Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, January 21, 2007

Clinton says she’s ‘in to win’

Former first lady most viable female candidate to ever run

January 21, 2007

Advertisement

— Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton launched a trailblazing campaign for the White House on Saturday, a former first lady turned political powerhouse intent on becoming the first female president. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said.

In a videotaped message posted on her Web site, Clinton said she was eager to start a dialogue with voters about challenges she hoped to tackle as president - affordable health care, deficit reduction and bringing the "right" end to the Iraq war.

"I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America," she said. "Let's talk. Let's chat. The conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?"

Clinton's announcement, while widely anticipated, was nonetheless historic in a fast-developing campaign that has already seen the emergence of a formidable black contender, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

In an instant, Clinton became the most credible female candidate ever to seek the presidency and the first presidential spouse to attempt to return to the White House in her own right. Her husband, Bill, served two terms as president from 1993 to 2001.

"I am one of the millions of women who have waited all their lives to see the first woman sworn in as president of the United States - and now we have our best opportunity to see that dream fulfilled," said Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY's list, which raises money for Democratic women who run for office.

With her immense star power, vast network of supporters and donors and seasoned team of political advisers, the 59-year-old Clinton long has topped every national poll of potential Democratic contenders.

But since joining the field, Obama has secured the backing of a number of prominent fundraisers, including billionaire philanthropist George Soros, stepping up the pressure on Clinton to disclose her plans.

Her controversial tenure as first lady left her a deeply polarizing figure among voters, leading many Democrats to doubt Clinton's viability in a general election.

In a detailed statement posted on her Web site, Clinton sought to acknowledge and bat away such doubts.

"I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine," she wrote. "After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate and how to beat them."

Recently, Clinton has clashed with many in her own party over the Iraq war.

Clinton supported the 2002 resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq. She has refused to recant her vote or call for a deadline for the removal of troops. She has announced her opposition to President Bush's troop increase in Iraq and has introduced legislation capping troop levels.

"A woman candidate could find it easier to run in peacetime, rather than wartime, but Senator Clinton's tried to position herself as a serious person on national security," said Andrew Polsky, a presidential historian at Hunter College. "But that means she's staked out difficult position on the war that won't make it easy for her to get the Democratic nomination."

Sen. Hillary Clinton announced her presidential bid Saturday.

Sen. Hillary Clinton announced her presidential bid Saturday.

With a $14 million campaign treasury, Clinton starts with an impressive fundraising advantage over the rest of the Democratic field. But Obama and others have started to secure fundraising commitments from New York, California and other deep-pocketed, Clinton-friendly areas.

Her creation of a presidential exploratory committee, announced Saturday, allows her to raise money for the campaign; she already has lined up campaign staff.

In tone and substance, Clinton's videotaped announcement recalled her first Senate race in New York in 2000, where she conducted a "listening tour" of the state's 62 counties before formally entering the contest.

She promised a three-day series of Web chats with voters beginning Monday and prepared a campaign swing late this coming week through the early voting state of Iowa, while a visit to New Hampshire was in the works.

On Sunday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was also set to enter the Democratic field; if elected, he would be the first Hispanic president.

For the short term at least, the outsized candidacies of Clinton and Obama were expected to soak up the lion's share of attention.

Obama, who launched his own presidential committee on Tuesday, praised Clinton as a friend and colleague.

"I welcome her and all the candidates, not as competitors, but as allies in the work of getting our country back on track," he said in a statement.

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd did not comment specifically on Clinton's announcement, but said: "I'm not one for exploratory committees. You're in or you're not."

Other Democratic contenders include former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack; Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the party's 2004 vice-presidential nominee. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden has said he will run and planned to formalize his intentions soon. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 standard bearer, is also contemplating another run.

An influential player in her husband's political career in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton leapt to the national scene during the 1992 presidential campaign when husband and wife fought to survive the scandal over Gennifer Flowers' allegations of a lengthy affair with Bill Clinton when he was the state's governor.

The Clintons appeared together on CBS' "60 Minutes" to talk about their marriage - Hillary Clinton's first famous "Stand by Your Man" moment.

As first lady, Clinton headed up a disastrous first-term effort to overhaul the health care insurance system. There was more controversy as the couple battled allegations of impropriety over land deals and fundraising, missing records from her former Arkansas law firm and even her quick and hefty profits from an investment in cattle futures.

There was no letup in the second term. The president found himself denying - then admitting - having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. As he battled impeachment and possible removal from office, his wife's poll numbers rose.

Her own political career began to take shape in late 1998 when New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced he would not seek re-election to the Senate seat he had held since 1976.

The campaign trail was not always friendly. For almost every cheer, there was a shouted "Go home, Hillary!" and the emerging Republican theme that carpetbagger Clinton simply wanted to use New York as a launching pad for a later presidential run.

Associated Press Writer Marc Humbert contributed to this report from Albany, N.Y.

On the Net: Hillary Rodham Clinton site: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Comments

Fred Whitehead Jr. 7 years, 11 months ago

Hooray for Hillary! I will vote for her! The present administration rode into office on the shirt-tails of the religious right, and we are all witness to the collossal mess that they and their "intelligence" has created. We are involved up to our necks in a foreign civil war, with more Americans scheduled to be shoved into that meat grinder, we have had escalating oil prices for many months until recently, we have idiots like Phill Kline who were trying to run the states law enforcement system with his religious sermons and religiious voodoo beliefs. I am ready for a complete change. The country elected a Democratic congress and now it is time for a Democratic President and as far as I am concerned, Hillary Clinton fills the bill.

Mkh 7 years, 11 months ago

Just another Elitist canidate...don't fool yourself, Hillary is a Hawk. She was for the war until everyone around her turned against it.

Hopefully someone will rise and take the nomination from her.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

hilary was for "the surge" before she is against it now.


listen to her speak, and you can almost excuse Bill's philandering. how'd you like to wake up with that, every morning?

cowboy 7 years, 11 months ago

I dont think hillary can win the general election , im hoping biden , Richardson , or a really toughened up Edwards can make the run.

werekoala 7 years, 11 months ago

She seems a serious enough candidate, BUT:

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?

Then Chelsea marries Jeb and runs as Bush-Clinton?

I dunno, just smacks of royalty, rather than democracy. I like Richardson, Clark, and Obama myself on the D side.

jonas 7 years, 11 months ago

"Posted by Dambudzo (anonymous) on January 21, 2007 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This news is four days old.

I suggest Google News, Drudge, or News Max."

Would you like some news with your tilt, or are you alright?

imastinker 7 years, 11 months ago

Hillary is the best thing that the Republicans can ask for. She is unelectable. Last poll I read - 38% said they would NOT vote for Hillary.

