threw up because they hated the Clintons. When you look at what happened then, and what has been going on with this administration, you see what hypocrites the republican politicians are.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Well to be fair to Hillary, that was political crap the republicans threw up because they hated the Clintons. When you look at what happened then, and what has been going on with this administration, you see what hypocrites the republican politicians are.

Qikdraw

Republicans hate the Clintons for a reason and now some of the Democrats up against Lady Macbeth and her husband Bill are now saying 'the Republicans were right.' Thankfully Bill's legacy has been stained (like a little blue dress) having seen his bullying, hectoring, purple faced rage on display throughout this campaign. The real Bill Clinton has been revealed.

[Boreas]

Republicans hate the Clintons for a reason and now some of the Democrats up against Lady Macbeth and her husband Bill are now saying 'the Republicans were right.' Thankfully Bill's legacy has been stained (like a little blue dress) having seen his bullying, hectoring, purple faced rage on display throughout this campaign. The real Bill Clinton has been revealed.

Ah the little blue dress gets brought up, predictable. So now I will be predictable. How is that so bad compared to starting an illegal war? Seems to me the war is a far worse sin.

[KirkOntario]

Let's leave bombing Serbia out of this shall we? Say do you think that ignited a new Cold War with Putin's Russia?

[BinCo]

I don't think she is a monster, as much as I would hate it if she won the nomination. The Right is rooting for her simply because Rush and the gang know that her on the ticket will bring out more voters against her. While if it's Obama against McCain they have no real hope of many voters turning out to vote. Many seem to consider Obama and acceptable opposition and will not bother to vote since the strong will is not against him.

As far as her tactics, she is working from the Rove handbook, that was written by the tobacco lobby in the 60's and 70's. All you have to instill is a tiny bit of doubt and people will run around confused. So saying that crap about not being sure if Obama is a Muslim is just the way for her to install a tiny shred of doubt. It's exactly why so many conservatives focus on his middle name and father's heritage. To instill doubt in the weak minded idiots that will vote based on hearsay instead of fact.

The people who push this nonsense really view the electorate as puppets on a string that can be easily manipulated. Alas, 'tis true.:(

[Naturist Mark]

Sometimes NOBODY gets it right ...

$300 MILLION FROM CHAVEZ TO FARC A FAKE

Here’s the written evidence… and - please say it ain’t so! - Obama and Hillary attack Ecuador

Friday, March 7, 2008 for TomPaine.com/Ourfuture.org (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/300-mllion-chavez-farc-fake)
By Greg Palast

Do you believe this?

This past weekend, Colombia invaded Ecuador, killed a guerrilla chief in the jungle, opened his laptop – and what did the Colombians find? A message to Hugo Chavez that he sent the FARC guerrillas $300 million – which they’re using to obtain uranium to make a dirty bomb!

That’s what George Bush tells us. And he got that from his buddy, the strange right-wing President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe.

So: After the fact, Colombia justifies its attempt to provoke a border war as a to stop the threat of WMDs! Uh, where have we heard that before?

The US press snorted up this line about Chavez’ $300 million to “terrorists” quicker than the young Bush inhaling Colombia’s powdered export.

What the US press did not do is look at the evidence, the email in the magic laptop. (Presumably, the FARC leader’s last words were, “Listen, my password is ….”)

I read them. While you can read it all in español, here is, in translation, the one and only mention of the alleged $300 million from Chavez is this:

“… With relation to the 300, which from now on we will call “dossier,” efforts are now going forward at the instructions of the boss to the cojo [slang term for ‘cripple’], which I will explain in a separate note. Let’s call the boss Ángel, and the cripple Ernesto.”

Got that? Where is Hugo? Where’s 300 million? And 300 what? Indeed, in context, the note is all about the hostage exchange with the FARC that Chavez was working on at the time (December 23, 2007) at the request of the Colombian government.

Indeed, the entire remainder of the email is all about the mechanism of the hostage exchange. Here’s the next line: “To receive the three freed ones, Chavez proposes three options: Plan A. Do it to via of a ‘humanitarian caravan’; one that will involve Venezuela, France, the Vatican[?], Switzerland, European Union, democrats [civil society], Argentina, Red Cross, etc.”

