TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why should Hillary leave the race?
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov 1. I fail to see how blind intuition is a better support for an argument than polling data. Whether you trust them or not, aggregate data has a strong correlation with how things turn out (one of the main reasons polls are still relevant in political discourse). |
| quote: |
| 2. What attacks by Obama against Clinton? Pointing to things Michelle Obama says are akin to pointing to things that Bill Clinton has said, and that's a can of worms I'm sure you do not want to open. Strictly speaking about the candidates themselves and not the people that support them, when has Barack Obama said anything negative about the character of Hillary Clinton? You're fooling yourself if you think her campaign has been as clean as his has. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Groundhog Boy This isn't "the entire country," it's "Democrats who do not like Obama." Please read the actual argument and stop distorting it. |
| quote: |
| Carl Bernstein The Question of Hillary Clinton's Guilt-By-Association Tactics Posted May 2, 2008 | 09:22 PM (EST) For several weeks, the Clinton campaign has been distributing literature and disseminating incendiary notions -- which figured significantly in Pennsylvania, and are now central to the candidate's message in Indiana and North Carolina -- assailing Barack Obama for his association with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, the radical, violent organization responsible for bombing several government buildings in the early 1970s. In their debate in Philadelphia, after moderator George Stephanoplous had raised the question of Obama's relationship with Ayers, Hillary Clinton elaborated on the subject, seeking to add to its significance: SEN. CLINTON: ...I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. Whether this is 21st century McCarthyism--as argued by several important commentators not publicly allied with Obama -- among them Stanley Fish in the New York Times (who has written several admiring columns about her candidacy) and Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker -- is a matter readers will have to decide. Whatever name it is called, Hillary Clinton, perhaps better than any contemporary political figure of our time, knows the insidious nature of this kind of guilt by association, for she (like Bill Clinton) has been a victim of it herself over a political lifetime. Precisely because she knows the destructive power of such assertions and how unfair they can be, she has sought for a quarter-century to hide and minimize her own activities, associations, student fascination, and personal history with the radical Left. Those associations -- logical, explicable, and (her acolytes have always maintained) even character-building in the context of the times -- are far more extensive than any radical past that has come to be known about Barack Obama. Which raises the question: Is the Clinton campaign's emphasis on the Ayers-Obama connection significantly different or less spurious than the familiar (McCarthyite?) smears against Hillary, particularly those promulgated and disseminated by the forces she labeled "the vast right-wing conspiracy" in the 1990s? Like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has (at least so far as this reporter and biographer has been able to determine) consistently rejected the ideological rigidity of the radical Left and -- especially -- the notion of revolutionary violence as a means of political change in contemporary America, despite claims to the contrary by the VRWC. Like Obama -- and John McCain for that matter -- she has valued her friendships with individuals who figured in the Left-wing and anti-war movements of the 60s and Vietnam era. And like Obama and McCain, she has never wavered from her belief and faith in establishment politics, within the two-party system. But her past associations -- and her evasions about them -- may tell us much about the formation of Hillary Clinton, both as a product of her youthful time -- the sixties and seventies, when radical student movements and the anti-war movement were a hugely potent force on campus and in American politics generally -- and as a presidential candidate. The facts are fairly simple: In the 60s, as an undergraduate at Wellesley, she exhibited an academic fascination with the Left and radicalism; rejected more extreme forms of political protest and violence as a student leader (there is no evidence I know that Obama has ever done anything but the same); wrote her senior thesis on the radical Chicago community-organizer Saul Alinsky (whose best-known philosophical mantra was, "Whatever works to get power to the people, use it."); and then, during the 1992 presidential campaign and White House years, insured that the thesis was locked up in the Wellesley archives and unavailable to reporters. At Yale law school she embraced some leftist causes she perhaps wishes she hadn't today (the Black Panthers' claim that they couldn't get a fair trial, more about which later); worked in the most important radical law firm of the day -- Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, in Oakland, which