I say "GO HILLARY!!!"

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

Hillary is not for the people. She is of the elitists. You remember the "Two Americas" John Edwards referred to in 2004? Well, here we are struggling in Lawrence as the have nots, while Hillary represents the "haves & then some", perfect scenario of the two Americas. Wow, what a way to unite America! Was Hillary for the war in Iraq & is now against it?

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

Marion, whatcha got against 'pigs' anyway, pigs are people too! knock it off.

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

This may be way OTS, but I read today where John McCain is set to oppose the nomination of Multi-National Forces, Iraq commander General George Casey's nomination to become the next Army Chief of Staff. Doesn't this play right into Hillary's strategy? Seems to me McCain is shooting himself in the foot, right or wrong?

Mkh 7 years, 11 months ago

Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on January 22, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RT:

I didn't know that Hillary is a lesbian.

I thought that she was just pig-ugly!

Actually Marion the 3rd grade is two doors down.

I dislike Hillary as much as the next, but grow up. Sheesh!

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

Sorry, scenebooster, she & "W." are one in the same, ELITISTS! Grrrr!

boldaq 7 years, 11 months ago

"Let's talk. Let's chat." Hillary

Yes, let's talk about your strong support for killing babies, shall we? Abortion is one topic this nutcase will try to avoid like the plague.

Hillary is too divisive and will lose.

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

Let me break down why Hillary is an ELITIST: 1. Her law firm pension she received prior to becoming First Lady 2. Her book royalties 3. Her Senate Salary (which is not much, until she voted over & over again for pay raises while the minimum wage has been stuck at poverty levels) at OUR expense.

Any questions?

Mkh 7 years, 11 months ago

you forgot....

4) Her husband was the leader of the Free World (back when it was free).

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

scenebooster & everyone else, doesn't Hillary & "W." in their respective parties share the same thing in common? They all make millions, leaving us out the dust while they collect tax cuts. So, the question I challenge anyone here to answer is this: What really is the difference between the Republicans & Democrats?

Mkh 7 years, 11 months ago

I think your correct rhd99. The Elitists are bi-partisian and really don't even act in the party roles as much as the media makes them out to. This is especially true in their joint union to promote "Free-trade global institutions" no matter what the cost. The Elitist goal of a "New World Order" is one that transcends party lines.

However, there is an important difference within the factions that we have seen in the last six years. And that is the rise of neo-con faction of the Elite. This has caused a major battle between traditional Elitists and the Neo-cons.

But essentially I agree with your point.

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

Here is the way I look at & it basically sums it all up, sports fans: Any way you look at 2008, WE lose & we lose BIG! Now, are we going to take back our country, you're damn tootin! When are we going to take it back? NOW because we need to send Hillary, "W." & Sam Brownback a message in one word: ENOUGH! Are you with me? If you are, then tell your families & friends. If you aren't, well then, I hope you have several hundreds of billions of dollars stashed away so that YOU can pay the tab of all wasteful spending being done in Washington. God Bless America!

Mkh 7 years, 11 months ago

I'd like to add one final point to my previous post though. And that is for historical record keeping purposes, it's fair to say that Bush I and "W" might be the biggest Elitist presidents ever, considering the long history of their powerful bloodline.

I'm sure that somehwere Z. Breninski is already dreaming of Clinton in '08 and then Bush III (Jeb) in '12 or '16.

That would complete the dynasty. Bush I, Clinton I, "W", Clinton II, Bush III. Scary.

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

Yikes, that should be a part of a Friday the 13th sequel, Mkh. Only instead of Jason, we have minature W's running around wire-tapping EVERYTHING we say. ENOUGH of W already!

heysoos 7 years, 11 months ago

Wow. I'm so glad that you morons on the right are picking candidates based on the shape of their ass now.

And you wonder why you are in an ever-shrinking minority...

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

So, heysoos, who do you endorse for 2008?

heysoos 7 years, 11 months ago

I'm not willing to "endorse" anyone just yet as there is far too much time between now and the election to learn more about the candidates that HAVE declared, and it is certain that more will probably enter the race. That being said, I wouldn't count Richardson out just yet--he's the only one in the field with any real policy work on his resume.

I think Hillary (and entirely possible that Obama) will struggle in Iowa, where the megastar politician doesn't fare as well.

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

I believe William Richardson has the best resume of any declared candidate. He practically has work experience in just about everything except the judiciary, or does he? Let's review, shall we? Richardson has been in Congress, UN Ambassador, Cabinet Secretary, & now governor. Can't ask for better than that.

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

I could certainly support Obama. I don't know who to support yet, but I know I WILL NOT vote for Hillary.

JumporFall 7 years, 11 months ago

I can not support Hilary either. To me, she is just the other side of the same coin. A bad penny.... any other monetary references.... No, I'm done.

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

Folks, I hate to leave this, but I have a job to go to in a bit. Let me leave you with this. All of W's talk of bi-partisanship after we were attacked here at home is so BOGUS! Hillary does not help bring bi-partisanship to the discussion either. My question to everyone here is this: Are you going to trust any joe/jane politician to represent the U.S. in the world? My hope is that the next president can & will unleash all of kinds of orders that will reverse the cycle of damage done by Bush/Cheney & Associates. America is better than this. Time to take back our country & the time is NOW!

Crispian Paul 7 years, 11 months ago

You all are ridiculous. Just because a woman is powerful and has a mind of her own does not mean she is a lesbian. I would like to know what you are basing her being a lesbian on? I would vote for her, but unfortunately, as I can see from the above, this country is not yet ready to have a female Chief Executive. Blame that on social issues and not her abilities.

RT, What "damage" specifically are you talking about with Bill? Where does this damage lie in relativity to more than 3,000 dead soldiers?

Crispian Paul 7 years, 11 months ago

Wow, it didn't take long for Boldaq to jump to a "baby killer" conversation. Not EVERYONE agrees with you that choice=baby killing. Just because you think that, doesn't mean you are right. I think the Roe/Wade supreme court made that one clear more than 30 plus years ago.

Crispian Paul 7 years, 11 months ago

After re-reading the posts above, I count multiple references to Hillary Clinton's looks, shape, size, weight, hair, sexuality. But I don't see much about her actual ability. Honestly, it makes me sick that in 2007, we still live in a world where men can be judged on their actual merits or perception of their merits while women's viablity as a presidential candidate is superceded by ya'lls desire to bash her based on her looks. I am disgusted. No wonder women still on average make 73% of men in the same jobs. No wonder we live in a world where men are respected for their talents and women for their looks and body. You all can't think of anything useful or intelligent to say about this subject and you want to bash Hillary Clinton for being "ugly". Gross, gross and grosser.