As to the 300, I must note that the FARC’s previous prisoner exchange involved 300 prisoners. Is that what the ‘300’ refers to? ¿Quien sabe? Unlike Uribe, Bush and the US press, I won’t guess or make up a phastasmogoric story about Chavez mailing checks to the jungle.

To bolster their case, the Colombians claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that the mysterious “Angel” is the code name for Chavez. But in the memo, Chavez goes by the code name … Chavez.

Well, so what? This is what.

Colombia’s invasion into Ecuador is a rank violation of international law, condemned by every single Latin member of the Organization of American States. And George Bush just loved it. He called Uribe to back Colombia, against, “the continuing assault by narco-terrorists as well as the provocative maneuvers by the regime in Venezuela.”

Well, our President may have gotten the facts ***-backward, but Bush knows what he’s doing: shoring up his last, faltering ally in South America, Uribe, a desperate man in deep political trouble.

Uribe claims he is going to bring charges against Chavez before the International Criminal Court. If Uribe goes there in person, I suggest he take a toothbrush: it was just discovered that right-wing death squads held murder-planning sessions at Uribe’s ranch. Uribe’s associates have been called before the nation’s Supreme Court and may face prison.

In other words, it’s a good time for a desperate Uribe to use that old politico’s wheeze, the threat of war, to drown out accusations of his own criminality. Furthermore, Uribe’s attack literally killed negotiations with FARC by killing FARC’s negotiator, Raul Reyes. Reyes was in talks with both Ecuador and Chavez about another prisoner exchange. Uribe authorized the negotiations, however, he knew, should those talks have succeeded in obtaining the release of those kidnapped by the FARC, credit would have been heaped on Ecuador and Chavez, and discredit heaped on Uribe.

Luckily for a hemisphere on the verge of flames, the President of Ecuador, Raphael Correa, is one of the most level-headed, thoughtful men I’ve ever encountered.

Correa is now flying from Quito to Brazilia to Caracas to keep the region from blowing sky high. While moving troops to his border – no chief of state can permit foreign tanks on their sovereign soil – Correa also refuses sanctuary to the FARC . Indeed, Ecuador has routed out 47 FARC bases, a better track record than Colombia’s own, corrupt military.

For his cool, peaceable handling of the crisis, I will forgive Correa for apologizing for his calling Bush, “a dimwitted President who has done great damage to his country and the world.” (Watch an excerpt of my interview with Correa here. (http://mailings.gregpalast.com//lt/t_go.php?i=70&e=NDc2NjA=&l=-http--www.democracynow.org/2008/2/11/exclusive_ecuadorean_president_rafael_correa_on))

Amateur Hour in Blue

We can trust Correa to keep the peace South of the Border. But can we trust our Presidents-to-be?

The current man in the Oval Office, George Bush, simply can’t help himself: an outlaw invasion by a right-wing death-squad promoter is just fine with him.

But guess who couldn’t wait to parrot the Bush line? Hillary Clinton, still explaining that her vote to invade Iraq was not a vote to invade Iraq, issued a statement nearly identical to Bush’s, blessing the invasion of Ecuador as Colombia’s “right to defend itself.” And she added, “Hugo Chávez must stop these provoking actions.” Huh?

I assumed that Obama wouldn’t jump on this landmine – especially after he was blasted as a foreign policy amateur for suggesting he would invade across Pakistan’s border to hunt terrorists.

It’s embarrassing that Barack repeated Hillary’s line nearly verbatim, announcing, “the Colombian government has every right to defend itself.”

(I’m sure Hillary’s position wasn’t influenced by the loan of a campaign jet to her by Frank Giustra. Giustra has given over a hundred million dollars to Bill Clinton projects. Last year, Bill introduced Giustra to Colombia’s Uribe. On the spot, Giustra cut a lucrative deal with Uribe for Colombian oil.)

Then there’s Mr. War Hero. John McCain weighed in with his own idiocies, announcing that, “Hugo Chavez is establish[ing] a dictatorship,” presumably because, unlike George Bush, Chavez counts all the votes in Venezuelan elections.

But now our story gets tricky and icky.

The wise media critic Jeff Cohen told me to watch for the press naming McCain as a foreign policy expert and labeling the Democrats as amateurs. Sure enough, the New York Times, on the news pages Wednesday, called McCain, “a national security pro.”

McCain is the “pro” who said the war in Iraq would cost nearly nothing in lives or treasury dollars.

