Are We Ready for Hillary?

Recently, I’ve been taking a hiatus from blogging to do some political research. It is clear that the 2008 elections will be a brutal battle between the left and the right like never before. Websites like MoveOn.org are becoming ever popular and a common Google search for “Hillary Watch” websites are popping up, such as Hillary-Watch.org.

I must admit I've been watching Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for some time. The shrewd, intimidating politico raised in Park Ridge, Illinois has never made Americans feel comfortable about her leftist agendas.

The 1969 Wellesley College graduate has always been a radical left wing liberal. Her service as a staff attorney of the Children's Defense Fund in the 70s portrays her to be supportive of children's rights as long as it doesn't affect the feminist woman's right to abortion. Let's face it, how many children do you know writing op-ed's against her in the New York Times? (And furthermore, how many abortion survivors do you know?)

Her work with the congressional Impeachment Inquiry Staff in 1974 shows her determination at removing Richard Nixon from office because of the Watergate Scandal, because she believed President Nixon needed to own up to his abuses of power. This also reminds Americans that the same rules didn't apply to her husband Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial for lying about his sexual relations with intern, Monica Lewinsky, or the Whitewater affair.

Sen. Clinton claims to be a feminist, a woman in her own right, but yet she rode to power in the White House on her husband's coattails. She's a wife, but doesn't have wifely instincts. She allowed Bill to have torrid affairs with "safe" women such as the obsessed Lewinsky, but she put Evelyn Lieberman, also nicknamed "Mother Superior" in charge of "keeping dangerous, less discreet" women away from the President.

When the Lewinsky scandal broke out, Hillary pretended she knew nothing and put on her wronged woman face for the media, all the while planning her next strategic move that would help her win a Senate seat. The Senate seat would build a record for her in legislature, this feminist woman who had her sights set on the Presidency since she was a young hippy at Yale.

Is America ready for a third (and possibly fourth) term of the Clinton presidency? Are we ready to have Bill back in the White House to hit on more young interns? Are we ready to have scandalous lawyers like Harold Ickes back in the West Wing?

The thought sickens me. The lies and corruption of the Clintons and all their followers, or "Clintonistas" as they are so rightly named, is not my idea of a great administration.

I don't want Black Panther supporter Hillary Rodham Clinton as my president. Woman or not, she's a perfectionist with high self-esteem incapable of following the rules of the game. Those rules don't apply to her. She feels that Americans owe her the presidency. She feels entitled to the most powerful position in American government. She played on the sympathy of a cheating spouse to get into political office. But has she earned this position? Can she put aside her hidden leftist agendas and govern as a centrist, with the greater good of this country in mind? Can she do the job? Her 1994 health care plan dubbed "Hillarycare" was a debacle. What else will she fail at?

Even her Senate predecessor, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and his wife Liz didn't believe in Hillary. They considered her to be a liar and a back-pedaling egotist for the way she'd insult special interest groups with her combative attitdude and "foot in mouth syndrome". I can't say I blame them. Her track record precedes her, and she must be kept away from the White House for the rest of her life.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at September 15, 2006 11:03 AM
Comments
Comment #181478

Uh….

you had the gall to say that you did research???

…and then you say:
“The 1969 Wellesley College graduate has always been a radical left wing liberal.”

Hillary Rodham was an active republican before she married Bill. FACT.

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #181482

Hillary will never even get the democrat nomination. There is not an ounce of “like-ability” in her. You gotta have SOME charisma these days—she has none. Plus, it looks like the kooks have taken over that party. Look for Gore or some other idiot to get the nomination—then get HAMMERED in the general election.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 15, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #181483

Do you really meant to open up the debate talking about lies and corruption in the White house? You’ve obviously have been obsessed with Hillary and haven’t been paying much attention to the current band of thugs masquerading as Christians running (ruining) the country.

Posted by: Art at September 15, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #181484

Get Real.

You are hate mongering and attacking baselessly. This, appapently, is what the republicans are reduced to now. You assume and put false words in the mouths of others and reinterpret things from people like Moynahan…you even put false words in your own mouth. The most cursory awareness of, or research into, facts puts the lie to your messege.

You claim to have been away from blogging for “research” …did that take you longer than 5 minutes? I don’t think rush or hannity or savage count for much. They count for ANTI-research.

Hillary is probably not electable. That is not because she would make a bad president, but because she has been media-poisoned by those who share *messege* every bit as baseless as yours. All you are doing is keeping the character assaination going. Presumably you are doing this out of fear. Could it be fear based on the fact that Bill Clinton did such a better job with the country than thge twit in office now? Are you afraid that another successful Clinton might demonstrate the need to bury the ineffective and hipocritical republican party forever?
You have nothing to fear. That won’t happen. You underestimate the power of lunacy.

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #181486

RGF, where are you getting your facts? I’d like to research this as well.

She was raised in a Republican household, her father Hugh Rodham was a Barry Goldwater supporter, but she chose the left based on influences of her Methodist youth minister Don Jones, and at Wellesley converted to a left leaning activist along with Eleanor “Eldie” Acheson and Nancy Wanderer.

Perhaps you should check your facts.

Posted by: Dana at September 15, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #181489

I say let her run… to easy a target!

Posted by: patrick at September 15, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #181490

Who’s hate mongering? You’re putting words in my mouth because you can’t dispute my argument.

Give me something real to work with.

Posted by: Dana at September 15, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #181491

During the 1992 presidential campaign, I seem to recall a controversy involving The Rose Law Firm (RLF). It was important, not because the presidential candidate, or his running mate, was involved, but the presidential candidate’s wife.

Considering how brutal the Democratic Primary was last year (the Republicans could have saved money by merely re-playing the Democrats’ commercials against their opponents), does anyone really believe that candidate-Hillary will escape having RLF dragged out again? If her Democratic challengers have any sense, they will simply send her a dozen roses and a note reminding her that they haven’t forgotten.

The ScubaRedneck

Posted by: The ScubaRedneck at September 15, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #181492

Dana,

Your a clown.

Posted by: tree hugger at September 15, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #181499

Dana,

Multiple articles came out during the ‘94 elections when Clinton was running aginst Dole. Much was made of the fact that Elizabeth Dole had been a registered Democrat before marrying Bob and Hillary had been a member of the young republicans in College before marrying Bill.

I am searching for some of those 12 year old articles…but you can do that as well as I. How could you not even remember the ‘94 elections? How old are you anyway?

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #181500

Point out negative facts and opinions about your current President and your a “true American.”
Point out the negative facts and opinion about a liberal and your a “hate mongering” “clown.”

Didn’t expect anything different.

Posted by: kctim at September 15, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #181503

Dana,

I agree with your arguement that we need to keep HRC away from the white house. However, it is for reasons of political and public policy disagreement, not because she is Bill’s wife.

Frankly, I had a lot of respect for Bill Clinton as President, at least until the Lewinski ordeal was uncovered. I think he had plenty of failings, but I also think he had the best interests of us all at heart. He just couldn’t complete. In a lot of ways, he reminded me of Carter who had some great ideas, but tackled way too much way too quickly, and it all fell apart.

Hillary care was a total failure because it was poor policy and even more poorly orchestrated. If that was an example of how HRC would work with her subordinates and across the aisle, we are all in trouble if she is elected.

The truth is, as RGF stated above, she is probably unelectable anyway. I think we are wasting time on a candidate who may get a nod for VP at best, perhaps a cabinet spot.

Admittedly, I am a conservative and a former Repub. who lost faith in corrupt leaders and a fat party. I don’t see the Dems as any better. I also see myself as the common man with many like me across the country. The fact is, most of us do not have a candidate we like who has a realistic chance of winning anything. So, I advocate voting out all the bad ones (bad ones described as corrupt or fiscally irresponsible) and elect a slate of elected officials who have our best interests at heart and the moxy to put that into action.