JumporFall 7 years, 11 months ago

It is most certainly not that Hilary is a woman. It is simply that I do not believe that Hilary will bring about the change in American politics that I feel our country needs.

Crispian Paul 7 years, 11 months ago

That's just fine JumporFall, but that still does not explain the string on misogynistic non-sequitors I see here. Hardly a post above addresses her ability, but her weight. Rarely, if ever, do I see male politicians criticized or deemed unworthy due to their looks or weight. Were that the case, most of our president's cabinet would have been ousted.

JumporFall 7 years, 11 months ago

I could not agree more, and that speaks more for the character of the poster than the politician. I think that if they were more informed or had a better idea of Hilary's record in the senate, they would be able to come up with better (more relevant) attacks.

budwhysir 7 years, 11 months ago

Politicaly speaking, I dont know about this one

rhd99 7 years, 11 months ago

Folks, I have a question for you: If McCain & Republicans say "Support our troops" by demanding an increase in troops in Iraq, then how can McCain demand that the American people support the troops when he is making an attempt to block General George Casey's nomination to become the next Army Chief of Staff? Sort of wreaks of hypocricy, don't you think?

budwhysir 7 years, 11 months ago

RH99, sounds like a political application to me

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

am intensely opposed to Hilary's run for the presidency, has nothing to do with her gender. in fact, if the right fem ran I'd volunteer to work for Condi for president! no problem with powerful intelligent women, as long as they have values that are good for our country and reflect our traditional roots.

Hilary was for the surge, before she is against it now.

finally, George Soros is putting his wacko extremist money behind Obama against Hilary. the Soros smear websites against the clinton hit squads and "goon" squads (remember "nuts or sluts?") Soros wants to legalize all drugs! he wants all felons to have the right to vote, and he was actually convicted of insider trading in France.

BigAl 7 years, 11 months ago

Posted by scenebooster (anonymous) on January 23, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"It wasn't Republicans who splattered their DNA all over a pretty little blue dress though was it now?"

Nope, it wasn't. But it was the republicans that got the USA into an unnecessary war that has killed 3,000 service men and women, done untold damage to our image and status around the world, created a hotbed of terrorism where there was none before, weakened our constitution, and squandered our national treasure.

Now, which one of those instances is more substantial?


Great post and absolutely right on the money. Also, this isn't left-wing rhetoric. This is factual and is becoming more mainstream every day. Even Republicans are moving away from BushCo.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

speaking of the screwup in the clintonia 90's, Righty, did you see where our air strike in Somalia the othr day took out a terrorist involved in the 1998 american embassy bombings in east africa?

good to see justice done. this isn't the first, and won't be the last. what record did the Philander-and-chief have? squat. and had about a dozen opportunities to kill UBL but didn't for lack of well, ah-hem, fortitude.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

if UBL is in the wilds of Pakistan, you propose we should invade Pakistan* and get him, leading to a toppling of the Pak government? you fringie libs don't think about the consequences, its just "get bush and damn the consequences."

and, citing interviews with richard Clarke, and a published CIA station chief. also, would cite the complete version of "the path to 9/11." not disproved claim, at all.

finally, in summary, it is obvious bean-scooter that you don't actually dispute my main point: that Clinton failed to respond to two embasy bombings, as well as the attack on the USS Cole. you just pick at small details to try to distract from the main point. however, you failed.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

agreed righty, so the writer implies that if a terrorist is using human shields, we should never attack them? if they hide amongst or are harbored amongst civilians, they're off limits?

yeah, right! the "criminal news Nutwork."

Centrist 7 years, 11 months ago

I must say, it's appalling that CNN's first comment was about civilian casualties. And they threw the "newlyweds" at us first.

Did they interview as many civilians as they could, BEFORE researching the details of how many of our ENEMIES were attacked and killed?

I'm all about bashing Bush & Co, but CNN is pathetic. I can't remember the last time I turned over and actually saw "NEWS" on that channel. It's always a repeated 'magazine-style' article, or yet another Anderson Cooper 'special report'.

I'd like a 24 hour news channel that actually reports NEWS, without opinion. That would sure be nice.

And as for this article in the ljworld ... why do they assume that Hillary is the "most credible" female candidate ever? Smacks of opinion, if you ask me.

The world needs calm, honest leaders who are able to look holistically at every issue and leave ideology out of it. That means that we need a mostly 'centrist' President, and Hillary aint it .. while Brownback DEFINITELY aint it ..

Centrist 7 years, 11 months ago

"Mission accomplished"

"Good job Browny"

werekoala 7 years, 11 months ago

To say that Bush is responsible for a lack of attacks on US soil since 9/11 implies that had Gore won in 2000, or Kerry in 2004 - certain terror attacks that have failed would have suceeded.

It begs the question - what do you believe these two men would have done differently that would have allowed certain attacks to succeed that Bush has prevented?

Because while I'm not silly enough to believe that there aren't people who have tried to kill us (FBI, etc have intercepted several attempts) -- I don't believe that the Bush Administration is some kind of talisman that has magically warded off attacks against our people.

Apparently you do - why is that exactly?

Centrist 7 years, 11 months ago

I firmly believe we haven't seen another major attack because another major attack is still being PLANNED.

When it happens, of course whomever is Prez will be blamed, even though Bush & Co would undoubtedly have contributed.

Still, some attacks have been foiled.

Kudos to authorities (in the U.S., Britain, Canada, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc) for those results.

Kontum1972 7 years, 11 months ago

SNOOPY FOR PRESIDENT..!

GO SNOOPY...!

SNOOPY WILL BE AT ARROWHEAD FOR THE KU/MU GAME...HUWAH!

WHAT HIPS?

werekoala 7 years, 11 months ago

Oh, well, if the VP's daughter says it, it simply MUST be true.

Staring down a train on the tracks because you accepted a dare and won't back down because it will be taken as weakness isn't courage, or spine - it's Darwinism in action.

Except the sad fact is that instead of the people refusing to recognize reality paying the price, it's the brave young men and women in our armed forces who pay the price.

Take this gem:

"No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily."

No shoot, Sherlock. We're not being defeated militarily. We're being defeated economically, psychologically, ideologically, and diplomatically. Those are battles that our soldiers can't fight. They're doing their part - the best damn army in history. It's the administration, and their blinding ideology, that is letting them and us down.

Comments like this are truely terrifying - a former undersecretary of state for the region in question - after more than 3 years of the war - fundamentally fails to understand the nature of the conflict we are engaged in.

werekoala 7 years, 11 months ago

"They knew the job was dangerous when they took it."

You've gotta be trolling.

Because I can't imagine anyone being seriously callous enough to say that to the family of a fallen soldier, cop, firefighter, coal miner, or other dangerous occupation.