represented the Communist Party and defended the Panthers in their murder trials; and became associate editor of an alternative law review at Yale which ran stories and pictures depicting policemen as pigs and murderers. In her 2003 "memoir," Living History, Hillary mentions not a word about her role in the Panther trial in New Haven--during which she directed Yale law students monitoring the proceedings for evidence of government misconduct in its prosecution of the Panthers accused of murder. "It meant going in and out of the Black Panther headquarters to obtain documentation and other information," a classmate told Donnie Radcliff of the Washington Post, quoted in Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady For Our Time. "Hillary's job was to organize shifts for her classmates and make certain no proceeding went unmonitored...[for] civil rights abuses..." As for her summer at the law firm, Hillary's one-sentence mention of it in Living History gives the impression that Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein might as well been handling postal rate increases, rather than defending the Panthers, members of the communist party, and accepting cases that mainstream lawfirms were afraid to take -- particularly civil liberties cases -- in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. "I told Bill about my summer plans to clerk at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, a small law firm in Oakland California, and he soon said he would like to go to California with me." That is the total verbiage expended on so formative an experience, and the lasting -- but distant friendship -- she maintained for the next twenty-some years with Bob Treuhaft and his wife, the muckraking journalist (and, like her husband) former communist party member Jessica Mitford. "The reason she came to us," Treuhaft told me [the quotation is in my biography of Hillary Clinton, A Woman In Charge] "the only reason I could think of, because none of us knew her, was because we were a so-called "Movement law firm at the time. There was no reason except politics for a girl from Yale" to intern at the firm. "She certainly... was in sympathy with all the Left causes, and there was a sharp dividing line at the time. We still weren't very far out of the McCarthy era." And might not still be, to judge from the 2008 presidential campaign. In the 1980s, Jessica Mitford visited the Clintons at the governor's mansion in Little Rock. She and Treuhaft had left the communist party in 1958, years after the revelation of Stalin's murderous crimes, but -- Jessica Mitford wrote in her memoir, A Fine Old Conflict, she quit "not primarily over some issue of high principle, but because it had become dull....boring. Rather like London's debutante circuit." When Jessica Mitford died in 1996, Hillary Clinton wrote Bob Treuhaft a lovely condolence letter from the White House, characteristically filled with the kind of heart-felt personal touches that the senator's friends have always remarked upon. Which, of course, no more raises the question "Is Hillary Clinton a Stalinist?," or a communist sympathizer, than "Is Barack Obama a Weatherman?" or a weatherman sympathizer, because of his association with Bill Ayers. Aside from the candidate herself, her prime-most abettor in pushing the Bill Ayers-Weatherman-Obama line is, inevitably, Sidney Blumenthal, who has also been distributing many other questionable allegations about Obama he has plucked from and disseminated to, at times, of all places--organs of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. As in the Clinton White House, where he was the archivist of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy's plots, Blumenthal is no independent operator. He maintains an ongoing personal and strategic dialogue with his patrons, Hillary and Bill Clinton. - - One of Hillary Clinton's most winning attributes -- and Bill Clinton's too -- has always been their understanding of the complexity of American politics, and the danger of ideological demagoguery (witness their fight against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and excesses). The resort by Hillary and her campaign to guilt-by-association--of which the Bill Ayers allegations are but one example: see Louis Farrakhan, or a comparatively-obscure African-American writer and perhaps -- communist party member named Frank Marshal Dixon, whom Obama knew in high school in Hawaii -- is, even for some of her most steadfast advocates, particularly dismaying. Like Gov. Bill Richardson and Senator Christopher Dodd, among others who have abandoned the Clintons, many old Clinton hands had hoped, judging from Hillary's triumphant and collegial senate years, that she -- and Bill -- had left behind such tactics when the Clinton Presidency ended in 2001 and the Right-wing threat to the Clintons' tenure in the White House had abated. "The sad irony," noted Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, "is that these are the same [guilt-by-association] attacks used against her husband in the elections of the 1990s. The GOP tried to destroy Bill Clinton for his relationships (much closer than Obama's tangential connections) with Arkansas crooks, sleazy fund-raisers and unsavory women. But 'The Man From Hope,' while seen as less honest than Bush or Bob Dole, bet that issues and uplift were more important to voters than his character. He won...." - - "Shame on you, Barack Obama," said Hillary Clinton in Ohio, asserting that the Obama campaign had misrepresented her health-care plan. Shame indeed. - - Carl Bernstein is, most recently, the author of A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, published in paperback in 2008 by Vintage, and a CNN political analyst. |