Are there any out there?

Posted by: Chi Chi at September 15, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #181505

Dana,

Good post. At this point I think more light does need to be shed on this issue of 2008.


“That is not because she would make a bad president, but because she has been media-poisoned by those who share *messege* every bit as baseless as yours.”
-Actually, that seems to be the primary strategy that liberals are using these days. Anyone ever listen to Howard Dean or Michael Moore?


Conservatives have been opposed to Hillary for some time now due to how radically far left she has been standing.


tree hugger,

nice argument.

Posted by: Party Animal at September 15, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #181508

Dana,

Here ya go:
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9319855

kctim,

The difference is that Dana is offering ONLY clownish-hate mongering. No facts. No Truth. No intelectual integrity in the messege at all.

It is much like the sounbite attacks on Kerry that pasted him with the label: flip-flopper. Kerry, like much of the rest of the Senate, was led to believe that Bush intended to abide by our legally binding agreements with the UN in Aarticle 1441. When Bush made it clear he had no intention of respecting either American or international law, Kerry and others were STEADFAST with respect to waht was right. It was Bush who flip-flopped, Not Kerry.

The difference is dis-ingenuineness, kctim.
The republican party is not worthy of trust anymore and they clearly do not have the best interests of our nation at heart as they act or fail to act, time and time again.

That is the difference.

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #181509

“The 1969 Wellesley College graduate has always been a radical left wing liberal.” That would make her a communist- Not true, nice spin!

“Her service as a staff attorney of the Children’s Defense Fund in the 70s portrays her to be supportive of children’s rights as long as it doesn’t affect the feminist woman’s right to abortion.” Sort of like the constitution does?

“Her work with the congressional Impeachment Inquiry Staff in 1974 shows her determination at removing Richard Nixon from office because of the Watergate Scandal, because she believed President Nixon needed to own up to his abuses of power.” So??

“This also reminds Americans that the same rules didn’t apply to her husband Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial for lying about his sexual relations with intern, Monica Lewinsky, or the Whitewater affair.” Bill’s offense is very similar to Nixon’s right?

Whitewater?? They were already investgated,and cleared. How much do you propose we spend to retread that?? Oh, and Bill’s offense is very similar to Nixon’s right?

She stood by her husband…sort of like she vowed to do?? Please tell me more about your morality

“she rode her husbands coattails to power” No, I think she was elected.

Speaking of riding coat-tails, what were Bush’s qualifications other than failing at all he has tried? Oh wait his Dad has connections

Posted by: 037 at September 15, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #181512

Dana,

1. Support for abortion rights does not make her a “radical left wing liberal.” A majority of Americans support at least some abortion rights.

2. Her working for Nixon’s impeachment also put her with the majority of Americans at the time.

3. Her support in 1994 a health care plan was and is also supported — at a general level — by a sizeable number of Americans. You can bicker about support for specific plans and its specific details, but, again, the generalized opinion hardly place her as a “radical left wing liberal.”

You’ve got every right to oppose her and tell us why, but calling her a “radical left wing liberal” means that at least one out of every three Americans are. Call her “left wing” or “Liberal” and you’re basically correct. Call her a “left-wing Liberal” and you could construct a good argument (but not with the above facts). It’s the “radical” part I don’t follow. You fall into the tired overblown name-calling I read from a lot of “ultra-right-wing conservatives.”

Steve K

Posted by: Steve K at September 15, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #181513

Dana,

again…GET REAL

The coat tails B.S. is prticularly tired and offensive.

How many first ladies do you suppose were actually accomplished and practicing lawyers?

Shall I do that research for you, too? Do you think you can handle it?

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #181516

Dana,
Thanks for the anti Hillary rant. It’s always good to know that the Republicans are focused on the issues before us. I guess when you haven’t anything good to say about the Republican situation, attack Hillary. Rerunning the 2000 and 2004 campaigns isn’t likely to work so well this time. Good Job.

Posted by: gergle at September 15, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #181518

I doubt that Hillary will even get nominated, but even if she does, I don´t think she can win in a general election. Her problem is that she is far too polarizing. People either love her or hate her, and most have already made their mind up. She will get shredded by members of her own party for her stance on the war, and her nomination would bring more Republicans to the polls than if Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan were resurected and ran together on the same ticket.

Posted by: 1LT B at September 15, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #181519

I think the nation has Bush and Clinton fatigue. I personally hope that she doesn’t run. I believe she would do much better in the Senate and eventually the Supreme Court.

Regardless, if she chooses to run, it will not be pretty for the Republicans. They’ll fall all over themselves trying to re-run the whole Lewinsky affair and the Whitewater nonsense. It won’t work. And campaigning against Bill can’t be a walk in the park.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Posted by: Dennis at September 15, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #181520

Dana,

I am a Democrat from N.Y. and would never want to see her in the Whitehouse.
I voted for Tesini in last weeks primary.
The one accurate thing you said about her is she is nothing but a “politico.”
She’s done nothing for N.Y. and will do nothing for the U.S..

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 15, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #181522

RGF,

“You are hate mongering and attacking baselessly. This, appapently, is what the republicans are reduced to now. “

You forgot to include Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and every other political party. I love the arguement that Republicans are hate mongers while pretending that Democrats aren’t. Ridiculous. Some Republicans pretend that the Dems are the only hate mongers. Equally ridiculous.

By the way, I can’t imagine Hillary being anything other than a left wing radical; I don’t care if or when she made a switch from the Republican party to the Democrats. Now she’s trying to paint herself as a moderate, but it isn’t going to work. I don’t see her as having any chance at all of succeeding in 2008.

Posted by: TJ at September 15, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #181523

PLEASE run Hillary in ‘08!! That would be like spotting your opponent four touchdowns!

RGF,
You know your facts so well that you knew about some secret election in 1994 where Bob Dole ran for President. I remember the one in ‘06, but I must have missed ‘04. Man, Viagra guy lost to Clinton twice?

Anyway, the old crow Hillary would be the most self-defeating candidate the Democrats have ever produced, and that is REALLY saying something.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 15, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #181526

Dana,

Your *messege* is a typical example of the unhinking and unrearched and unobjective bias selling the republicans have been guilty of since Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house in the ’90s …remember the ’90s? Perhaps not.

You say:
“This also reminds Americans that the same rules didn’t apply to her husband Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial for lying about his sexual relations with intern, Monica Lewinsky, or the Whitewater affair.”

…and you don’t seem to see the problem with saying that. Let me make it abundantly clear:
The Clintons were never even charged with anything with regard to Whitewater!!! You casually, republican-ly, throw out the intellectually dishonest accusation that implies Clinton lied about Whitewater (lumped together with Lewinski) and yet either forget or were too young to remember that Starr spent 80 MILLION DOLLARS of tax payers money, spent 6 years of time and COULDN’T EVEN GET ENOUGH TO GO BEFORE A GRAND JURY AND GET AN INDICTMENT THAT WOULD LEED TO A TRIAL!!!!! All he came up with was Lewinski, whose relevence to the case doesn’t exist.

That is, except as an impeachment witness ragarding an irrelevent issue, since Bill Clinton said he had nothing to do with Whitewter and he also said he “Didn’t have sexual relations with that woman.”

Further, you take this rediculous shot about Hillary making a White house run -

You say:
“The thought sickens me. The lies and corruption of the Clintons and all their followers, or “Clintonistas” as they are so rightly named, is not my idea of a great administration.”

Clintonista? I have NEVER heard that before and I’m in the former republican heartland of Texas!

Clinton did more for building and preserving economic opportunity and stability in this country than anybody in the last hundred years.