But, on the Colombian invasion of Ecuador, McCain said, “I hope that tensions will be relaxed, President Chavez will remove those troops from the borders - as well as the Ecuadorians - and relations continue to improve between the two.”

It’s not quite English, but it’s definitely not Bush. And weirdly, it’s definitely not Obama and Clinton cheerleading Colombia’s war on Ecuador.

Democrats, are you listening? The only thing worse than the media attacking Obama and Clinton as amateurs is the Democratic candidates’ frightening desire to prove them right.

[KirkOntario]

Classic Mark Steyn on Hillary and the Dems....

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjczMDE2Zjk3ODlhNDUwMGQyOGExNTU5YTE1OTBjMTE=

"The Democratic primary season seems to have dwindled down into a psycho remake of Driving Miss Daisy. The fading matriarch Mizz Hill’ry (Jessica Tandy) doesn’t want to give up the keys to the Democratic-party vehicle but the dignified black chauffeur Hokey (Morgan Freeman) insists it’ll be a much smoother ride with him in the driver’s seat, full of gear change you can believe in, etc. Yet, just as he thinks the old biddy’s resigned to a nomination as Best Supporting Actress, the backseat driver plunges her hat pin into his spine, wrests the wheel away and lurches across the median."

[Naturist Mark]

Turns out the Clinton campaign is guilty of precisely the NAFTA waffling they falsely accused Obama of. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html)

On Feb 27, the Canadian network CTV reported that even as Obama was publicly attacking Bill Clinton's role in NAFTA, and arguing for a drastic overhaul, he'd had a top staffer call the Canadian ambassador and arrange a meeting to reassure the Canadians that this was all just "political positioning," pandering for campaign trail.
...
Clinton made the controversy a centerpiece of her home stretch speeches and ads, saying "You come to Ohio and you both give speeches that are very critical of NAFTA and you send out misleading and false information about my position regarding NAFTA and then we find out that your chief economic advisor has gone to a foreign government and basically done the old wink wink, don't pay any attention this is just political rhetoric."
...
Ironically, the day before the story hit American TV, Brodie, told reporters questioning him on trade that "someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . .That someone called us and told us not to worry." But that never made the headlines and no one raised it in the campaign.
full article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html)

[KirkOntario]

I thought "Diebold" decided all things Ohio.

[nacktman]

Ah the little blue dress gets brought up, predictable. So now I will be predictable. How is that so bad compared to starting an illegal war? Seems to me the war is a far worse sin.

Yes, how bad?
Yes, war is a whole helluva lot worse than "getting a little side action". In wars people are always killed, side action does not mean loss of life every time.

[Naturist Mark]

October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Who made that speech?

Here's a hint: ""He [McCain] will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. [He] will put forth a speech he made in 2002"

Too bad that lifetime of experience told Clinton and McCain to back Bush and the neocons over Iraq. Only the man with "no experience" made the right call.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AUV69LZbCNQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AUV69LZbCNQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[nakeduni]

She's smart as a whip, something this country needs in view of the last seven years of bogus. She's no monster. The media has been trashing her for over year so I'm not surprised people don't like her. The media (white males who are threatened by females) like Obama and McCain. Unfortunately, McCain is a jerk, which people will learn in the coming months. We need a nudist in the white house.

[Qikdraw]

She's smart as a whip, something this country needs in view of the last seven years of bogus. She's no monster. The media has been trashing her for over year so I'm not surprised people don't like her. The media (white males who are threatened by females) like Obama and McCain. Unfortunately, McCain is a jerk, which people will learn in the coming months. We need a nudist in the white house.

Well Hillary is smart for sure, but that isn't at issue. I don't like her policies, I don't like how close she is to big business, I don't like the way she is running her campaign, and I don't believe that she has been trashed in the media. If Obama had lost 11 states in a row to Hillary they would have promptly ignored him, she still got good press. Her 'complaint' that Obama has been softballed I think is completely fake. Just like her 'NAFTAgate'.

While Hillary in the White House would not be a terrible thing, the other thing to look at is who will be elected? Hillary is absolutely hated by the right, as such her name on the ballot will bring out more republican voters, who really don't like McCain and are deciding not to vote this year. For the democratic party, and for the country the best person to elect is Obama.