Well, maybe she feels that Barack making a big deal (10 debates ago, when he practically picked this issue up out of nowhere) about her being on the board of Wal-Mart qualifies as fair-game for her to, now, point out his association on the board of the Woods Foundation. It's a two-way street you know. And ask yourself, is she correct in what she said? Is it it "an issue people will be asking about"? Sure it is, she's right.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Eco Well, maybe she feels that Barack making a big deal (10 debates ago, when he practically picked this issue up out of nowhere) about her being on the board of Wal-Mart qualifies as fair-game for her to, now, point out his association on the board of the Woods Foundation. It's a two-way street you know. And ask yourself, is she correct in what she said? Is it it "an issue people will be asking about"? Sure it is, she's right. |
Oops:
| quote: |
| Hoosier Responsible? Clinton Decries China's Acquisition of Indiana Company -- Ignoring Her Husband's Role in the Sale By JAKE TAPPER Apr. 30, 2008� As she campaigns throughout Indiana, Sen. Hillary Clinton has been talking quite a bit about Magnequench, a Valparaiso, Ind., factory that moved to China. "We've got to elect a president next January who's going to remember Magnequench," Clinton told voters in Valparaiso on April 12. It seems, however, that when it comes to Magnequench there's quite a bit that Clinton has conveniently forgotten. Watch "World News with Charles Gibson" TONIGHT at 6:30 p.m. ET for the full report. "We went to Valparaiso," Clinton told voters in Princeton, Ind., last night, "where there used to be a plant called Magnequench that made the magnets that helped to guide the precision-guided missiles, the so-called smart bombs. You've seen those they take off, they go down the chimney, they were incredibly sophisticated and these magnets, you know not the kind you put on the refrigerator, like we all do but these really sophisticated magnets were instrumental making that happen." Clinton continued, saying, "Well, a Chinese company bought Magnequench and then they decided that they were going to move the whole company from Indiana to China. Now the president of the United States has the authority to veto that kind of a move, but Senator [Evan] Bayh begged the Bush administration not to export it it was going to lose jobs but it was also going to lose the know-how, the technical sophistication that created those magnets. President Bush and his administration wouldn't, basically wouldn't even give Evan Bayh the time of day. Those jobs left, and along with them went the savvy to make the magnets." What Clinton doesn't tell voters is that Magnequench was originally sold to Chinese interests during her husband's administration, which okayed the move despite concerns about national security and eventual job loss. Experts say the Chinese acquired the "technical sophistication" that created the magnets long before George W. Bush took office. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind,, Clinton's top surrogate in the state, often joins her on the stump in bashing the president for allowing Magnequench to move abroad. What Bayh doesn't tell voters these days is that he has blamed the company's moving on a 1995 decision made by Clinton's husband's administration. Andy Albers, a former vice president of Magnequench, said he received a phone call from Clinton's campaign to go over key details of Clinton's Valparaiso event before it happened on April 12. "I told them all the truth, but it didn't go anywhere," Albers told ABC News. "Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton are living in some false reality here, making all these false accusations." In Piittsburgh on April 14, Clinton told voters that "not only did the jobs go to China, but so did the intellectual property and the technological know-how to make those magnets." Albers says no secrets or intellectual property transferred to China when Magnequench moved in 2003, despite the claims of these politicians. "Right here, over 200 Hoosiers built parts that guided our military's smart bombs to their targets&.George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't," Clinton says in a TV ad airing in Indiana, presumably referring to the president's ability to use the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency board chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury responsible for analyzing national security implications when foreign entities take over domestic companies. Experts say Bill Clinton could have stopped it as well. Clinton Administration 'Approved the Sale' In 1995, China National Non-Ferrous Metals, headquartered in Beijing, and San Huan New Material High-Tech Inc, funded by the Chinese government, joined with other interests to purchase the Anderson, Ind.