Perhaps you prefer your boy, Bush, who has accomplished the amazing feat of outstripping the deficit spending and debt increases and indebtedness of our nation to foreign powers by more than all the administrations of this nation COMBINED OVER THE LAST 225 YEARS!

…previous to his ‘administration.’ (Of what, is the question!)


Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #181527

I stand corrected, Duane-O.

The Clinton re-election happened in 1996, not 1994.

I guess I lost track of the count in light of the build up we are currently going through in preparation for the ‘06 mid-terms.

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #181528

“The republican party is not worthy of trust anymore and they clearly do not have the best interests of our nation at heart as they act or fail to act, time and time again”

Neither do the Democrats RGF!
A post such as this pops up in the blue column and you guys take everything in it as fact, love it and the others say what you are saying here.

Its not the information and facts that get people upset. Its WHO that information and facts is about that you guys care about.

That is where there is no difference.

Posted by: kctim at September 15, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #181529

Um. I had high hopes for this article when you claimed to have been doing research. Oh well.

Posted by: Trent at September 15, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #181537

We probably need a discussion of what research and argument construction involves. It does not mean you start with a conclusion and then seek evidence to support that conclusion, though if you do that, it is imperative to at least get your facts straight. Honest research involves looking at the evidence and then seeing where that evidence takes you. It can be difficult because sometimes you are forced to conclude that which you would rather not, but it’s the only way to preserve intellectual integrity.

This is not a left/right problem; it is an intellectual one. I call myself a liberal, though on specific issues I’m fairly certain that other liberals wouldn’t think I am one. And there are several article writers in the blue column whom I think are rather silly in their overblown rhetoric. In the red column, the only article writer I find worth engaging is Jack because he does not always let rhetoric and partisanship get the best of him. And before the charge gets thrown, yes, I am very aware that my passions sometimes get the best of me, too.

Why comment here, then? Good question. I’m an optimist at heart.

Posted by: Trent at September 15, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #181541

kctim,

Uh…no. Not quite.

The Clinton’s were witch hunted (and here they ae clearly STILL being witch hunted) and there was no connection to Whitewater.

Bush violated both American and Intenational law and all the elements of those crimes are beyonds dispute because they are matter of public record.

Delay violated Campaign funding law and all the elements of the crimes are public record…hell, the CONTRUBUTORS to his accounts even ADMITTED to it openly!

Valery Palme was betrayed, her identity revealed in an act that was treason by a law set up by Bush Sr. Who is at fault for that is the question, not that it happened! …whose got the reins right now, kctim?

The difference is politically motivated, biased mud-slinging (such as this article by Dana) versus undisputed facts that are now a matter of public record anyway.

That’s a big difference, kctim. VERY big.

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #181542

Dana:

I’m not particularly impressed with your research. Seems to me you made your mind up, then scattered factoids about.

That having been said, I agree that Hillary would be bad for our country. I agree with Andre that she is a “politico”. She ran for Senator in NY state simply because NY is a large state and gave her a bigger podium to speak from. Imagine if she were the junior senator from Arkansas…..not quite the cachet.

Honestly, it was a good political move on her part, but it sums up her essence. Everything….EVERYthing is political. Her wounded stance after Lewinsky became public—-political. Her acting as if she didn’t know Bill was a serial philanderer…political. Her photo ops holding hands with Bill and Chelsea (and don’t forget the Bible)…political.

She’s very shrewd and very smart, but lacks the likability that Bill has. She does have his ability to shift with the political winds, but without the winsomeness that he evoked while doing it. Bill could charm the habit off a nun, while Hillary has a caustic nature that is offputting.

She may run and she may even be the Dem nominee. But I dont see her fooling the general population into thinking that her recent shift to the middle is anything but political gamesmanship.


Now….see how one can comment about someone without namecalling etc. While some will certainly disagree with my opinions, all should find them without hatred, namecalling or anything but valid opinion.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 15, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #181546

This is so funny that all these “hate mongering” comments are portrayed as only coming from Republicans. What have the Dems done for us lately? If you really want to discuss your last candidate than this could get really interesting. I will give you this Hilary Clinton is a smart woman who has set her sights on the White House. Is that wrong? Of course not but I believe she will never realize that dream. She runs a campaign similar to those of many liberals….they adjust their opinion on policy to please the majority. What happened to sticking to your morals and beliefs? Someone who adapts their opinions and policies based on popularity is not going to improve our country. Bush has made many mistakes, but at least we know what he stands for. Hilary has recently tried to appear moderate so she doesn’t scare off voters for the upcoming presidential race. But you can’t fool us HRC!

Posted by: Becky at September 15, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #181549

jobagodonuts,

I could not agree more.
Well said.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 15, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #181554

Steve K:

1. Support for abortion rights does not make her a “radical left wing liberal.” A majority of Americans support at least some abortion rights.

3. Her support in 1994 a health care plan was and is also supported — at a general level — by a sizeable number of Americans. You can bicker about support for specific plans and its specific details, but, again, the generalized opinion hardly place her as a “radical left wing liberal.”


I’m just curious where you get your statistics from.

On #3, what were the questions asked? I think most American’s would love the coverage under Hilliary Care. The problem is the cost.

thanks

Posted by: jacktruth at September 15, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #181555

Joebag-

I got a chuckle out of your the reference to Hillary, a politician, being political. This includes posing with here immediate family for a photo op! I guess if she is elected, there’s the premise for the next impeachment.

Photo ops being political? Hmmm…like W in the pilot costume in front of the Mission Accomplished sign?

And like her or not, the ‘she won’t fool the general population’ is probably irrelevent to the discussion. Never overestimate the intellect of the “general poplulation.” Heck, many still believe Saddam had WMDs and was responsible for 9/11.

But, I do agree with your general position that elections, unfortunately are won on likeability, not necessarilly substance.

Posted by: Boomer at September 15, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #181558
“Hillary Clinton”…has never made Americans feel comfortable about her leftist agendas.

Evidently the voters in New York don’t have a problem with her. Or maybe you don’t think of them as Americans?


Her work with the congressional Impeachment Inquiry Staff in 1974 shows her determination at removing Richard Nixon …same rules didn’t apply to her husband Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial…

Are you really trying to compare the charges against President Nixon to the denial that President Clinton made about his extramarital affair with an adult? And what real concern do you have about his sex life?


She’s a wife, but doesn’t have wifely instincts.

This is a good line. I won’t ask how you would know what her wifely instincts should be. But the line is good for a laugh.


Woman or not, she’s a perfectionist with high self-esteem —- incapable of following the rules of the game.

The first part of this line is a personality trait that is probably required (or should be) of all our Presidents. While in the second part, what rules are you talking about? Are there rules printed somewhere, like in “Monopoly.”

I’m a Democrat, but believe me I am not offended or feel defensive about this blog at all. I found it humorous, thanks for the good laugh. Keep up the research.

Posted by: Cube at September 15, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #181562

RGF,
I thought Clinton vs. Dole was the ‘96 presidential election.

Oh, well….I guess it’s silly to let a trivial little thing like a fact get in the way of a therapeutic rant like yours.

Posted by: Rich at September 15, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #181564

Boomer:

You are right of course that all politicians use photo ops and political gamesmanship. Sometimes they get unintended consequences, ala Bush in the flight jacket and Dukakis in the tank. And sometimes they just go too far for decency.

I was referring to one memorable series of photo ops for Hillary—-moreso for Bill actually. During the Lewinsky publicity, the Clinton’s made a big deal of having pictures taken with Chelsea, apparently to show their familial side. It has always bothered me because up until then, both Hill and Bill had demanded privacy for Chelsea.