I really can't imagine a more ungrateful, callous, and idiotic statement than to mock the pain that's been suffered by over 3,000 families.

Crispian Paul 7 years, 11 months ago

I'm not seeing much evidence to go against my idea that you all are basing your oppinions of this person on her looks. The rest of the conversations are geared towards who was better: W or Bill Clinton. My feelings hold: Ya'll are ridiculous.

Marion, normally, you amuse me. Today you make me ill. First off, I asked around and objectively speaking, have not ran into anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is fat (NOT THAT IT MATTERS, BUT YOU ALL CONTINUE TO SINK TO THAT LEVEL). Secondly, apparently you think women should not have "butt". So you must be a fan of the flat, long, pancake, old white lady butt? That is sooo passe.

BigDog 7 years, 11 months ago

If we want to see a really divided country elect Hillary Clinton ..... even before this presidential campaign she isn't liked by quite a few in her own party .... and strongly disliked by many in the opposing political party.

Crispian Paul 7 years, 11 months ago

Posted by BigDog (anonymous) on January 23, 2007 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If we want to see a really divided country elect Hillary Clinton ..... even before this presidential campaign she isn't liked by quite a few in her own party .... and strongly disliked by many in the opposing political party.

I pretty much agree with you (although I personally like her as a candidate). However, I am still ticked off that she is being judged not on merit per se, but appearance.

werekoala 7 years, 11 months ago

Crispian,

I was thinking the same thing - but then I realized that this was a cheap and easy form of a-hole detector - anyone who's publicly basing his opinion of a candidate on whether or not she has "butt" is an idiot.

And I also realized something else: How many bald elected officials are there? Obese? Unattractive? How about the fact that Nixon lost to JFK primarily due to his appearance in televised debates, rather than the merits of his position? How about the fact that the taller candidate is generally judged to win debates when the parties are evenly matched?

My point is, judging politicians by the merits of their positions has never been common (helps explain the mess we're in today.). Judgements based on appearance aren't unique to female candidates, it's just that their relative crudity and tactlessness reflects the crudity and tactlessness of many males when it comes to relating to women as people.

Hell, half these guys might as well have said "Never trust something that bleeds for a week and doesn't die! Hur-hur!"

BigDog 7 years, 11 months ago

Crispian ..... it is BS to judge a candidates abilities based off of appearance, that is often how we end up with the clowns that we get (from BOTH parties). A person who doesn't pass the appearance test cannot successfully run for federal office. That is why we end up with people who look good on TV but have little common sense.

Crispian Paul 7 years, 11 months ago

Thanks, guys, glad to know I am not the ONLY one who was feeling this way.

BOE 7 years, 11 months ago

" Dambudzo on January 23, 2007 at 12:48 p.m.

Lesbian says Hillbillary is spinless.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con... "

==

Actually Hillary spins quite a bit, but let me get this "straight": Are you saying that both of Cheney's daughters are gay?

If so, it looks like you've hit the lottery there buddy, because that would be one heckuva $coop.

Just be careful not to accidently let the "cat out of the bag" when peddling your gossip. ;)

werekoala 7 years, 11 months ago

Dambudzo:

Saying "Tough sh1t, they knew what they were getting into!" to the families of dead soldiers doesn't make you a man.

It makes you an a-hole.

hottruckinmama 7 years, 11 months ago

Clinton says she's 'in to win'

yee haw! but she'll be doing it without my vote.

1) she will be doing nothing but fighting the lasting impression of what billy boy did for the first 4 years. 2)trust me on this one-we don't need a female in the white house. it sounds terrible i know! but its true-i am a female and have had the misfortune of being around other females at work a lot. trust me i'd rather work around males any day. 3)i don't think she could win anyway. things may look good for her right now-but the election is a long way off. 4)we need a fresh start-someone who has never had a family member in the white before.

werekoala 7 years, 11 months ago

"Hillary is a Democrat and I will never, ever, not now, not ever, NEVER vote for a Democrat."

Then you're part of the problem. Not because you don't vote for Dems, but because you think the letter behind a candidate's name is more important than his or her record and positions on the issues.

In fact, I'd go so far to say that if you don't split tickets regularly, you're part of the problem --rarely are all the good candidates found in a single party.

But then, with the butt comments, it's not like you hadn't already self-identified as an idiot.

Tychoman 7 years, 11 months ago

Someone mentioned how 38% would NOT vote for Hillary. That's interesting. That's what, 100-38=62. All right. 62% wouldn't vote Hillary into office.

Bush's approval rating is what, 33%? Lower? So 66% at least wouldn't vote for Bush. I fail to see an argument against Hillary there.

Actually I haven't decided on who to vote for. Edwards, Obama, Clinton. I'm going to wait before I form an opinion, but it'd be nice to see a lot of you guys lay off of the Clintons, both of them.

werekoala 7 years, 11 months ago

"Are you trying to tell me that the soldiers do not know what they are getting into? Save your insults for the for the gullible."

Reading comprehension is your friend. Try again.

=========

"You are starting to sound like John Kerry and his dissing of our troops."

You're starting to sound like a spin doctor - dismissing the deaths of our troops as unimportant (since "they knew what they were getting into"), and then saying I'M the one who's dissing them.

There's no cure for willful ignorance, I guess.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

hey, righty, just getting back to this sandbox! yes, that headline is a hoot, while she also tries to take credit for "good" things during the clintonia era. so, putting those two together, that means she made all the decisions during the first 8 years of Clintonia? she's the "decider?"

dunno what the heck beanscooter is trying to imply, I've been gone, actually having a life including among the women I am pleased to love. too bad beanscooter doesn't have much of a life!


Marion, that big butt may be capable of kicking some big butts......think about it, she has a hot flash or a bitchy day, who knows what she could do to some third world bums who f*** with us.

^righty^

apparently, according to deedee myers (sp?) former spokeswoman for Bill, sHrillary has this kinda day very very often! yeah, that's what we need, the nuclear button in the hand of "permab1tch*. that'll probably scare the terrorists, ruskies, chinese messicans and even the canadians. maybe we should elect her after all!


finally, then I gotta go. "the path to 9/11" was indeed fictionalized, but was based on the 9/11 commission report and testamony, the charge I cited above prompted Bill Clinton to pull out all the stops and get all kinda politcal force to suppress free speech and change the content of the program. seems like Bill's own actions and intense response verify the truth indicting him in that program. and you don't refute my other sources. I'd say, you think Clarke is good enough for your little out of context quote, so he must be right when he said the bin laden family flight post 9/11 was his decision, and that (his ref) at least twice bin laden was "in the sites" but Bill didn't have the nerve to go after him, choosing american deaths over afghan collateral damage.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

no truer words were spoken Righty. if you add up the uncivil behavior on both sides, you'll find a few among the conservative/right, but the angry left is exponentially more uncivil.

yes, apparently Queen Hilary was a terror on four wheels. imagine that as the leader of the free world?

you suppose you and I need to get together to help scenic find a life of his own? a little love in his cave, and maybe he'd start to see what's right with america instead of the liberal mindset that always looks for what's wrong.

perhaps you and I could place a classified ad for him to find a little love?

