- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 8, 2008 at 7:52 pm #620999
JanSParticipantCharla…I agree about the vetting process…once they’re in the White House, there won’t be much room for “misspeaking”…
April 9, 2008 at 4:36 am #621000
AnonymousInactiveElizabeth Edwards Backs Clinton Health Care Plan
April 10, 2008 at 3:43 am #621001
JoBParticipantsemi-falsehoods?
let’s see..
if it is not a lie for Obama to be on the public record in news interviews saying he didn’t know what he would have done if he had been in the Senate at the time of the initial vote on Iraq and then to now state categorically that he would never have voted to authorize that war..
then aren’t we using one standard for Hillary and another for Obama?
Yup!
April 10, 2008 at 3:47 am #621002
JoBParticipanti would encourage people to read the article that went with Elizabeth Edward’s interview… she had some interesting things to say.
April 10, 2008 at 6:29 am #621003
charlabobParticipantI read the Edwards article and heard the interview, along with a later interview with Keith Olbermann. She said, in answer to a question, that she found Clinton’s health care proposals better because it provided universal health insurance. Guess what? Pretty much everyone on the Obama side does too. Obama thinks the graduated approach is more likely to be passed. (Could it be that he’s trying to be practical — to form alliances in Congress to get something accomplished?) She also said quite clearly that this did not imply endorsing a candidate, and that she was responding to a question.
April 10, 2008 at 6:43 am #621004
charlabobParticipantFlat out lies:
“I was under fire in Bosnia” — nope, the female senator who *was* under fire in Bosnia was republican Olympia Snow.
“I opposed NAFTA from the beginning” — Nope, you held proNAFTA events when you were first lady
“I helped negotiate peace in Northern Ireland” — Nope, not according to the people who won Nobel Peace Prizes and actually did negotiate peace.
“Mark Penn is no longer part of the campaign.” Nope — he’s still running the morning press conference calls.
and on and on and on …
My g-d, when she claimed to have shaken hands with Martin Luther King, researchers immediately went to check. Researcher on her side, because they didn’t want to use the story in case it was another “memory lapse.”
The press doesn’t make up this stuff — the Clinton campaign does.
April 10, 2008 at 9:21 pm #621005
JoBParticipantaccording to Wikipedia..
she certainly met Martin Luther King in circumstances which probably meant she shook hands with him.
i only know that because i just read the entire wikipedia files on both Clinton and Obama…along with most of the comments.
I will have to go back and read the McCain file as well to respect New Resident, who posted it.
I expect that to be equally illuminating. Reading the wikipedia files is an exercise i can heartily recommend.
it certainly disposes of more than one campaign myth.. on both sides.
As for the “lies” ..
you hold a very one sided view of events and even when confronted by opposing viewpoints continue to label her as a liar.
There is ample evidence written prior to her Presidential run that Hillary was in fact opposed to NAFTA during it’s formative stages.
Once the decision was made to go ahead with NAFTA, she supported her husband, her party head and her President in carrying out that program.
Not quite the big lie …
I was under fire in Bosnia…
there is evidence that she expected that she might be under fire in Bosnia… but certainly not that she was under fire…
The story is an embellishment… She said she was wrong about it. what more do you want?
I helped negotiate peace in Northern Ireland…
there are people who were involved in the Peace process in Ireland who felt she was helpful in negotiating peace. She didn’t say that she was responsible for peace in Ireland.. only that she helped.
Not so big a lie.
As for the Mark Penn comment.. i don’t know if he is still running the morning press conference calls..
but apparently you have some insight into that?
I do know that his firm is still providing polling data to the Clinton campaign (she has stated as much) and i would be willing to bet that there is a conference call every morning from his polling firm..
and i would assume that means from him… analyzing and discussing the current polls..
So.. does the existence of a morning call constitute him “running the morning press conference calls” … ?
maybe you can characterize it that way. You could as easily characterize it as the morning call from her polling firm..
But going on to infer that he is still part of her campaign because she is paying his firm for polling services could be a real stretch.
Hmmmm… I would assume there must be a similar call each morning with Obama’s campaign and whatever polling firm he chooses to use.
I get that you think it is not enough to publicly state that he does not represent her campaign in any way….she should change polling services immediately… mid campaign…
and perhaps that is the same opinion held by your source.. but that would still be an opinion.. wouldn’t it?
Not so big a lie….
So…. who does make this stuff up as you put it?
I am assuming you heard about it all somewhere…
could it be your source is the press.. or the Obama campaign?
repeating half truths and innuendos (rumors) as fact … is itself a big lie.
April 10, 2008 at 10:21 pm #621006
JoBParticipantjust for fun.. i wanted to test my theory that Hillary is labeled more than Obama…
so….
i put the phrase Obama lies into google and got 47,000 hits..
then i put Barak lies into google and got 69 hits..
for a total of 47,069
I put Hillary lies into google and got 41,000 hits
I put Hillary Clinton lies into google and got 48,400 hits
for a total of 89,400 hits.