My neighbours are pretty much all republicans, registered and been that way for years. I talked with them last night and came away amazed. One neighbour who has been a registered republican for over 25 years has now registered independant, and will vote for Obama if he is the democratic contender. They will not vote for Hillary at all. Another neighbour who was very pro business, and who I have had many great debates with, is now completely turned around and is pissed off at the tax breaks they get for shipping jobs overseas, he's sick of the gas prices that the republicans have allowed, he's basically a completely different person. He's wanting to vote Obama for president.

This is why Obama needs to be the one to run for president. Hillary is unelectable.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Hilarious SNL skit on the 3 am call last night...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/09/the-snl-barack-calls-hill-at-3am-skit/


Glad the Democrats are stuck with both of them. Let them keep tearing eachother apart.

[usmc1]

She's smart as a whip, something this country needs in view of the last seven years of bogus. She's no monster. The media has been trashing her for over year so I'm not surprised people don't like her. The media (white males who are threatened by females) like Obama and McCain. Unfortunately, McCain is a jerk, which people will learn in the coming months. We need a nudist in the white house.

Word that!

[Sanslines]

Has anyone ever researched to see what Hillary has actually accomplished for New York State? Has she fulfilled any of her campaign pledges when she was runing for the Senate? Is her popularity based upon image and words or actual deeds and acomplishments?

[MoonShadow]

You can check their records out

Clinton: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Obama: http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=BS030017

McCain: http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=53270

Just copy any of the above into your browser

[BinCo]

Has anyone ever researched to see what Hillary has actually accomplished for New York State? Has she fulfilled any of her campaign pledges when she was runing for the Senate? Is her popularity based upon image and words or actual deeds and acomplishments?

Good question. I wonder how many people who support her remember a whole lot of people who said that she chose New York for her Senate run ONLY BECAUSE she would use it as a stepping stone to the White House?

I have no problem with a woman in the White House, I just think this woman is too devisive. She is the kind of person that people either hate or love. Whereas Obama has people who love, hate and are unsure of him.

[usmc1]

Has anyone ever researched to see what Hillary has actually accomplished for New York State? Has she fulfilled any of her campaign pledges when she was runing for the Senate? Is her popularity based upon image and words or actual deeds and acomplishments?

A strong advocate for New York, Senator Clinton works with communities throughout the state to strengthen the economy and expand opportunity. The Senator supports a return to fiscal responsibility because she knows that wise national economic policies are essential to protect America's future.

She serves on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Environment and Public Works Committee; the Special Committee on Aging; and she is the first New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Senator Clinton worked with her colleagues to secure the funds New York needed to rebuild. She fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims, grants for hard-hit businesses, and health care for front line workers at Ground Zero.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
In addition to her committee duties and public functions in her home-state she has passed bills which:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
• Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11

• Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

• Assist landmine victims in other countries

• Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care

• Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System

[Qikdraw]

Girl in Clinton's '3 a.m.' campaign ad is now 17 and supports Obama (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/03/09/4955811-ap.html)

Qikdraw

[Sanslines]

A strong advocate for New York, Senator Clinton works with communities throughout the state to strengthen the economy and expand opportunity. The Senator supports a return to fiscal responsibility because she knows that wise national economic policies are essential to protect America's future.

I can say from personal experience that she has not fulfilled her campaign promises to Upstate New York. She ran on a platform pledging to rebuild upstate and replace the exodus of high paying manufacturing jobs with other high paying jobs. The upstate New York economy, in most parts, is stagnant and upstate continues to lose population as young people flock to other states where there is more hope and a possibility of building a future. She has also taken credit for the accomplishments of others. I am amazed how no one has ever challenged her based upon her promises to upstate. It appears that real accomplishments don't matter. I had hopes for her when she became Senator to deliver on her promises but sadly she has fallen short on many of those promisses and certainly appears to be more interested in national affairs then the constituents of New York (at least Upstate).

[BinCo]

While I can't say whether she has or has not fulfilled her campaign promises what I find odd and disrespectfull is that she ran for Senate in a state she was not from. It would be akin to me running for Senate in New York when I live in Colorado.

A lot of supporters of her and Bill that I spoke to after they left office did not agree with me that she was using those voters in New York as a stepping stone to a presidential bid. Crow is delicious, at least the few times that I have tried it.:)

[Sanslines]

While I can't say whether she has or has not fulfilled her campaign promises what I find odd and disrespectfull is that she ran for Senate in a state she was not from. It would be akin to me running for Senate in New York when I live in Colorado.