All of a sudden, family pictures were necessary, and Chelsea was paraded front and center. ITs one thing to look for photo ops, but when you use your own child as a prop after years of telling the media to NOT take her picture….that just seemed too political for me.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 15, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #181566

037,
Care to point to the part of the Constitiution where is says, specifically, that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the sucking the brain from an unborn human being, nor the free exercise thereof”???

Posted by: Rich at September 15, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #181567

“The Clinton’s were witch hunted (and here they ae clearly STILL being witch hunted) and there was no connection to Whitewater”

In your opinion, it was a witch-hunt. To many others, it was looking out for the country. Much like the political climate that is alive today.

“Bush violated both American and Intenational law and all the elements of those crimes are beyonds dispute because they are matter of public record”

American law? Like taking away gun rights? Like giving permission to kick down doors BEFORE a warrant is served? Using the IRS to get back at enemies? Sending our military to fight in a war against a force that does not threaten us? Giving a foreign country technology secrets? Abusing ones power? Obstruction of justice?

“Delay violated Campaign funding law and all the elements of the crimes are public record…hell, the CONTRUBUTORS to his accounts even ADMITTED to it openly!”

Delay and Abramhoff etc…
Paul and Chung etc…
Campaign violations run deep in BOTH parties.

“Valery Palme was betrayed, her identity revealed in an act that was treason by a law set up by Bush Sr. Who is at fault for that is the question, not that it happened!”

Isn’t that the purpose of special investigations? To determine what went wrong and correct it?
Or is it “treason” because you, a person who has no idea in the world of what the facts really are, says it is?

“The difference is politically motivated, biased mud-slinging (such as this article by Dana) versus undisputed facts that are now a matter of public record anyway”

Mud-slinging? Like calling a President a Nazi? A dumb redneck? Chimp? Moron in Chief? Saying he intentionally lied? Calling him a draft dodger? Calling him a racist? etc…
There are an equal number of “undisputed facts” to throw at both parties. You only choose to believe or listen to, those aimed at the Reps.

“That’s a big difference, kctim. VERY big.”

For every “fact” you give me about Republicans, I could give you a fact about the liberals. We could do that all day.
But this is the only place where the big difference you refer too would show up. You would have an excuse or label it as not as important to EVERYTHING negative mentioned about the Dems.

You see a difference where there is NO difference and that alone is why nothing will change.

Posted by: kctim at September 15, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #181568

I do think it would histerical to watch President Clinton and the First ?Gentleman? Does that mean he would have to go to all the non-profit photo ops and maybe even have to pick out the official China to put in the China room?

Maybe the press could always talk about what outfit Bill is wearing…???

Posted by: tony at September 15, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #181570

What would Barry think?

Let’s discuss Barry Goldwater for a moment in light of your posting. You may remember the Senator from Arizona who was the Republican presidential nominee in 1964. He is credited to be the inspiration for Ronald Reagan and for the birth of the conservative movement. Do you accept Barry Goldwater as a Republican?

Ms. Clinton was on record as being a Goldwater supporter in 1964. Goldwater later stated that Richard Nixon was the greatest threat that our Constitution has faced in its history. Mr. Goldwater placed more importance on subverting the Constitution than in lying about an extra-marital affair. Apparently you do not and I accept that but please recognize that view to be a religious one, not necessarily a Republican one.

Goldwater’s republican values included individual freedom and choice. He later said of gays in the military, “you don’t have to be straight, you just need to shoot straight.” I suspect you would take issue with that view as well and I respect that. But again, that is a religious view not a republican view.

I encourage you not to confuse the two.

Posted by: common ground at September 15, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #181573

Question for Republicans:

You folks like to argue that Hillary Clinton is a lousy, unlikeable politician with extreme left-wing views. If that’s the case, then why are you guys so obsessed with stopping her from being president? You’ve been carrying out about this since at least 2003. Why are you picking on this alleged weakling? She couldn’t possibly kick your butt, could she?

Here’s my theory: You guys are actually smart enough to realize that she is not really that left-wing, and she is not really unlikeable. She has a decent shot at the White House, and that scares you.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 15, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #181576

A lot of the comments about Hillary being too “political” and “calculating” remind me of this story in The Onion “Hillary Clinton Is Too Ambitious To Be The First Female President”:


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48757

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 15, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #181577

kctim,

You pretend this an argument of opposing facts and that I do not know the facts, yet everythign I have offered here is pupblic record backed up six ways from sunday while you still hurl unfounded assertions.

I have blogged ad-nausium on how and why the Iraq war was a violation of both international and American law.

We first obtained article 1441 from the UN.
As part of 1441, we agreed to send the weapons inspectors back in in search of ANY concrete evidence of the current existence of WMD’s. They went in and did not find them. We also agreed that all power to act in response to any discovered viiolations would remain with the UN security council. WE went in anyway. Bush then sold the war to the Senate on the notion that we would follow our agreements and international law. We did not. When it became clear we were not going to do that, the previous senatorioral support that had founded on our acting in accordance with our legally binding agreements, became dissent - ala Kerry.

It was Bush who waffled, not Kerry.

The stuff you bring up about violations of civil liberties and constituional protections is just as valid. If we destroy the constitution to save ourselves…what have we got left to save? …and how much and how many do we have to lose for such self destructive ineffectual folly?

GET REAL

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #181580

jacktruth,

1. Abortion: Of course, you get different answers depending on how you ask the question. Try this:

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Figures from the CNN poll show, generally, about 75% of Americans favor permitting abortion, of which 50% favor “some” abortions and 25% unlimited abortions.


2. Health Care Again, you get different numbers depending on how you ask the question:

From CBS News/NYT:

“Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn’t this the responsibility of the federal government?”

62% say the Federal Government should guarantee, 31% say noth the government’s responsibility.

http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

this from ABC/Washington Post:

Which would you prefer: the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance, OR, a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that’s run by the government and financed by taxpayers?”
62% favor “Universal Program” , 33% current system

You are correct about the cost, but we are paying it now: in private insurance (of which 20% goes for administration v. 3% if it is Medicare insurance), in $1,000 of the cost per American-made car. When the question is framed as a tax issue alone, of course it is going to be criticized.

BUT — let me get back to my main point: The position Hillary Clinton has taken on these issues are not “radical left-wing Liberal” or outside the mainstream of American politics. Given these poll numbers, that is all I am trying to say.

Steve K

Posted by: Steve K at September 15, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #181581

Dana,

I won’t rehash what others have already posted here regarding your obvious lack of research skills. I will, however, agree with those people, while amusing myself endlessly at how the lies and corruption of the Clinton administration “sickens” you, while you seem to find zero fault with the lies and corruption of the Bush administration. Priceless.

You appear to have fallen into the predictable and unfortunate GOP trap of not being able to defend this administration, so the only thing left is to bash a different administration. Again, priceless. Take a look at the graph below, and tell me how much you’re still “sickened” by the Clinton administration.

Posted by: Dr. Wu at September 15, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #181583

Ahh! Can someone go to the link below and post the Clinton vs. Bush graphic you’ll find there? I can’t seem to do it from my computer.

(This graph is for Dana’s reference)

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=127&subsecid=177&contentid=252964

Posted by: Dr. Wu at September 15, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #181585

RGF
“You pretend this an argument of opposing facts and that I do not know the facts,”

No, I said you are only interested in the negative facts aimed at the Republicans.

“yet everythign I have offered here is pupblic record backed up six ways from sunday”

Have I questioned any of that? No.

“while you still hurl unfounded assertions.”

Thank you for proving my point.
We were in a war in Bosnia is an unfounded assertion? I see.
Lets just play your game for a minute then: How do you know EVERY negative thing about Dems is just an unfounded assertion? Could it be because alot of those scandals had investigations which agreed with your beliefs?
If that is the case, then why are you unwilling to wait for investigations into and of the Rep scandals?