And that was just one phrase.
Pretty amazing isn’t it.
Needless to say i didn’t follow each and every one of those links to their source…
who knows.. a good many of them may have ended up here:)
April 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm #621007
JoBParticipanti decide to take things one step further since it could be argued that some of the hillary lies hits could have come prior to her entering this presidential race…
so
i put “Obama lies and “Hillary for president” into google and got 337 hits…
when i put “Hillary lies” and “Obama for president” into google i got 1630 hits…
even more interesting…
there might be something to this theory after all:)
April 10, 2008 at 10:47 pm #621008
AnonymousInactiveJoB, inputing Hillary Clinton would give you the Hillary listings and the Hillary Clinton listings. That would make it 41,000 plus 7400 for a total of 48,400. Not much different than Obama’s.
April 11, 2008 at 12:16 am #621009
JoBParticipantJT..
if i used the general search, you would be correct.
but i used the advanced search for the exact quotes.. example “hillary lies” and “hillary clinton lies” since she is referred to equally both ways… that doesn’t give you a double result.. as it would if i had input “Hillary clinton lies” and “Clinton lies” with one phrase being apart of the other…
i did not add a search for “Hilary Rodham Clinton lies” as i thought it would be statistically insignificant…
i didn’t use clinton lied as that would have brought up both clintons… bill and Hillary.
i only added “barak lies” to be fair since it appears he is sometimes referred to by only his first name…
April 11, 2008 at 12:30 am #621010
AnonymousInactiveWell if that’s the case you’re even more right, cuz I got 942 for “barack obama lies” and 106,000 for “hillary clinton lies”
April 11, 2008 at 12:39 am #621011
JoBParticipanti don’t think it’s a good thing that i am right.
April 12, 2008 at 11:08 pm #621012
kParticipantjust got back from hearing the dalai lama speak at qwest field. best moment of the day was his statement that the world needs more women leaders!!! he fell just short of endorsing clinton, but you could tell what he meant by the twinkle in his eye!
April 13, 2008 at 3:38 am #621013
JoBParticipanti wish i had been there…
i agree with him.. not because it’s Hillary but because all those jokes about men and women thinking differently and having different priorities exist for a reason. Our basic priorities are different.. no matter what our political affiliation.
If you want to know the why Hillary part all you have to do is go to wikipedia and read the evidence of her involvement with the issues most affecting women and children (especially disadvantaged women and children) that spans her entire adult life.
If Hillary accomplishes nothing else in this primary, she needs to go the distance so that our party can see that those issues matter to at least half their members… and that those concerns are big enough to transcend bad press and charisma.
What she represents really matters.. and regardless of the political hype.. there is no way a woman in the white house could be business as usual.
This woman might actually know enough to be able to use the current system to get things done.
After all, as women invade the boardroom and upper management, corporate culture is slowing starting to recognize that one of their largest assets is their people…
that’s a step in the right direction… and definately not business as usual.
April 19, 2008 at 12:12 am #621014
charlabobParticipantPlease understand, I think this is one of the better things Clinton ever did–the Truehaft Law Firm did amazing work in Oakland — read Jessica Mitford’s many books about the red baiting of the 50’s and 60’s.
In fact, their son, Benjamin, has been training piano tuners in Cuba for the last 20 years.
But, if we want to play the “damned by association” game, let’s do it–Clinton is a Commie:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/hillary-and-the-commies_b_97131.html
April 19, 2008 at 5:11 am #621015
JoBParticipantlet me try to understand this.
If someone asks Obama about someone he was actually affiliated with.. his reply is that he didn’t really know them all that well… and we should just believe that… regardless of evidence to the contrary…
And any attempt to question him is an attack… so the correct Obama supporter response is… well two can play that game.. let’s find bigger dirt on Hillary…
and for that we go to the Huffinton Post which has been particularly adept lately.
Taking good work and spinning it to make Hillary look bad is a particularly prized talent on that blog.
i wouldn’t have paid much attention.. but you all seem to refer to her blog so much lately that i couldn’t help but notice the pics of Hillary’s face superimposed on McCain’s.
Hmmm.. i wonder what that was supposed to imply?
i can see why you would find her a good source.
I think there is a real lack of critical thinking going on here… talk about a huge blind spot.
it’s too bad all this righteous indignation does nothing to answer the mounting questions about Obama’s associations… questions he thinks he can convince us aren’t worth asking.
that apparantly has worked for him so far.. but then he has only been up against democrats… nobody has really pressed him yet about all those things he keeps telling us aren’t relevant.
Are you beginning to figure out yet that righteous indignation isn’t going to work so well against republicans?