A lot of supporters of her and Bill that I spoke to after they left office did not agree with me that she was using those voters in New York as a stepping stone to a presidential bid. Crow is delicious, at least the few times that I have tried it.:)

At the time, it was very obvious that Hillary was using New York State as a pathway to a higher office. Enough people in New York didn't seem to care. So in the end, it was the responsibility of the voters who elected her. Unfortunately, being a Senator from Arkansas, for some reason(s), would not have helped her reach for the Presidency nearly as much as being a Senator from New York.

[Sanslines]

As Hillary and Obama slug it out trying to destroy each other, McCain waits in the wings raising money and strengthening his position. Leave it to the Dems to destroy a winnable position and hand the next presidency over to McCain.

The latest round involves Obama responding to Hillary's "generous offer" to make him the VP if she wins. Only Hillary, who is in second place, would make an offer of VP to the front runner Obama. Furthermore, during the past few weeks, Hillary had been running the "3 AM phone call" adverts stating that she is ready to take the "phone call" and Obama is not. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton was asked what he required for someone to be the VP. His response was that the VP must be immediately ready to take over the Presidency if something happened to the President. Well, if Hillary claims that Obama is not ready to be the President, then why on earth would she offer him the position of VP.

A Dem party nominee must emerge and emerge fast or the next President will be McCain and we will have 'four more years' of GWB policies (more or less).

[Croydon]

Hillary did one of the stupidest things over the weekend, which has upset some democrat elders.

She stated that only she and John McCain are qualified to be commander-in-chief. When I read that, I said to myself, "what an idiot." She just gave people reason to NOT vote for Obama if she doesn't win nomination. She just helped McCain and hurt the dems.

The funny thing about this is that Clinton has been stating that Obama isn't qualified but she has been increasingly hinting that she will choose Obama has her running mate.

Let me get this straight. You say the man isn't qualified to be president, you say the man lives on la la land, you say the man's policies and experience are not sufficient BUT BUT BUT he is qualified to be vice president? What kind of crap is that?

[Boreas]

I liked Obama's response to all that. It seems he may have helped highlight the stupidity of her statement. He had a pretty class response.

[Sanslines]

I liked Obama's response to all that. It seems he may have helped highlight the stupidity of her statement. He had a pretty class response.

Yes he did and I hope that he is able to win the party nomination asap and then get to work to win the election.

[MoonShadow]

Whoooo --- when people dislike a candidate, you can hear the biting!!

[Sanslines]

Whoooo --- when people dislike a candidate, you can hear the biting!!

Well maybe Hillary will make another generous offer to Obama and offer him the position of governor of New York. Looks like the position will open up very soon!

[KirkOntario]

Gotta love those Dems and their 'progressive' identity politics....they sure are building an 'inclusive' country! LOL

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080311/pl_afp/usvote

"Barack Obama's camp on Tuesday called on his rival Hillary Clinton to fire history-blazing supporter Geraldine Ferraro, after she put the Illinois senator's stunning rise down to his race.
Ferraro, who sits on Clinton's finance committee and has spoken at her rallies, sparked the firestorm when she was quoted by a California newspaper as saying: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.""

[Qikdraw]

Now Ferarro is saying 'I really think they're attacking me because I'm white (http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13384)'.

She is still on Clinton's staff.

This just goes to show why Hillary should not be runnign at all. She demends Powers should resign, yet keeps Ferarro.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Gotta love those Dems and their 'progressive' identity politics....they sure are building an 'inclusive' country! LOL...


Another attempt to mislead, and misrepresent through the intentional misuse of words. Not "those" Dems, "that" Dem.

And you call yourself a lawyer, certainly not a courtroom lawyer--they'd eat you up! Down here in Texas we got para-legals, working city court and drunk tanks on behalf of bail-bonds men, that ain't that careless with words.

[Qikdraw]

Another attempt to mislead, and misrepresent through the intentional misuse of words. Not "those" Dems, "that" Dem.

And you call yourself a lawyer, certainly not a courtroom lawyer--they'd eat you up! Down here in Texas we got para-legals, working city court and drunk tanks on behalf of bail-bonds men, that ain't that careless with words.

You have to understand that lawyers don't tell the truth. They shade the truth to best represent their clients. They don't lie, they mislead, they shade, they'll even try and hide the truth, but they won't outright lie. At least in court.