-based Magnequench, which made Neo powder for use in magnets. The two Chinese companies were headed by the husbands of the first and second daughters of then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. One of those daughters was at that time "vice minister of China's State Science and Technology Commission, whose responsibilities included acquiring military technologies by whatever means necessary," according to David Cay Johnston in "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Corporations Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You With the Bill)." "Complaints about the sale of Magnequench were made to the U.S. government because of the military applications for the magnets," Johnston reports. "Still, the Clinton administration, an ardent proponent of globalization, approved the sale." The Clinton administration requested that the technology and production remain in the U.S. "If we believe this was truly a national defense issue, the company should not have been allowed to be sold in 1995, to the group it was sold to, which was backed by the Chinese government and Chinese entrepreneurs," says Virginia Shingleton, head of the economics department at Valparaiso University for the past 12 years. A memo prepared for Bayh by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service earlier this year stated that the Clinton administration could have objected to the sale under CFIUS, but it did not, and that the consortium promised to keep those Anderson, Ind., jobs in the U.S. only until 2005. An Oct. 6, 2005, press release from Bayh noted that he asked for the Government Accountability Office to study "concerns over foreign takeovers of American companies with national security implications & after an Indiana company called Magnequench closed thanks to a 1995 decision by CFIUS to approve a Chinese consortium's takeover. At the time, Magnequench made 85 percent of the magnets used to guide U.S. smart bombs." Said Bayh, in the release: "The committee responsible for providing this protection does not have a good track record, as I saw myself when it allowed an Indiana company that made smart bomb magnets to be purchased by a foreign business. When it comes to protecting our national security interests, we should be doing more, not less." But Bayh now glosses over the outrage he once expressed at the Clinton administration's approval of that 1995 sale, emphasizing instead the fact that there are currently no companies in the U.S. that manufacture Neo magnets. Did Chinese Already Have the Know-How? In 2000, also during Bill Clinton's presidency, Magnequench purchased from UGIMAG the factory in Valparaiso that manufactured the Neo magnets. President Clinton's administration took no steps to stop the purchases in 2000, either. Around that time, Shingleton says, "there was talk about the national security issue and the loss of jobs because they were leaving. Some of the higher-wage jobs left immediately [in 2000]. I knew personally some people who were managers and who lost their jobs." The Anderson plant was sold in 2001. The Valparaiso plant closed in 2003. In 2005, Magnequench merged with AMR Technologies, based in Canada, creating a new firm Neo Material Technologies. Do the Chinese now have "the intellectual property and technological know-how to make these magnets" as a result of the 2003 move, as Clinton claims? "That's patently false," Albers says. "There was nothing new that the Chinese didn't already know about. They already had the equipment and the technology and the know-how." The intellectual property, Albers says, "remains in the United States and was not transferred." When the Clinton campaign called Albers two days before her Valparaiso event, he says, "They asked me to explain to the about Magnequench and the closing and did any technology go to China that would hurt the military & and I explained that that was not the case." As for the jobs issue, Shingleton says she's "befuddled" because of the support for free trade and globalization seen in Bill Clinton's administration, which resulted in much larger job losses in the region. "I just don't get it," says Shingleton. "NAFTA was passed under President Clinton, there's been a movement to open for free trade & Look at all the steel jobs that were lost in Northwest Indiana. If you want to look at the attrition of jobs, look at the steel industry. The question to ask her is what happened to all the other industries that shipped their jobs overseas before 2000?" http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote...=4757257&page=1 |
As a lawyer, i have to reject the suggestion that the people you represent or help somehow indicate a political agenda. Lawyers argue for causes all the time that they don't agree with, however, the consequences of a victory have wide-spread reach. You would be surprised who receives backing from various groups, not because they agree with the cause, rather, they understand the effect that a victory could have. If hillary defended the communist party, that clearly indicates that she is a true believer in civil rights. The lawyers who protect the unpopular groups are usually those who are the greatest defenders of civil rights.