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

quite correct. most of them are genuinely afraid of opposing viewpoints. that's why the real threats to free speech come from the left, as in "the fairness doctrine."

budwhysir 7 years, 11 months ago

RT:

I am glad to see we still have someone working on this political matter. Unless everyone understands the political nature of this article, politics could be changed forever, politicaly speaking

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

good comment righty, yes, we face an implacable foe, and you're right that the dems have not a bit of grasp of what that means. they think if we pull out of Iraq, then sweetness and light will follow. then, when the really sh*t hits the fan, they'll just blame GWB instead of noting that it was their "redeployment that set up the power vacuum filled by terrorists and sectarian violence.

Gen. David Petraeus (sp?) said he believes we can gain victory with this surge in Iraq.

Webb's reply to the S/U didn't mention victory at all, just getting our troops out. getting our troops out that way is a recipe also for future trouble with the terrorists because any weakness on our part never serves to satisfy the terrorists, you can't reason with them.

Bin Laden said after "black hawk down" that america was weak and didn't have the stomach for a fight, that we would retreat if challenged. this apparently is what the dems want to verify. finally, note that all the posturing by these blowhards, many of whom voted for the war, get picked up by the antiamerican media all over the world. as Gen. Petraeus said, this resolution today demoralizes our troops and gives hope to our enemies. do we really want to give hope to these terrorist enemies?

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

from today's Ann Coulter article "I am woman, hear me bore!" note, Ann has a woman's perspective on Hilary.

It's nice to have a president who is not so sleazy that not a single Supreme Court justice shows up for his State of the Union address (Bill Clinton, January 1999, when eight justices stayed away to protest Clinton's disregard for the law and David Souter skipped the speech to watch "Sex and the City").

Speaking of which, the horny hick's wife finally ended the breathless anticipation by announcing that she is running for president. I studied tapes of Hillary feigning surprise at hearing about Monica to help me look surprised upon learning that she's running.

As long as we have revived the practice of celebrating multicultural milestones (briefly suspended when Condoleezza Rice became the first black female to be secretary of state), let us pause to note that Mrs. Clinton, if elected, would be the first woman to become president after her husband had sex with an intern in the Oval Office.

According to the famed "polls" -- or, as I call them, "surveys of uninformed people who think it's possible to get the answer wrong" -- Hillary is the current front-runner for the Democrats. Other than the massive case of narcolepsy her name inspires, this would cause me not the slightest distress -- except for the fact that the Republicans' current front-runners are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Fortunately, polls at this stage are nothing but name recognition contests, so please stop asking me to comment on them. "Arsenic" and "proctologist" have sky-high name recognition going for them, too.

In January, two years before the 2000 presidential election, the leading Republican candidate in New Hampshire was ... Liddy Dole (WMUR-TV/CNN poll, Jan. 12, 1999). In the end, Liddy Dole's most successful run turned out to be a mad dash from her husband Bob after he accidentally popped two Viagras.

At this stage before the 1992 presidential election, the three leading Democratic candidates were, in order: Mario Cuomo, Jesse Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen (Public Opinion Online, Feb. 21, 1991).

Only three months before the 1988 election, William Schneider cheerfully reported in The National Journal that Michael Dukakis beat George Herbert Walker Bush in 22 of 25 polls taken since April of that year. Bush did considerably better in the poll taken on Election Day.

The average poll respondent reads the above information and immediately responds that the administrations of presidents Cuomo, Dole and Dukakis were going in "the wrong direction."

Still and all, Mrs. Clinton is probably the real front-runner based on: (1) the multiple millions of dollars she has raised, and (2) the fact that her leading Democratic opponent is named "Barack Hussein Obama." Or, as he's known at CNN, "Osama." Or, as he's known on the Clinton campaign, "The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations."

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

yet, your point still stands, when it is a dem, they conveniently leave off the "D."

yes, Bill Clinton is treated like a rock star, as in when he came and spoke here at the fieldhouse. and, he's got the morals/behavior of one too. part of the problem, why people will still vote for such trash, is that education in this country is now deficient in civics, american history, american institutions. too much "heather has two mommies" and social engineering, not enough teaching our roots and values as a society.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

gess your cheesey tuna sandwich got held up somewhere in the mill.

I think kids should be taught about Buddha and other important faiths and faith leaders, but not to the exclusion of Jesus, you're correct.

Crispian Paul 7 years, 11 months ago

So, RT and Marion, do the women around you and in your lives know you disrespect women? Do they know that you judge women on their appearance rather than their merits? I wonder if you two look like models and have perfect bodies? Clearly, with your criticism of Hillary's looks and weight, you must. Or are you throwing stones in a glass house? Nah, I bet you guys are fat and ugly. Fatter and uglier than anyone could ever think Hillary Clinton is. And the difference is that I worry for the clarity of your souls. I think that pretty much makes you ugly regardless of what you look like.

Crispian Paul 7 years, 11 months ago

I am sure you are :)

I think you did say some good things about her. I am not completely immune to your good qualities. However, you also seem to agree with Marion that she has a wide butt.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

Righty, I neglected to note your comment about the teacher. unfortunately, if a teacher has a political preference, it is almost a given that it is liberal or radical left. so, did Right Thinker jr. respond to that teacher?

now, there's word that Hilary's opposition research is smearing Obama RE his early education in a muslim school and whether he might still be a muslim.

Righty, I've never read your posts as you being fat/ugly, only that you're a rich white exploiter filled with racism, sexism, homophobia, greed, etc., all the usual positive attributes of a republican. oh, I remember, you drink french booze too, probably purchased with money extorted from little girls who own puppies and plant flowers, but they can't because the mean ol' Righty takes their money for his self-indulgent lifestyle.

shame on you Righty, how can you face yourself every morning?

JumporFall 7 years, 11 months ago

I do not think the point is whether Hilary has a wide butt or not. The point is we are not having a conversation about Obama's butt, or W's but or any other male politician.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

just amazing righty, why in he|| would they accuse you, if you were, in their eyes, shouldn't they be applauding your courage in "coming out" and "being your real self?" who's hitting you with this attack? haven't seen it.