“It was Bush who waffled, not Kerry.”

If I believe both parties are the same, why would I care about opinions on who waffled or not?
Bush did this, kerry did that. Not kerry did this and Bush did that. Partisan BS.

“The stuff you bring up about violations of civil liberties and constituional protections is just as valid. If we destroy the constitution to save ourselves…what have we got left to save?”

We would have nothing left to save. The only place we differ on this is that you act like Dems aren’t just as guilty.

“…and how much and how many do we have to lose for such self destructive ineffectual folly?”

However much they determine for us. The ball is now in their court and we now play by their rules.
Sure, we can “protest” and “voice” our dismay, but what good will it do? Depending on who is President, only half the country cares at any given time.
Thank God we gave up those evil gun rights huh.

Posted by: kctim at September 15, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #181590

kctim,

You said:

“We would have nothing left to save. The only place we differ on this is that you act like Dems aren’t just as guilty.

huh? …

How have democrats undermined the constitution? name one!
If you can’t, I can!

Joe Lieberman who was also behind the Patriot Act and the creation of the dept. of Homeland Security.

But, HE ISN’T A DEMOCRAT!
And I have very good reason to argue that he never realy was.

As for the accusation of partisan B.S.,
Consider the number of fence sitters who were persuaded by the idea that Kerry was not a decision maker but a waffler. Funny how just lookng at the reality of the whole thing just a little bit deeper reveals that Kerry was the steadfast one, while Bush turns out to be the flip-flopper.
That’s not partisan B.S. That’s just the result of looking deeper than to consider soundbited “Partisan B.S.” taken out of context.

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #181592

I’m still waiting for Hillary to apologize for her remarks that Monica Lewinsky was “a vast right wing conspiracy”. As we all know, Clinton’s oval office lust for a younger woman was not a new idea nor a conspiracy from the right.

Hillary also claimed her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary -of Mt. Everest Fame. Wow, what an insight her parents had when that climb took place several years after her birth.

My point, Hillary will use whatever dishonest means she has to mislead the public, including her own beloved Democrat party to get where she wants to be in life.

I strongly believe that enough people are out there that can see through her and make a much better vote in 2008.

Posted by: Jeanne at September 15, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #181594

Hillary also claimed her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary -of Mt. Everest Fame. Wow, what an insight her parents had when that climb took place several years after her birth.

wow, what a crime! I hope she says Iraq had WMD. That, at least, is excusable!

Posted by: bobo at September 15, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #181597

kctim,

You are miles from getting it. What the hell does Bosnia have to do with violating article 1441 of the U.N. Security council or lying to the United States Senate? Bosnia was a NATO action and at no time was there a UN agreement made that was deceptively created or violated in any way.

You said:

“Thank you for proving my point.
We were in a war in Bosnia is an unfounded assertion? I see.
Lets just play your game for a minute then: How do you know EVERY negative thing about Dems is just an unfounded assertion? Could it be because alot of those scandals had investigations which agreed with your beliefs?
If that is the case, then why are you unwilling to wait for investigations into and of the Rep scandals?”

huh? Delay withdrew from Politics! Libby is indicted on evidence that makes it pretty clear he was a fall-guy! Cheney Knew, Rove Knew and Certainly Libby didn’t make the revelation on his own iniative! Even Collin Powel is now taking a stand against this administrations policies! For Cryin’ out loud, kctim, THE SUPREME COURT IS OVERTURNING THIS ADMINISTARIONS PRACTICES ON CONSTITUIONAL GROUNDS!!!
A court, I might add, that is already stacked in favor of the right. Yet your party is going too far for even a right-stacked court!

The evidence is out now that Plame WAS at secret status and her identity being revealed WAS treason. We argue all day about where the buck stops, but at the end of the day the administration is a republican administration and the buck stops with the republicans. The specific person is less important now that it is clear we will never trace it further!

What the heck kind of democratic party parallel are you IMAGIINING to exist to weigh against all that?


Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #181598
Hillary also claimed her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary -of Mt. Everest Fame. Wow, what an insight her parents had when that climb took place several years after her birth.

My point, Hillary will use whatever dishonest means she has to mislead the public, including her own beloved Democrat party to get where she wants to be in life.

It’s a good thing she got caught in her wicked scheme to make people she was named after a mountain climber. Who knows what lies she might have pass of next! That she likes chocolate ice cream? That her parents met at summer camp? That her nickname for Bill is Snookums? Stop her before she lies again!

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 15, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #181608

You know the point Woody is making seems important to me.

Remember the clip from Steven Colbert’s address to the White House Press Corp dinner? It was clear that he was invited mainly because this administration, like republicans in general it seems and certainly like Dana and kctim here, simply don’t get humor or irony. Colbert was invited becaue the republicans miised the point that the Colbert report was meant to be irony and was actually poking fun at them…on the COMEDY CHANNEL for cryin’ out loud.

I don’t want humorless or witless people repsenting me anymore. Why would anybody want that, unless they were homorless and witless, too?

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #181624

Wow Dana

I had no idea you were such an expert on the inner thoughts of Democrats. Your posts are idiotic, un-researched, and almost retarded in their lack of basic context.

Next time I’d like to see a fact or two. Hell maybe even go all out and read a newspaper. And I mean actually READ the newspaper…and by read a newspaper, I don’t mean go watch the latest Sean Hannity report what’s in the article in the newspaper.

I think I am getting dumber by the second as I try to understand your “position” (ie. how to justify blind hate), so I’ll just stop.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 15, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #181629

she will never get out the gate after demo convention

Posted by: peter at September 15, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #181638

HER 1994 HEALTH CARE PROGRAM WAS LOVED SO MUCH REPUBLICANS WON 50 HOUSE SEATS

Posted by: earnhardt1 at September 15, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #181639

As a independent that prior to this administration, leaning to the right Clinton in 96 was the first time I voted
for a democrat for President. Part of the reason i voted for him was because my gut said that the right had wasted 3+
years trying to over turn the will of the people
I have watched the right vilify senator Clinton from the fight day Bill Clinton was running. Hell Ive seen them
belittle Chelsea [That might be who they really should fear].
Joe,
I agree with a lot of what you say about her. Hell if she had moved to my state I would have voted against her,
BUT What does likabilty have to do with being a good President?
No one liked Nixon that knew him and he sure did not come off as a likeable guy did he? Yet other than a little thing
called Watergate he was a very able president
But George Bush jr seems the type of person that it would be nice to sit in a bar and drink a beer with. That
being said I regret voting for him in 2000
How many of them can you say its not all political?
To be honest I am fed up with the right we have now, it does not reflect my values.
What I would like to see right now is the left take control for 6 years or so. Hopefully in that amount of time they can
undo some of the damage done. Then i would like to see the balance swing to the middle.That when good laws get
made through compromise not roughshod run over the other party crap.
The majority of the people in this nation do not want far to the right policies / judges / laws from either party
Becky
You do not understand they are playing you about their morals?the right has controlled the White house / senate /house
for 6 years now - how many of the moral based laws the far right want have been passed? abortion? nope / prayer in
school? nope etc. The majority do not want those laws and their staying in office will rise above that so called morality
every time
So far as Hillary — I hope some one else is nominated but I am at the point where it will take a hell of a moderate
republican to get my vote
Savage

Posted by: TheSavage at September 15, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #181640

Oh Dana — your post was not woth responding to
—Savage

Posted by: TheSavage at September 15, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #181648

While I haven’t had the chance to read every comment in it’s entirety, I can see a lot of unhappy comments by RGF (and bad spelling mistakes, too! Are you so mad that I’m “right” you can’t type?)

Hmmm…looks like I’ve struck a NERVE or two! First of all, where did I say I hated Hillary? Is that hidden code in my post that I myself wrote and then missed?