as for her being on the wal mart board, so what? i hate wal mart more than the next guy, however, many board memberships are given to friend of company management, and the favors are returned. The real corporate policy is usually created by the CEO (also usually the chairman of the board). If board members oppose the actions of the CEO, you can count on it that the CEO won't support that members re-election to the board of directors. I could go into a huge thing on corporate governance, however, just know that it is the exception that the board actualy weilds more power than the CEO. While it is true that the board hires the CEO, the CEO usually signs an employment contract that ensures some permanency, while the board members are usually subject to re-election every two years (or something similar). And in the normal course, management usually supports friendly board members to ensure they are re-elected by the shareholders.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Umm, uhh, HEY LOOK, OVER THERE WORKING CLASS FOLK, IS THAT REVEREND WRIGHT?!?!?! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 As a lawyer, i have to reject the suggestion that the people you represent or help somehow indicate a political agenda. Lawyers argue for causes all the time that they don't agree with, however, the consequences of a victory have wide-spread reach. You would be surprised who receives backing from various groups, not because they agree with the cause, rather, they understand the effect that a victory could have. If hillary defended the communist party, that clearly indicates that she is a true believer in civil rights. The lawyers who protect the unpopular groups are usually those who are the greatest defenders of civil rights. as for her being on the wal mart board, so what? i hate wal mart more than the next guy, however, many board memberships are given to friend of company management, and the favors are returned. The real corporate policy is usually created by the CEO (also usually the chairman of the board). If board members oppose the actions of the CEO, you can count on it that the CEO won't support that members re-election to the board of directors. I could go into a huge thing on corporate governance, however, just know that it is the exception that the board actualy weilds more power than the CEO. While it is true that the board hires the CEO, the CEO usually signs an employment contract that ensures some permanency, while the board members are usually subject to re-election every two years (or something similar). And in the normal course, management usually supports friendly board members to ensure they are re-elected by the shareholders. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Oh, I agree. And I think that Bernstein does too - after all, he is a Clinton supporter. I think the point he was trying to make was that it is strange to see Hillary play the guilt by association card when she herself (not to mention her husband) could be painted with that same brush in even more damaging ways. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 i find it funny that republicans keep bringing up how rev wright married obama and his wife. So, what? my mother has no idea who married her. i didn't know that was an important choice in ones life. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Well, unless you got married in Vegas, you should probably remember since you generally go through several months of preparation and counseling with your pastor (at least in all of the weddings I've been to). I think the real message that GOPers are trying to get past is that Obama went to Wright's church for some 20 odd years, had a close relationship with the guy, referred to him as his spiritual adviser or something, etc, etc. And then Obama has to essentially publicly divorce himself from Wright when the public learns a bit more about the messages he sneds and when it becomes obvious that Wright and the white voters that Obama needs to cater to simply don't coexist. Anyway, I'm not completely on top of this issue but I think I have enough information to have a clear idea of what's going on here. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Oh, I agree. And I think that Bernstein does too - after all, he is a Clinton supporter. I think the point he was trying to make was that it is strange to see Hillary play the guilt by association card when she herself (not to mention her husband) could be painted with that same brush in even more damaging ways. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 pastor? i'm catholic, i think catholics go to a few meeting at the church about the sanctity of marriage and call it a day. you get the priest of the church you attend, i don't think there is much choice on that. My point was also that, while he may have been a member of his church for 20 years, how many times did he actually go to church? everyone assumes he went every sunday. i am a member of a church i've been to five times in the past ten years. Obama is also a much busier man than i am. He was an associate at a large law firm where he probably worked 60+ hour weeks. he was an adjunct prof at chicago law school on the side. he was a senator for the US and illinois. those aren't exactly 9-5 positions. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Eco Yes, we don't know how often he went to church, but he did give $27,000 last year as a contribution to the Church, so it doesn't help his cause. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 He also made 4.2 million dollars last year, so 27k is a drop in the bucket. |
In regards to how often Obama goes to church, I don't think it is very often - particularly since he got sent to Washington in 2004. When asked if Obama is not much of a church-goer, Rev. Wright turned it around and asked the questioner what her pastor's Sunday sermon had been about. The questioner couldn't answer, and Rev. Wright said "I'd say he goes to church about as often as you then."
What frustrates me the most about this particular issue, is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Who here among us has never said something entirely stupid, bigoted, and/or offensive in their entire life? It's easy to pick up on a soundbite and characterize that as the entire life's work and thoughts of an individual, but that seems ridiculous to me. The people that speculate on their relationship actually have no idea what the substance of that relationship was. If Wright helped Obama interpret the Bible... how is that relevant to his comments on race and society?
And furthermore, who here among us doesn't have any friends, family, or professional contacts that say stupid shit all the time? I know I do - so am I supposed to disavow those friendships now in the unlikely event that I someday run for political office? That would make me a pretty shallow friend I would think. I'm actually kind of disappointed that Obama distanced himself from Wright just because people are judgmental and reactionary.
The last point I want to make is this: the primary way in which people defend Hillary's negative campaign ads is that the Republicans will eventually do the same thing. That's great. So instead of the Republicans running 100 ads in North Carolina against Obama in November, the Democrats are going to run 100 now, and the Republicans can reserve all theirs for later. Does anybody else see how retarded it is to use Democratic money to attack the presumptive nominee? You're effectively doubling (or tripling since Clinton actually has more money than McCain + the RNC combined right now) the number of hits on the Democratic nominee... and the majority are being funded with the money of Democratic donors!!! What the hell.