I agree, let's stop worrying about Hilary's butt, as I think there are much worse portions of her anatomy that pose a "clear and present danger" to our country, like her brain, her tongue, her hands which she used to hit Bill with a lamp...etc.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

george soros, friend of Obama, moveon.org funder, major democrat supporter: [from 2005 national review online] Soros Funded Stewart Defense The anti-Bush billionaire supported lawyer who aided terrorists.

Billionaire financier George Soros, whose opposition to President Bush's conduct of the war on terror caused him to pour millions of dollars into the effort to defeat the president, made a substantial donation to the defense fund for radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, who last week was found guilty of giving aid to Islamic terrorists.

Click Here

According to records filed with the Internal Revenue Service, Soros's foundation, the Open Society Institute, or OSI, gave $20,000 in September 2002 to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee.

In filings with the IRS, foundation officials wrote that the purpose of the contribution was "to conduct a public education campaign around the broad civil rights implications of Lynne Stewart's indictment."

Answering questions by e-mail, Amy Weil, a spokeswoman for the Open Society Institute, said the foundation contributed to Stewart's fund because "it appeared to us at that time that there was a right-to-counsel issue worthy of our support."

Stewart's legal troubles stemmed from her defense of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, sometimes known as the Blind Sheikh. Rahman led an Egyptian-based terrorist organization known as the Islamic Group.

In 1996, Rahman was sentenced to life in prison for his involvement in the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993, and for his part in failed plots to blow up the United Nations building and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels in New York.

After his conviction, Rahman's followers threatened a series of terrorist attacks against American targets unless he were released. In 1998, the U.S. government reportedly had intelligence that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were plotting to hijack aircraft in the United States in order to demand freedom for Rahman and other convicted terrorists.

Because of those threats, the government issued a special order that the imprisoned Rahman not be allowed to communicate with his followers, to prevent his inciting them to further violence. He was allowed to communicate only with his wife and with his lawyers, who were not allowed to relay his wishes to his followers.

Stewart promised to abide by those rules. But at her trial, the government produced evidence showing that Stewart and two codefendants on a number of occasions used their privileged access to Rahman to help transmit Rahman's orders to his followers in the Islamic Group.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

yes, they'll get all worked up over an already out CIA operative who wasn't secret, and don't care about Sandy Burglar stealing confidential documents, "accidentally destroying them" and returning altered copies. now, that's h y p o c r i s y ?

well, ya' never called me sweetie! yes, I agree, that screen named sounded female. so, go back to repressing all the minorities, women, and children now, okay?

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

hey, Righty, what do you think of Dunkin' Hunter as a candidate? I rather like his positions, as well as the Newtster.

budwhysir 7 years, 11 months ago

Aha I found everyone, so, can a righty be a lefty and vise versa??

I am available for any debate on this subject if anyone needs a clear political view point of the facts that have been presented over the last few days

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

Righty, I had a similar reaction to the wolfie's senseless attack on Cheney, and disagree with o'reilly that it is par for the course! no, it was a very rude question showing a gross lack of tact!

yes, Pelosi jr.'s dreadful "docusmear. yes, some of the words right off the computer screen, you nailed it, my reaction too. and, people wonder when I identify antichristian biggotry among the tolerance NAZI's of this town!

btw, did you see the "path to 9/11" segment which ol' bill Clinton had expurgated will air 8pm hour on foxnews? very cool! people should definitely tune in to foxnews 8pm this sunday to see what ruffled Clinton's feathers so very badly, with the truth.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

and, imagine, now 'cuz of his heart, the philander-and-chief can't eat a "Big Mac" anymore. so, that, putting on the pretense, and being married to sHrillary, I guess there's an excuse for Bill to be cranky. I don't think the pretence made queen hilary cranky, I think she was that way outa the box.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

suppose Hilary does serve a useful function: she makes Condi, and the women in our own lives with good values look that much nicer by comparison.


yeah, NRA policies are certainly in the constitution, I mean, didn't Charlton heston write the constitution on ten tablets? seriously, the NRA is an important force for protecting people's right to personal defense. if the hand gun control advocates had their way, then truly only the crooks would have the guns.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

yes, and they claim to be "prochoice" but if you want to have the freedom to choose a better school for your children, or to protect yourself, they are antichoice for sure. and a woman who 'chooses' to be a stay-at-home mom is treated as if she is letting her "sisters" down.

yes, incrementalism seems okay sometimes and not okay in others.

sublime 7 years, 11 months ago

The day she takes office will be the begining of the end for this country. I don't think the American people are stupid enough to vote for her. There are idiots among us that are STILL in love with Bill and will vote for her just because she is a Clinton. Of course you can count on all the Hollywood corksuckers to start spewing thier advice on who to vote for .There is a portion of the country that are like sheep.They will be herded in the direction of popular opinion. Until the elections are over, all there will be is alot of mud slinging and empty promises of how they can do a better job than Bush has done. I don't know who I am voting for.I know this,I won't waste my vote on a Clinton.

budwhysir 7 years, 11 months ago

I think the view point of the far left is blurred by the clear visions of the center.

budwhysir 7 years, 11 months ago

Look I know everyone has moved on to other things but my question is as follows,

Would it make sense for Clinton to say she was in to loose???

budwhysir 7 years, 11 months ago

RT I think you are probably right, its all or nothing. Politicaly speaking, this would mean that they be in office for another 8 years by my projections if she does win.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

Hi Righty, sorry have been away and only had time for scanning the current headlines.
^ bg, re; your 10:06 post, it's comforting to know there some others on this forum who have the hypocrisy of the left clearly identified and nailed down.....as usual, very good points.

^ I bow in appreciation and thank you for the compliment.

in your list above you only listed the senate/house dems who are combatting our war on terror. the left also uses leaks of successful programs in the Jihad Times, for example. there, the "black sites" were leaked, the warrantless wiretaps were leaked, and yet another program was recently leaked about our tracking terrorist money; these make these programs far less useful because of course the terrorists will then adjust their tactics. the leftists, and especially those at the Jihad Times are not stupid, yet they cheerfully leak our secrets to our enemy, empowering our enemy. I personally think some one should be tried for treason over these leaks. these are prime examples of what you ere identifying above, many on the left do want us to stop fighting the war on terror. they have such a strong knee-jerk hate-bush response, they don't care about endangering our country and empowering our enemies.


good post Sublime! still scratching my head though: "corksuckers?" good word, just not sure what you're trying to communicate.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

oh, Righty, I did mean to say you've done a nice job keeping this thread going in my absence. thanks.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

from the Oct 19 2005 World Net Daily, some real indigestion for the typical Hilary supporter: ^ Cindy Sheehan, the so-called "peace mom" on a crusade to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, is publicly blasting Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for her continued support of the ongoing conflict.