Second, which items are you disputing to be incorrect? Which “facts”? Before you attack me for my research, you may want to get your issues straight. (Thank goodness for Lexis Nexis!)

Yes, she was a Republican AT ONE TIME. How does that change the fact that she is a LIBERAL now? I was once a Democrat myself back in high school when my left-leaning government teachers pushed their biases onto students like me.

I don’t agree with abortion. It’s murder. MURDER. Plain and simple. We do not have the right to take the life of anyone. Not via abortion nor capital punishment. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PLAY GOD. If you don’t like my view point, too bad. You need to deal with it.

Hillary Clinton is a “pro-choice” feminist. While I’m 100% for a woman’s choice to stay at home with her children, or work in a big office bringing home the bacon, I’m not okay with abortion. It’s not a woman’s nor a man’s choice to KILL a baby.

My research came from many sources, Hillary’s memoir “Living History”, several articles in The New York Times, Lexis Nexis and the newspaper Human Events.

I didn’t spew lies or call her names. I questioned her motives, her convictions, her morals (as if she has any). America is very naive if they don’t realize how far Hillary will go to hold the reigns in the White House for herself.

Someone commented that she didn’t ride into power on Bill’s horse. How blind are you? You really think she’d be a senator today if Billy hadn’t been President? That’s a laugh and a half.

The funny thing about many of the comments against me as that it’s commonplace for Leftists, Liberals and Democrats to spew lies and attacks on the Right. You attack us for being patriotic by calling us hicks or rednecks. You attack us for being too religious or too Christian. You expect Republicans and conservatives to eat garbage politely with a knife and a fork, but when we push back, we’re strong>NOTbeing “very Christian.”

It’s a double standard like never before. Like Ann Coulter says, “Liberals are Godless” and it shows. But for me to say that — GOD FORBID!! All I can say is the truth hurts, you are what you are.

Posted by: Dana at September 15, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #181651

Savage, why did you respond then? If it wasn’t worth it? Did you just want to vent and attack? This seems to be the going theme!

Thanks for your two cents. I may have to give you change for a penny.

Posted by: Dana at September 15, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #181652

Dana writes, “If you don’t like my point of view, too bad. You need to deal with it.”

Ummm…no we don’t. Quite an ego to suggest we must though (sort of like Ann Coulter perhaps).

Posted by: Boomer at September 15, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #181654

Kevin23—
Which facts are you disputing? Instead of insulting me, why can’t you argue my points??? You said it yourself, you are getting dumber.

RGF—
I thought Steve Colbert was hilarious. I love the humor. It’s the venom that the left spews that I don’t find so funny. The attack dogs go for the jugular every time and we’re tired of it.

Jeanne—
I remember the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” comment very well. I was in college at the time, the Lewinsky scandal was all over television and here’s Hillary, pretending she knew nothing, taking Bill’s side — because she KNEW it would help her later in winning political office. The woman is not dumb. Not by any means. If she wasn’t such a deceitful person, if she wasn’t a Clinton, if she had morals, I’d vote for her.

Dr. Wu—
I’d like you to prove my lack of research, please. Be specific. Which points are not true? Why is it when you lefties don’t like the truth, you call us liars? It makes you look ridiculous, you know?

Cube, you missed the point! Hillary wanted to impeach Nixon because she felt he needed to pay for his “abuses of power” in the Presidency. But she felt HER OWN HUSBAND DID NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR HIS!! Instead of admitting he had sex, he committed perjery. Hillary called it a conspiracy against her husband. I think committing adultery is worse than Watergate, but that’s just me. Sure, Nixon was a crook, but so is Bill. So why should one man have to pay for his crimes simply because he’s a Republican?


I could argue all day with everyone, but I wouldn’t be accomplish anything. Like all that research you claim I failed to do.

I challenge ONE of you to tell me WHICH STATEMENTS AREN’T true! Please! I beg you!

Posted by: Dana at September 15, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #181655

Awww, Boomer! Thanks for the sweet comment. You’ve proved my point exactly! When a conservative backs her views, liberals bring forth the insults!! What other negative things do you have to say?

Posted by: Dana at September 15, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #181659

Dana,

As usual you just don’t get it. Clinton WAS impeached…for an act of perjury that was utterly irrelevent to the case for which he was being investigated. We’ve been over this.

NIXON on the other hand committed multiple crimes and election fraud and then several acts of perjury in order to try and cover it up. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE!!!! …and he was NEVER impeached or even tried after he resigned.

As for venom and attack dogs, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU CALL THIS POST OF YOURS?????!!!!!

You have been refuted and are unwilling to concede. So be it. We have offered you facts and you have made it clear that truth doesn’t matter to you. Is it any wonder we get angry and frustrated at the right? Ignorance is one thing, but this looks like WILLFUL ignorance fighting an uphill battle against the truth.

Oh, and Dana, you simply don’t have any points left. You have made several assumptions about other’s mindsets and what they knew and when and you offer nothing to back it up because it is based on rediculousness. Like, when you say Hillary KNEW and planned her reqaction to the Lewinski thing in order to further her own political interests. Preposterous. However, if she really is that thoughtful and prescient, wouldn’t she make a much better president than the imbecile in office now?

At every turn, you defeat yourself.

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #181672

Dana

Will you come clean and admit you are really Ann Coulter?

Posted by: mark at September 15, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #181681

Dana

It was not an abuse of power on Clinton’s part to commit perjury. Anyone can do it, you do not have to be President of the United States. How was it an abuse of Presidential power to commit perjury?

Could you site your evidence that Hillary was thought to be a liar by Daniel Moynihan and his wife?

And how can you call someone who is so ideoligically close to Joe Lieberman, the Democratic darling of the Republican party, to be a radical leftist.

Clinton should have been impeached for whitewater? He wasn’t even President then, and was exonerated by Ken Starr for that.

You throw out a lot of insults here, Dana, like calling Harold Ickes scandalous, but do not even make an attempt at telling us why, nor provide any evidence. You don’t back up anything. I am unimpressed by your diatribe. In fact right now I’m wondering why I even took the time to respond to it.

Posted by: mark at September 15, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #181682

Wow!

Could it be? There are some consistencies there…

What they say, how they say it, what they ‘back-it-up’ with…

Dana is Ann Coulter!

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #181714

Don’t know why this is even a discussion.

Hillary Clinton will likely live to a ripe old age as a storied and influential New York Senator—coasting on her last name like Edward Kennedy for as long as she wishes with nobody to tell her no.

She’ll never be President and the number of people who actually believe she could be is already dwindling. Those who want her to run for the most part do so because they want to see a female President. It can’t be because they believe in her views, which are pretty wide of what most Democrats stand for these days. She’s pro-Iraq war, to name just one issue.

Here’s my theory: I think we can rest assured that the first female President will be a Republican, and for the same reason that it took Nixon to go to China.

A breakthrough of that magnitude will have to be accomplished by someone with a chance to run nationwide, be competivive in the red states, and appeal to a very wide demographic.

The prejudice and preconceptions out there against women when it comes to matters of security, etc. can only be overcome at this time, I believe, by a conservative woman. I’m not saying it’s fair or agreeing with it, but I see zero chance of any woman who can easily be tarred with the “liberal” label being elected in a national election. At least for the forseeable future.


Posted by: Pilsner at September 15, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #181716

The problem is that Dana heard distant echoes from a book smearing Hillary Clinton, and took these smears as truth. That is why the “political research” is so hilariously inaccurate, starting with the beginning of the article. The unsupported allegation about American being uncomfortable with the elected Senator from New York is mildly amusing, in a sophomoric way. She won her first Senate race with 55% of the vote, and “a June 2006 poll showed Clinton with a 24-point lead or better over either of the two Republican candidates contesting their party’s nomination…” (wikipedia).