The press loves McCain.. and i am not really sure just what he would have to do to turn that tide since he has already done most of it and they still love him.
The only place Obama is gaining ground in the national polls is against Hillary… He is losing ground against McCain…
Those folks who like a straight shooter actually like him to answer questions.. even if that means he tells them a lie.
At one point this year i actually thought it would be nearly impossible to lose to the Republicans this fall. heck, they thought so or John McCain would never have survived as their candidate.
Now, i’m not so sure.
This is a bad campaign strategy.. and if you don’t believe me.. go back and look at who used it before… There are a lot of really good democrats who have been buried by their own hubris.
April 19, 2008 at 5:26 am #621016
charlabobParticipantI’m sorry, I don’t believe you addressed the issue of Clinton being a Commie. :-)
1. HufPo is the organization that released the story of Obama’s speech at the fundraiser. The story was written by an Obama supporter. She is still covering the Obama campaign and wrote an excellent story about Michelle Obama. I suspect if she’d written the same kind of story about a Clinton “indiscretion” she’d be under the bus, not on it.
2. The Obama campaign didn’t dig up the information about the law firm internship. As I said, it was one of the things that drew me to her ahead of time. If Clinton gets the nomination, she can expect to be grilled about this association–if she can’t take it now, how will she take it during the general election campaign?
April 19, 2008 at 5:48 am #621017
JoBParticipantClinton is a commie?
you actually expected me to address that crap?
I don’t think so.
As for Hillary being able to stand up to grilling.. i would say she has gotten plenty of practice…and is pretty good at it by now.
Whereas Obama just denies all associations and tells us it isn’t relevant.. because he is such a big man… nice gig as long as he can get it:)
April 19, 2008 at 7:21 am #621018
JanSParticipantthis really has gotten personal, and, frankly, is driving people away from these political forums. My take on “associations” in past lives….I was known to personally associate with a man from WA state before he murdered two women in Tumwater and ended up one of the most famous death row inmates this state has had. So.. does that make me anything like him? Did I embrace everything that he stood for? Of course not….it’s stupid to think that. Now, Hillary has some shady people in her past lives…and BaraCk Obama has some shady people in his past lives. George Bush was an alcoholic and a druggie in a past life (and look where he ended up). What the hell does any of that have to do with the price of oil, the local prices of gas in this state, driving up trucking fees, driving up the cost of flour and sugar, and bread, and milk , and eggs, and so forth ad nauseum. What the hell does it have to do with a plan to get our economy back on track, a decent health plan that people can afford, the latest 10 soldiers blown to bits in Iraq…or Afghanistan…not a damned thing. It’s time to get past the petty arguments that have nothing to do with the “price of tea in China”…none of the candidates are squeaky clean…get over it , already. Some of us want to hear more than this type of assassination (gee, look, there are two asses in that word). Obviously, Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate, or she wouldn’t be where she is now. Obviously, Barack Obama is a strong candidate, or he wouldn’t be where he is now. What some of us want is more substance (and thanks to ABC, it’ll probably never happen now, since this campaign is for the media, and not for the American public)
One of them will be the Dem candidate…do we really want John McCain to just sit back and coast into the White House? This primary season has been way too long for me already. I am tired of people telling me that my feelings about whatever candidate are formed because I read this , or I listen to that. We have brains…we read, we cull out the good and the bad, and then we make up our minds for ourselves. Ms. Huffington doesn’t make up my mind, nor does Move on.org., nor does the New Republic, or whatever is talking to me on whatever day. I make my decision and hopefully it will be the right one. One can only hope…
April 19, 2008 at 1:11 pm #621019
KayleighMemberMakes you wonder if distracting us from the real issues is an elaborate ploy by…I dunno, by somebody in power. The Bushies, maybe. (The scary thing is, I think that’s actually possible. The neo-cons have shown they will do anything to retain wealth and power.)
I regret the Hillary-bashing I did earlier and I will vote for her if she’s the nominee. But when I do tune back into the news on this stuff, Hillary still makes me mad about once a week.
April 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm #621020
c@lbobMemberOnly once a week? :^)
April 20, 2008 at 4:05 pm #621021
JoBParticipantApril 22, 2008 at 4:20 am #621022
charlabobParticipantOops…I just realized we haven’t shared the article about Clinton’s dismissal of a large part of the Democratic constituency — as is the case of HufPo, the writer is a Clinton supporter :-)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html
April 23, 2008 at 1:39 pm #621023
charlabobParticipantElectability and guilt by association: Is anyone else worried about the fact that Repugs are working their butts off to get Clinton elected?
They’re setting up 527s in North Carolina to attack Obama — the right wing pundits go on and on about the Clinton inevitability. Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough wax eloquently about her. Do you think that’s because they generally care about the welfare of the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.