Kirk is simply doing what he has been trained to do. Once you understand and accept that, its easy to just ignore him.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

The part represents the whole. This is where 'identity politics' leads us as Ferarro has so aptly demonstrated.

[usmc1]

The part represents the whole. This is where 'identity politics' leads us as Ferarro has so aptly demonstrated.
You have to understand that lawyers don't tell the truth. They shade the truth to best represent their clients. They don't lie, they mislead, they shade, they'll even try and hide the truth, but they won't outright lie. At least in court.

Kirk is simply doing what he has been trained to do. Once you understand and accept that, its easy to just ignore him.

Qikdraw

Oh, now I get it. I see the light, I see the liiiight!

[Boreas]

Oh, now I get it. I see the light, I see the liiiight!

Good boy! :applause: You can do it. :cheering:

[KirkOntario]

You have to understand that lawyers don't tell the truth. They shade the truth to best represent their clients. They don't lie, they mislead, they shade, they'll even try and hide the truth, but they won't outright lie. At least in court.

Kirk is simply doing what he has been trained to do. Once you understand and accept that, its easy to just ignore him.

Qikdraw

Still trying to personalize the discussion? I have't brought in anyone else's profession into this discussion so I don't see the point of bringing mine up. This is not a court of law.

You do not seem to able to distinguish between facts and conclusory opinions based on those facts. Geraldine Ferarro made a statement from which I drew a conclusion about Democrats and the 'identify politics' which they so employ. (I have some schadenfreud in watching it come back to bite them.)

Feel free to reach a different conclusion or feel free to disagree with my conclusion but don't accuse me of somehow trying to trick people, 'mislead' or 'colour' the truth. I merely draw a conclusion from an established fact that you do not personally agree with.

[EricNY]

:eatpopcorn:

[Boreas]

:eatpopcorn:

May I join you? :eatpopcorn:

:lipsrsealed2: I am keeping my mouth taped this time......it is so tempting to respond, so I will just sit with the popcorn and watch. :)

[Larry Sam]

whatever I hope everyone gets out and votes.

[Qikdraw]

Still trying to personalize the discussion? I have't brought in anyone else's profession into this discussion so I don't see the point of bringing mine up. This is not a court of law.

I'll answer you on this.

Your profession is apt to bring up because it molds your answers. I don't blame you for using your professional methods. Just like my training has been to find imperfections in things. To the point that I can't watch a movie without finding a frame that has a problem with it. I can't help it, and even though I try and supress it it still happens. It happens to everybody in different ways. You argue and debate in your profession, so obviously it comes into play here.

You do not seem to able to distinguish between facts and conclusory opinions based on those facts. Geraldine Ferarro made a statement from which I drew a conclusion about Democrats and the 'identify politics' which they so employ. (I have some schadenfreud in watching it come back to bite them.)

I was not personally attacking you. You do not seem to able to distinguish between facts and conclusory opinions based on those facts. You make statements from which I draw a conclusion about lawyers and the methods which they so employ. (I have some schadenfreud in watching it come back to bite them.)

Feel free to reach a different conclusion or feel free to disagree with my conclusion but don't accuse me of somehow trying to trick people, 'mislead' or 'colour' the truth. I merely draw a conclusion from an established fact that you do not personally agree with.

You said: "The part represents the whole", I am using your logic here. I just reverse it to say the whole represents the part.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

:eatpopcorn:

Is that kettle popcorn? I love that stuff. I also love the white cheddar popcorn. Sooo yummy!

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Good boy! :applause: You can do it. :cheering:

OK, pass the popcorn, and do we have money for some MilkDuds?

[Sanslines]

You have to understand that lawyers don't tell the truth. They shade the truth to best represent their clients. They don't lie, they mislead, they shade, they'll even try and hide the truth, but they won't outright lie. At least in court.

Kirk is simply doing what he has been trained to do. Once you understand and accept that, its easy to just ignore him.

Qikdraw


Lawyers also tell partial truths and manipulate words to imply meanings that they can never come out and directly state. Lawyers also lie but then cover their butts when challenged by claiming that what they said was misinterpreted. A good lawyer learns the power of language and how to use it to his or her own interests. A good juror (well a terrible juror as far as a lawyer is concerned) is familiar with all of the games and can see right though the fog of legalise.