"I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys," Sheehan writes in an open letter posted on anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore's website. " I would love to support Hillary for president if she would come out against the travesty in Iraq. But I don't think she can speak out against the occupation, because she supports it. I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again: As I won't support a pro-war Republican."

"I believe that the intelligent thing for Democrats to do for 2006 and 2008 would be to come out strongly and correctly against the botched, bungled, illegal, and immoral occupation of Iraq," Sheehan added.The California woman, whose son Casey was killed fighting insurgents in Iraq, launched an anti-war movement when she camped outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch in August and demanded to meet with the commander in chief, drawing national media attention.

She was granted a meeting with Sen. Clinton to discuss the war effort, but says the Democrat "apparently" didn't listen, as the senator told a reporter for the Village Voice, " My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. ... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. ... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

"That sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me," Sheehan said. "That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me. What Sen. Clinton said after our meeting sounds exactly like the Republican Party talking points I heard from Senators Dole and McCain."

Rush Limbaugh

"There's trouble in paradise out there on the far left extreme which has become the Democrat base," Limbaugh responded today on his national radio program.

"You don't do this, folks. You don't publicly as a Democrat disavow a Clinton and live to do it again. Well, you just don't do it again and again without something happening. So she's one gutsy lady or stupid, one of the two. But something's going to happen to this woman. Something's going to silence her."

On a political messageboard online, one writer notes, "Who would have thought that Hillary's candidacy could be in trouble because she's not far enough to the left?"

^

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

Okay, we'll give you intractable pain and see how long you avoid becoming an addict.

besides, I thought you lefties were the ones with a monopoly on compassion for those with addictions.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

from the Village Voice " But Sheehan isn't stopping her critique with Bush. On the contrary, she has begun to set her sights on Congress and the Democratic Party as well. When she spoke in Brooklyn on the night before, she took note of the fact that Senator Hillary Clinton voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq and like most Senate Democratshas done little to bring the troops home. Clinton, in fact, has filed legislation calling for more troops.

In an interview after her speech, Sheehan told the Voice she was "so frustrated" by leading Democrats like Clinton "who should be leaders on this issue, but are not." Already, she has set up a future meeting with New York's junior senator this weekend. And she plans to sit down with the state's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, too. "It's time for them to step up and be the opposition party," she said. "This war is not going to end unless the Democrats are on board with us."

" note: Clinton filed legislation to increase troops in Iraq! more Hillary supporters' indegestion.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

from "women who hate Hillary" at: www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com ^ Lamp Tossing? Welcome to the Real World.

By Frank Marafiote

We first heard about it from a reporter at the Dallas Morning News.

There was a fight in the middle of the night at the White House between Bill and Hillary Clinton. It got nasty, he said, and Hillary threw a lamp at the president. The Dallas reporter thought the story originated with Chicago radio station WLS. We called the station. "No, no," they told us, "we didn't break the story. It was Bill Zwecker at the Chicago Sun-Times." So we called Bill Zwecker, who writes a column for the Windy City newspaper. Yes, Mr. Zwecker told us, he had written about the incident, not in any malicious way, but just as a matter of fact. His story was "totally confirmed by two high-level White House aides." He assured us he was "very confident in his sources." He also said that subsequent stories about the incident exaggerated the facts. It wasn't clear, he said, whether the lamp in fact had been tossed, or merely knocked over during the heat of the argument.

Following our first conversation with Mr. Zwecker, HCQ received a phone call from the White House.

Lisa Caputo, Hillary Clinton's press secretary, told us the story was "a flat out lie." She said "anyone who knows the Clintons and Hillary Clinton knows this is completely untrue."

Back we went to Mr. Zwecker. "I stand by my story," he said. "The White House and the president are control freaks. Ms. Caputo is just doing damage control." He said that the White House called him to deny the incident about five weeks after his original story appeared in the Sun-Times. Did he then re-check the facts with his sources? "I absolutely called them back. They assured me, 'we're telling you the truth.'"

The saga of the lamp raises at least three relevant issues:

Issue #1 -- Who to believe? It comes down to this: believe who you want to believe. Mr. Zwecker stands by his story; he works for a reputable newspaper; our conversations with him revealed no hidden agendas or personal axes to grind against the Clintons. Lisa Caputo denies the story. Is this story so important to the image of the first lady that Ms. Caputo would personally get on the phone and lie about it? Why would she deny the story if it were true?

Issue #2 -- Is the story fair game? If Hillary Rodham Clinton were a traditional first lady and not chairwoman of the national health care task force, not directly involved in selecting Administration staff members, not directly involved in advising the president on nearly every aspect of social policy, maybe the story should be off-limits. Hillary Clinton is not just a first lady. She's our co-president, remember? If a White House source claimed that Warren Christopher threw a lamp at the president, would that be news?

^

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

okay, Mr-sausage, so whom would you have Hillary married to then? curious.
ever had weiswurst cooked right?

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

now, she says she has experience dealing with "evil men." the crowd hearing that in Iowa [=idiots out walking around] laughed, and think they assumed she meant ol' Bill by that.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

oh yeah, Hi there D666, thanks fer stopping by. care to elucidate?


oh, Mr. Sausage: do you prefer your hot dogs with sauerkraut/mustard?

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

From WND: ^No accountability for government wrongdoing Posted: December 30, 1997 1:00 a.m. Eastern

First lady Hillary Clinton and White House policy adviser Ira Magaziner have been nailed by a court for their illegal, secret plot to hijack the American health-care system.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a 19-page report last week condemning as "reprehensible" the dishonest work of the health-care task force over which Mrs. Clinton presided.

Magaziner had issued a sworn statement saying only federal government officials were members of the task force and, therefore, the meetings could operate without public scrutiny. So-called "sunshine laws" prevent such secret meetings from taking place when "outsiders" -- or non-government people -- are present. (I'm not quite sure of the logic, but that's the law.) In any event, Magaziner lied. And Judge Lamberth, God bless him, called him on it.

"The Executive Branch of the government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court, and the government must now face the consequences of its misconduct," the judge said.

Despite Magaziner's bold claim to the contrary, those present for the meetings included German health-care officials, representatives of various foundations and think-tanks and executives of corporate interests such as Kaiser Permanente. Not to mention Hillary Clinton herself presiding over these meetings with no official government portfolio. When it was convenient to do so, she billed herself as a private citizen. When it was convenient to be considered a federal official, she represented herself as a "full-time volunteer."

With all that in mind, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons sued the task force for its secret meetings. Still, the White House refused to disclose to the court key information about the meetings, the participants and the interests they represented.