Any Joe with zero political experience will tell you that negative campaigning cuts both ways - it can be effective, but it can also alienate a lot of voters. Why not let McCain bear the brunt of that double-edged sword? McCain is the one who has pledged to run a clean campaign. The Clinton campaign is making it pretty damn easy for him to honor that pledge. If they didn't, and McCain inevitably did turn negative, he'd suffer some blowback for that!
I was all for Hillary staying in the race, but not like this. This is getting ridiculous.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Secondly, $27K is a drop in the bucket to a multi-millionaire--perhaps (though it is funny that in the video Wright goes on to preach about how Obama is NOT wealthy, but I digress...). Point is that after 20 years and a decent amount of financial charity, I think it's in the least a bit foolish to assume that Obama has anything less than even a passive interest in what is going on in the church, especially if Wright is a personal adviser of any sort. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I have no dog in this fight (And I really don't want Hillary to get the nomination so believe me I am in no rush to put down Obama here). I just think the facts are fairly clear and it may be more of a rationalization to be so dismissive. This is politics. The skeletons come out of the closet. Nobody is beyond reproach here. |
its shit like this .....
tsk tsk tsk
| quote: |
| Clinton: I'm not listening to economists on gas tax holiday INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (CNN) � In the face of criticism from a slate of economists who say her gas tax holiday plan would be ineffective or even harmful, Hillary Clinton said she wasn�t taking stock of their opinions and emphasized that this was a short-term fix that would primarily benefit long-distance drivers. �I�m not going to put my lot in with economists,� Clinton told George Stephanopolous on ABC�s �This Week� after he asked her to name a single economist supporting her plan. �If we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.� Clinton said she didn�t understand the resistance her plan is getting since its intention is to provide relief. �On so many of these issues where costs have gone up, where people are really feeling squeezed, there just doesn�t seem to be an understanding about what people go through,� Clinton told Stephanopolous. The debate over Clinton and McCain�s different pieces of legislation to remove the gas tax this summer reached a fever pitch this week with Barack Obama leading the charge to reject it, saying Saturday, �This is what passes for leadership in Washington - phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems.� �It�s a misnomer to say this is all that I�m doing,� Clinton defended herself, �I have a comprehensive long-term energy plan that would go right at dependence on foreign oil.� Clinton has been arguing that it�s not only about the money saved but the message it sends. �I really believe we�ve got to start right now, demonstrating a willingness to take on these oil companies,� she argued to Stephanopolous. - CNN Political Producer Alexander Marquardt  |
as long as diebold keeps counting votes, she's got a good chance of winning, i'd say.
| quote: |
| Chelsea Clinton speaks at a rally in support of her mother in North Carolina. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton promised wary Americans a new beginning as they stepped up their battle Monday, the eve of their next fateful date with primary voters |
Did Hillary kill Eight Belles?
A conduit for evil?
Last week, Hillary Clinton told a crowd in Louisville that she was betting on Eight Belles to win, place, and show in the Kentucky Derby, and she recommended that everyone do the same.
As everyone's heard by now, Eight Belles broke both her ankles after coming in second. She was later euthanized.
Coincidence? Or does an endorsement from Hillary Clinton open the doors of hell to unleash unspeakable evil upon the recipients of her endorsement? We took a look through some of Hillary's previous quotes on the campaign trail to see how some of her other endorsements and predictions worked out:
| quote: |
| A few things: Russert: Hillary Clinton has cancelled all her morning appearances. Chuck Todd is the smartest political analyst on TV. And funny too: "We're [staying late] for one delegate." Props to all the networks that resisted the urge to call Indiana early. CBS has made an ass out of itself by calling the race [for Clinton] when the numbers didn't warrant it. Obama retook what he lost in Pennsylvania in the popular vote. That argument is now absent from the Clinton bag of tricks. The media narrative is clear: It's over. Indiana 91 percent reporting --------- % ---- Delegates Clinton - 51 ---- 31 Obama --- 49 ---- 27 Vote margin: 20,957 North Carolina (Winner: Obama) 99 percent reporting -------- % ---- Delegates Obama --- 56 ---- 44 Clinton - 42 ---- 35 Vote margin: 226,340 All the talk on MSNBC is about who will break it to the Clintons that it's over. |
CNN just called it for Clinton, who's up by about 20,000 votes now with most of Lake County in. Real overwhelming victory for her, coming out a whole 1, maybe 2 delegates ahead out of this deal.
Can she leave now?
BTW, why is no one really talking about the ass kicking that she received in North Carolina?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.