Should we wait with baited breath for more “political research”?

But wait! There is more!:

“The 1969 Wellesley College graduate has always been a radical left wing liberal.”

Sigh.

Everyone still reading this knows Hillary was once a Republican. Dana discount participation in causes for children because Hillary is Pro-Choice. Nice. Really nice. A real heart of gold must be behind this effort to smear at any cost.

I do not even particularly like Hillary Clinton, but this kind of smear just disgusts me.

Where does it originate? Well, I know one source of the unfounded smears which Dana echoes as a result of her “political research.”

The book is by a fellow named Klein. It is a work of fiction, and it has already been repudiated by a number of people, including the daughter of the late Senator Moynihan.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506150002

As we already know, Moynihan supported Hillary. He supported her very publicly. That is a matter of record. A hit piece by some guy insinuating that, behind closed doors, it was not so, and making the insinuation without any proof, is simply not worthy of respect.

Dana, if you are a one-issue voter or a social conservative, that is fine; but please, stay away from the smears. It is very unbecoming.

Posted by: phx8 at September 15, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #181718

Check this out:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240007

Edward Klein is publicly busted for lying about Moynihan & Hillary. Funny interview.

Posted by: phx8 at September 15, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #181719

Dana, your entire article is based on the premise that you have omniscient power to see in to the hearts and minds of others. The single policy point you raised was that Hillary supports abortion rights. Well, so do most Americans, so that puts her in the mainstream. Let’s go through your article paragraph by paragraph:

1) You claim to have done lots of research. You claim, perhaps correctly, that the next presidential election will be a bloodbath.

2) Nothing of relevance.

3) You claim Hillary has always been a left-wing radical. Untrue to two accounts. As others have made you aware, she was once a Republican. In terms of her beliefs in comparison with most Americans, she is not a radical, as others have demonstrated. Among Democrats she is considered a Centrist.

4) You point out that she worked on the Congressional Impeachment Inquiry staff in 1974. This is actually a point in her favor, of course. But somehow you find a contradiction because Bill lied about having sex with an intern. I don’t understand the logic here. Hillary is not Bill, anymore than Bush Jr. is Bush Sr.

5) You say Hillary claims to be a feminist. Your wording suggests you do not think she is. So she’s a radical left-wing female non-feminist? I didn’t know such people existed. Regardless, you seem to deny her feminist credentials because her husband was president. Um. She should give up political ambitions because her husband achieved the highest office in the land? Why? Would you same the same about other politicians whose relatives held high office?

6) You claim that Hillary knew about the Monica affair all along. Any evidence for this. You also say she was planning a Senate run at that point. I don’t remember the exact timeline, so let’s assume that is true. So what? Politicians shouldn’t plan for the future?

7) A series of rhetorical questions. Also the claim that Bill hit on Monica and would hit on other interns. By Monica’s own account, it was a mutual affair. Do you condemn all women who have had adulterous husbands?

8) You claim the lies of the Clinton administration sicken you. Besides the Monica lie, do you have any evidence? Not speculation, not wishful thinking, but hard evidence? I assume that you might be able to come up with some substantiated deceptions. If so, would you be willing to weigh them against those of other administrations, including the current one. If not, why not?

9) Many unsubstantiated claims. Many assumptions backed up neither by evidence nor reasoning. You point out that her efforts at health care failed. That’s regrettable, because we desperately need to solve the health care crisis in this country. Who stood in the way?

10) You claim that a senator didn’t like her. Perhaps that is true and you can substantiate it, but so what? No politician is universally liked.

I’ve tried to summarize your article as fairly as possible. Do you now see why there is no there there? You have demonstrated your own bias toward Hillary, but claimed little that can be substantiated about Hillary.

Actually, your article is a bit puzzling. If you can actually read the hearts and minds of people, why are you bothering with writing political commentary. You should be working for the CIA helping to root out terrorists.

Don’t confuse diatribe with reasoned argument.

Posted by: Trent at September 15, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #181734

What is this big concern over Hillary?

Why don’t Republicans worry about making their candidate the best choice. Why are so many focusing on the possible opponent?

Republicans need to search for a candidate that can lead on issues that can resonate accross all party lines. A leader that can speak directly to the American people and persuade them to his or her side of the issue.

As far as Hillary is concerned, she is not a viable candidate. She may lose the primaries by going to the center too soon.

But again I am being distracted from the real issue. Who will the Republicans choose to be the leader of there party.

Posted by: Jorge at September 16, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #181755

What is Mrs. Clinton going to run on? Her many accomplishments or her great legs. If she runs, we will get to see the Dem pecking order. Nobody messes with a Clinton. We will see who does and who still has a career afterwards.

Posted by: JoeRWC at September 16, 2006 2:37 AM
Comment #181770

If Hillary is successful in her presidential nomination, I, for one, will cast my vote against her or not at all.

Therefore, I can always say——Dont look at me, I didnt vote for her/him.

Still waiting for that medical insurance that was promised during the election in the ‘90’s

Posted by: Patricia(Pat) at September 16, 2006 7:17 AM
Comment #181781

Hillary / Obama
Here they come!!

Posted by: Roger at September 16, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #181858

I’m a liberal, and personally I hope that Hillary does not get elected. My reasons have nothing to do with the ones you have presented, however: I just think this country needs to get away from presidential dyansties and back to electing people on the power of their ideas. Hillary can continue to work for her ideals in her present position, now lets get some new blood in office.

Posted by: Jarin at September 16, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #181861

Dana, are you still there? There are a lot of legitimate questions being raised here that you are not answering. Why not?

Posted by: mark at September 16, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #181862

Oh, are you doing more research?

Posted by: mark at September 16, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #181896

Dana-

I’d argue your “points” if there were any that weren’t entirely based on an ignorant assumption that you know the inner thoughts of your enemies (democrats). Fact: you don’t.

If you want to argue any substantive points, then come from a place where you recognize that the true enemy is not your political rivals of the blue persuasion (of which I am not even a member). The tactics you use in your post are short-sided, unnecessarily and baselessly divisive, and add absolutely nothing of quality to any debate.

Sorry, but I don’t debate crap. It’s just crap…end of debate.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 16, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #181941

RGF
If Valerie Plame was outed by anybody as being a covert agent within the CIA, then what was her operative name? I will tell you. It was Valerie Plame.

Posted by: tomh at September 17, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #181942

RGF
You say President Bush is guilty breaking American and International laws. What jurisdiction was the guilty verdict filed in and the date?

Posted by: tomh at September 17, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #181944

RGF
What is the criminal law statute that DeLay is guilty of? I didn’t know he had gone to trial for anything yet. I need to know the Revised Statute number and any other citation pertinent to the charges.

Posted by: tomh at September 17, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #181948

Haven’t you people ever heard of a radical left-wing Republican? There are scores of them.

Hillary is a phoney as that bust statue of her. Just look up the picture of it and you will see!!

Posted by: tomh at September 17, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #181955

I’m seeing a lot of Hillary comments here from Hillary supporters, that don’t seem to actually know anything about Hillary.

Hillary-Care was a disasterous plan some 1,000 pages long that went to the exteme of dictating the racial make up of your care givers, would have socialized some 1/7th of the nations economy, and didn’t have a prayer in hell of getting past the democrats in congress. Hillary hired an out and out radical socialist to write the plan and badly bungled the entire effort. America was ready for national health care…but Hillary care was a still born disaster. Below, from Wikipedia…..
———————————————————
“In 1993, United States President Bill Clinton’s administration proposed a significant health care reform package. Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 election, and he quickly set up a task force, headed by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration’s first-term agenda.