In his decision, Lamberth said he is convinced that Magaziner "intended to deceive the court." He also recognized that he had received counsel from two interesting sources -- Webster Hubbell and the late Vincent Foster.

"It is clear that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of government," the judge said. "There were no rogue lawyers here misleading the court."

^

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

Mr. Sausage...more detail than I needed to know...but yes, when made right/cooked right, weiswurst good.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

some refs on Hillary and uniformed officers:

The truth on Hillary's feelings about brave law enforcement officials...

"[My] personal trained Pigs!" -Hillary's opinion of her Secret Service guards; Unlimited Access, p. 90, by Gary Aldrich, Regency Publishing, Inc. 1996.

And, back at Yale, Hillary helped edit the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, a left-wing journal which promoted cop-killing and featured cartoons of pig-faced police. (Barbara Olson, Hell to Pay, 1999 pp. 59-61)

^ Barbara Olson died aboard the highjacked flight on 9/11 that crashed into the pentagon. her husband is today the U.S. Solicitor general.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

poor scenebooster, only vague smears and not a single point of refutation or argument? very sad. Scaif? so what, and world net daily...you name one thing they've had wrong actually site the content. instead, you're just leaning on some left leaning metasource that's smearing vaguely too without specifics. world net daily has proven quite accurate.

you and your ilk seem very troubled by the "new media" which has broken the hard left bias of the mainstream media. Dan Rather used forged documents and still claims the story itself was true...damn that's amazing. we have the internet sources, talk radio and foxnews. these have been sources for news that otherwise would be suppressed.

sorry scenic, you lose, again. I'd put world net daily up against CBS (cock and Bull Story) et al, any day.

Godot 7 years, 11 months ago

It can be fun to dawdle, from time to time, with the Sorosites. If nothing else, it gives you a peek at how they entertain themselves.

Mkh 7 years, 11 months ago

gnome, "very troubled by the "new media" which has broken the hard left bias of the mainstream media"


Ha HA HA! Old gnome your still preaching the Biggest Wingnut Conspiracy theory of them all , The Liberal Media! Ha HA HA HA!

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

Godot, you know that Soros has been a major source of funding for moveon.org, from its beginnings? and, ACORN, ACT, and generally for the democrat causes. judging by his money and who accepts it, he's mainstream democrat. he refused to support Hillary, and is supporting Obama now.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

mkh, not a conspiracy, just an intent mob: J-schools are overwhelmingly liberal, and their graduates are too. routine treatment of conservatives vs liberals who are treated as if they're mainstream, happens every day. c'mon mkh, you can surely do better than this?

Mkh 7 years, 11 months ago

Why don't you go back and read the many posts which proved you wrong the last time we had this debate.

Learn about Vertical Integration:

from 11/27/06:

The few companies who own all the major media outlets in America (AOL/TIME-Warner; Viacom; Newscorp; General Electric, Disney etc) also own consolidations of companies in many industries across the board. Therefore these companies' platforms are all based on their interests. Most notably all of these companies mentioned are the "parent companies" of all the major defense contracters (weapons makers). In short, the same people who are making billions on this "endless war" are the same people who control the information in all major media outlets (t.v., radio, newspaper, magazines, film, etc).

A recent year long study conducted by the media watchdog group FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), studied the bias in major news.

In the study of nightly news casts by NBC, CBS, ABC they found that of all sources interviewed, "92% white, 85% male, and 75% Republican".

In the study of CNN's show "Reliable Sources" they found that the majority of the show's 203 guests were "mainstream media insiders and right-leaning pundits" and that "ethnic minority voices were almost non-existent and progressive voices were far outnumbered by their conservative counterparts."

They also did a study on PBS's "News Hour" program and found "that 76% of sources were official or "elite" sources; women and people of different ethnicities were far under-represented; Republican sources outnumbered Democract sources by 66% to 33%; issues such as Iraq, Katrina, and immigration all followed conservative leanings."

Mkh 7 years, 11 months ago

Out of Hundreds of media pundits BEFORE the War, only Four were on the record as being Anti-War. Perhaps you need to alter your definition of "liberal bias".

budwhysir 7 years, 11 months ago

Politicaly speaking, all political statements should be followed by sources during the time of the reference to the statement.

IE the above statement is politicaly delivered by budwhysir and does not represent any political statements already made by budwhysir

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

okay beanscooter, try media research center www.mrc.org for that research I sited.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

still haven't disproven one (1) point RE Hillary [above]. just your vague smears. thanks for proving my points.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 11 months ago

more Hillary history for those who might consider voting for her:

^ And then there is Hillary. Just prior to her "performance" Saturday, she was known as the urgently important person whose motorcade ran down a police officer. The officer was simply trying to enforce some security restrictions designed to protect us all. Would that be the reason why New Yorkers and a whole lot of firemen and policemen were angry with her?

Or could it be that Hillary, not so long ago, pronounced NYPD officers' accused of violating a suspect's civil rights, guilty before trial? Her approach to members of law enforcement, I guess, is to hang them and then give them a fair trial. Most citizens of this country know that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Are New Yorkers angry because Hillary was probably behind the premature release of Puerto Rican terrorists? Or, maybe it was that very public kiss and hug offered to the wife of an international terrorist that tipped them off? And, didn't the Clinton White House play host to Gerry Adams, a well-known and very dangerous IRA terrorist? Maybe New Yorkers think Hillary may not be the best person to appear at an event staged to support victims of terrorism?

Hillary's blind spot is not just politics. Here's a woman getting paid more than eight million dollars to recall what happened during her eight years in the White House. The real curiosity about that book deal is that, for nearly a decade, Hillary testified under oath that she could not recollect anything important at all. Now we are to believe that she will write an interesting, fact-filled tome about those very same years? How did she get her memory back?

It's amazing she could not recall firing more than two dozen long-time White House employees, who were little old ladies in the Correspondence Office. I suppose they were in the way of Hillary's ambition to staff the White House with unqualified, undignified political hacks. With Hillary's guiding hand, the White House turned into a circus sideshow, plagued with moral and ethical problems instead of keeping the standard as the premier federal working office.

When she was finished with those brilliant moves, she ordered the firing of the White House Travel Office staff. To cover her reasons to "get those slots" for her freak parade (to be fair, who else would work for this woman?) she had her staff accuse them of federal crimes and was quite willing to see innocent civil servants off to the federal pen for getting in Hillary's way.

Then, her long time friend and some say intimate confidant died of an inflicted gunshot wound (self?), whereupon Hillary's staff vacuumed his office clean of incriminating and embarrassing documents that were found later in the Clinton's personal residence. But Hillary again claimed she had no idea how they got there, even under oath.

^

all factual, this passage from a WND commentary, nicely summarizes several points.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.