[Sanslines]

[quote=KirkOntario;187217]

You do not seem to able to distinguish between facts and conclusory opinions based on those facts. Geraldine Ferarro made a statement from which I drew a conclusion about Democrats and the 'identify politics' which they so employ. (I have some schadenfreud in watching it come back to bite them.)

[quote]


It is not logical at all to state that ONE Democrat by the name of Geraldine Ferarro speaks for or represents all Democrats. Geraldine Ferarro only represents herself and is no spokesperson for the entire Democratic establishment.

Your above logic is similar to saying that because there was a nudist who made a statement that bank robbery is legal means that all nudists believe that bank robbery is legal.

[KirkOntario]

I didn't treat what she was as party doctrine. I treated as an example of the identity politics engaged in by Democrats. Today she plays another card, playing the victim since she didn't like the response she got yesterday she's claming discrimination. This is aother game the Democrats have trumped up: victimization politics.

I just love seeing the wolves devour one another. Let's hope the party fights it all the way the convention. Go Hillary go! Ask for a recount. As for a re-vote in Florida and Michigan.

[Qikdraw]

Ferraro steps down from Clinton campaign (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/ferraro.comments/index.html)

She is playing the victim game though. Claiming first amendment rights and Obama is stepping on them. Just like the Clinton campaign allowed Power her first amendment rights.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Keith Olberman on Ferarro (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329)

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

It is not logical at all to state that ONE Democrat by the name of Geraldine Ferarro speaks for or represents all Democrats. Geraldine Ferarro only represents herself and is no spokesperson for the entire Democratic establishment.

Absolutely.

But ...

It took Hillary 15 days to disassociate herself from Geraldine Ferarro's comments - while Geraldine was a prominent advisor to Hillary's campaign and was representing the campaign at numerous press events - repeating her inflamatory statements several times. When Samantha Powers made far less disturbing remarks about Hillary, and immediately retracted them, (unlike the unrepentant Ferarro, who continues to stand defiant) Powers was repudiated and fired overnight.

[usmc1]

Absolutely.

But ...

It took Hillary 15 days to disassociate herself from Geraldine Ferarro's comments - while Geraldine was a prominent advisor to Hillary's campaign and was representing the campaign at numerous press events - repeating her inflamatory statements several times. When Samantha Powers made far less disturbing remarks about Hillary, and immediately retracted them, (unlike the unrepentant Ferarro, who continues to stand defiant) Powers was repudiated and fired overnight.

Yeah. That is a fact. Almost like a scene out of Blood Sport, wasn't it. I'd cast Faye Dunaway in the Ferraro part.

I'm afraid Senator Clinton is counting on suburban and blue-collar backlash in PA and played the race card through that Ferraro woman.

Obama got up above it quickly and neatly. I really like the way this guy handles his mitts!

Regrettably race is going to be a part of this election. We've already seen it in various subtle code forms, and some not at all subtle ways.

There's a subtext to all this that will be discussed later, I'm certain. I mentioned it the other day. It goes along these lines. Obama has energized voting blocs that have felt they have no stake in elections--they are fervent, and they are mistrustful of the Democratic establishment.

Clinton is part of that establishment and is relying heavily on it, whereas Obama is taking the fight to the streets, and precincts, and grassroots groups, and black churches, much as in the civil rights days.

Clinton's real problem is that the "establishment" is seeing her as a liability and while paying off off old debts to her and her husband, they are keeping one eye on Obama and at least one foot in his camp.

An entirely different cast of characters and different times and issues, but, there are striking similarities to Obama's attempts to capture the Democratic party and Reagan's overthrow of the old-line Republicans which culminated with his nomination in Detroit.

But, in my opinion, Ferraro has always been a marginal player and representative of an element in the Democratic party that is too chummy with the Chamber of Commerce and a member of too many country clubs. But, they deliver money and votes.

[KirkOntario]

Looks like Obama is just another politician....

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGRiMWFhNWY4MTgzMjI3NjEzNGQwMWFiMTlhYmRhN2Y=

"One of Obama's Earmark Requests Was for the Hospital That Employs Michelle Obama

Dan Riehl notes, via Amanda Carpenter, that in the list of earmarks he requested, $1 million was requested for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of Chicago. The request was put in in 2006.

You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital?

Michelle Obama. She's vice president of community affairs.

As Byron noted, "In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.""