The result, announced by President Clinton in an address to Congress on September 22, 1993, was a complex and complicated proposal running more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely-regulated health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The plan, referred to derisively as “Hillary Care” by some, was initially well-received by liberal political leaders and most Americans who said health care was the most important issue facing the country. At its introduction, the plan seemed likely to pass through the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Conservatives, libertarians, and the insurance industry, however, staged an effective and well-organized campaign opposing Clinton’s “Health Security” plan and criticized it as being overly bureaucratic and restrictive of patient choice. The effort included extensive advertising criticizing the plan, including the famous Harry and Louise ad, which depicted a middle-class couple despairing over the plan’s bureaucratic nature. (The advertisements might have been particularly effective because they characterized Clinton’s plan as being against middle class values.)

Meanwhile, Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President’s original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. Some criticized the plan from the left, preferring a Canadian-style single payer system.

On September 26, 1994, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell announced that the plan was dead, at least for that session of Congress. The defeat weakened Clinton politically, and contributed to widespread public frustration with perceived Congressional gridlock. In the 1994 election, the Republican revolution gave the GOP control of both houses of Congress, ending prospects for a Clinton-sponsored health care overhaul. Comprehensive reform aimed at creating universal health care in the United States has not been seriously considered by Congress since.”
—————————————————————-
If we want serious discussion of geniune issues then we have to move away from propaganda and see things for what they are. The democratic party itself sunk Hillary Care because it was so obviously flawed and kniave. Since that time it’s been one of those third rails that no one wants to touch for fear of being sidelined as Hillary was.

Posted by: Stephen at September 17, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #181992

Stephen,

Yes, you are right; we have to move away from propaganda. This thread could have contained substantive discussion about some real issue; instead, because the article was mere propaganda, the resulting thread was all about pointing out the flaws in the article.

Posted by: Trent at September 17, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #182019

I find it absolutely amazing that any of you can back or bash any candidate or politician Republican or Democrat. We as a people are literally being sold out by all of our elected officials. We need to redirect our energies in a more positive way. Is it not time to hold our elected officials accountable for their total lack of concern for the welfare of the voters who put them in office in the first place? They are more interested in their party and either staying in power or getting back in power than they are the welfare of this country. Our country is literally in a crisis now. Why do our elected officials fail to respond to this crisis? They seem to be more interested in personal profit and power than they are in doing the job they were elected to do. I say they all are corrupt in their own way. Is it not time to wipe the slate clean and get back to basics? We have the capability of actually being the greatest nation on earth, for our citizens and the rest of the world. We are squandering the opportunity. There is no reason why anyone in this country should be hungry, homeless or without healthcare. The money and knowledge is there. So why is a country with all of our resources being relegated to the scrap pit? Why are our politicians selling us all out? It is because we allow this to happen. Remember, we have the power. The government exists at the consent of the governed. Do you actually consent to what you are getting. Do you actually think that what we are getting is all there is. Remember, when our elected official fail to be concerned with the welfare of the ones that elect them, the voters not only have a right, but a duty to impliment a new government that is concerned with the welfare of the ones electing them. Its time to turn your energies not to supporting your chosen party, or supporting a particular candidate because he belongs to your chosen party but find a person, male or female, democrat or republican that is actually interested in this country and its people instead of special interests. Remember, the resources are there if they are implimented correctly. We can set an example for the rest of the world if we will just change the course that has been chosen. Our entire political system is failing us! Wake up!

Posted by: DRKing at September 17, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #182196

What I truly love is that all the liberals who post on here truly believe that a “majority” of Americans actually support abortion or any of the other issues they feel Satan (HRC) has gotten right but what they fail to remember is that a majority (more than 50%) of America agrees with Bush and his stance on such issues; hence his win in the last election. And if you are going to try and say that Dana did no research, then actully post what disproves what she says cause from what I have read, she nailed in on the head. Hilary is a RADICAL LEFT WING LIBERAL because she takes stances on Health Care (which wasnt supported by Americans obviously because it got voted down.) And since when did Liberals finally admit that being called such was a bad thing…I guess they finally caught on. You know, all of this is a waste of time because if she does get the nomination, and I hope she does, it will just be anothe example of how out of touch liberals are with mainstream America. Nobody wants a egotistical, self centered, lack luster, unintelligent loser for a president; we dealt with it under the first Clinton and honestly, America is tired of him taking credit for the economical prosperity that Reagan garanteed with his economical plan…check this, Clinton passed two, TWO, economic plans in 8 years…and then we hit our recession. People, if I have to connect the dots for you everytime, this is going to make for a very long year. Wise up liberals, you arent real Americans anymore…your party is fading away and losing strength everyday and soon, you will be a faint memory……kinda like the whole Bill screwing his intern AND having the blood of countless Americans on his hands because he didnt have the marbles enough to stand up and say “NO MORE…WE ARE THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND WE WILL NOT BE ATTACKED ANYMORE!” If you cant handle what Im saying…leave, the majority of America is ashamed you are one of us.

Posted by: Alex at September 18, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #182198

Oh and by the way, we already have the best canidate lined up for the job. Mark it down now, George Allen will be the next president and he will show the rest of the world that America isnt really a bunch of rich, whining, left wing nuts who just love to hold fundraising dinners for dying people in Darfur while denouncing the people who actually run based on what they believe in. Sen. Allen is going to show the world that we ARE the most powerful country in the world and we ARE going to do what is best for us, first. Why is it ok for everyone else to care about themselves first but not us? Oh wait, why am I asking all of you…you are all liberals and clearly wont know the answer to such a sophisticated line of questioning.

Posted by: Alex at September 18, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #182250

tomh,

You’re *messege* is very silly. Bush is guilty of the breaking American law because he went to war in Iraq in a way that violated our agreement with the UN as part of article 1441. I have blooged ad nausium about this in the past with citations and legal analysis. Our imvolvement with the UN as a member nation is the result of our duely signed and ratified treaty: THE UN CHARTER. Further, the war in Iraq was sold to senate approval by means of the ‘Clear and Present Danger’ posed by WMD’s. There were none. No clear and present danger existed. Reasonable belief is not enough. It must be actual clear and present danger.

But, you are right. There has been no guilty verdict or even a trial. I guess conservative America is more willing to go after oral sex in the white house than acts of treason that take us into war and cost American lives.

As for the Delay violations. I once had the law cited on my computer but no longer do. I blogged on ad nausium months ago. I guess you didn’t notice. I’ll look it up again since clearly those on your side of the spectrum simply refuse to listen….or I dare say, READ.

Posted by: tomh at September 18, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #182395

Recently, I’ve been taking a hiatus from blogging to do some political research.

So…what you usually say isn’t backed by research?

Posted by: mental wimp at September 18, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #182527

Notice -

The above post attributing itself to tomh, is actually my response to tomh.

I noticed my mistake immediately after I posted it, but was curious to see what the result would be. I think it just confused people since the rate of posts on this thread has slowed to a near standstill.

Posted by: RGF at September 19, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #241564

We are in the fight for our lives.If any of the red commies get a larger foothold it will be the point of no return. The avgerage American hasent spoken yet,there to busy working and paying all the taxes.But, when they relize the true colors of the new democratic party. The democrates will have to change.They have frogotton they were elected by the people,and are to represent there distract.All democrates are on the wrong side of every major issue.globbal warming,war on terror,taxes,health care. Republicans arent any better,but at least they dont want to redistribute wealth,and make us goose step to work.(if your allowed to).I could go on for days explaining myself in deatil,but I wont. Folks wake up,stand up, form an opinion either way.And inform those that are distracted by all the shinny objects… This is our obligation to the future of our children and way of life.

Posted by: chase at December 27, 2007 1:41 PM
Post a comment