The many faces of Hillary - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Meridious · #46 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

At least I post my sources and make comments on what I post instead of cut-paste-no-comment.

Sheriff · #47 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

Also, you should post your sources and use the quote button...and if you do not comment, you can receive a warning for cut and paste and have your thread/post locked or deleted.

You might want to read the rules before you continue.

Sources? My bad. Here are the sources:

Yepsen: Obama's superb speech at Jefferson Jackson Dinner could catapult his bid | DesMoinesRegister.com | The Des Moines Register

theGarance.com » Clinton & Obama Speeches

Politics | Obama stands out in night of speeches | Seattle Times Newspaper

Meridious · #48 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

Now, do you have anything to SAY or will you just continue to cut and paste without saying anything about it?

Hello.

Sheriff · #49 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

Now, do you have anything to SAY or will you just continue to cut and paste without saying anything about it?

At least I post my sources and make comments on what I post instead of cut-paste-no-comment.

Two bits of nice information. By the way, who is Fred Thompson?

Meridious · #50 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

So, you don't have any comments of your own...but you know how to use the cut/copy and paste buttons.

The readers here will be VERY happy with you....

/chuckle

Sheriff · #51 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

I asked a question, which was my own and you seem not to know who Fred Thompson is.

Sheriff · #52 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

And, along with each post of yours, which are mainly short, you make us see a big picture, which both occupies a big place in the posts and tells nothing after having been seen so many times.

Meridious · #53 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

Many faces indeed...Paglia (with whom I very often disagree) points out that the way she is being seen this week is actually not different from any other time...the difference being that her lap-dog media has livened up to her recent stumbles.

Quote:

Queen Hillary's disruptive court

The press corps finally wakes up to her waffling and evasions. Plus: Norman Mailer's largely forgotten legacy and our disappointing lesbian icons!

By Camille Paglia

Nov. 14, 2007

The mainstream media have been in a breathless tizzy about how Hillary Clinton waffled, tripped, stumbled or generally screwed up at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia two weeks ago.

But Hillary's performance at prior debates was never as deft or "flawless" as the media claimed in the first place. Conventional wisdom has now flipped, and the air-headed lemmings of our free press have turned on a dime and are stampeding in the opposite direction. This is the same crew who passively swallowed administration propaganda about the urgency of an invasion of Iraq. Don't ask for critical acumen from this lot.

Hillary's stonewalling evasions and mercurial, soulless self-positionings have been going on since her first run for the U.S. Senate from New York, a state she had never lived in and knew virtually nothing about. The liberal Northeastern media were criminally complicit in enabling her queenlike, content-free "listening tour," where she took no hard questions and where her staff and security people (including her government-supplied Secret Service detail) staged events stocked with vetted sympathizers, and where they ensured that no protesters would ever come within camera range.

That compulsive micromanagement, ultimately emanating from Hillary herself, has come back to haunt her in her dismaying inability to field complex unscripted questions in a public forum. The presidential sweepstakes are too harsh an arena for tenderfoot novices. Hillary's much-vaunted "experience" has evidently not extended to the dynamic give-and-take of authentic debate. The mild challenges she has faced would be pitiful indeed by British standards, which favor a caustic style of witty put-downs that draw applause and gales of laughter in the House of Commons. Women had better toughen up if they aspire to be commander in chief.

Whether John Edwards or Barack Obama (toward whom I'm currently leaning) has conclusively demonstrated his superiority for the top of the ticket remains to be seen. They may unfortunately split the anti-Hillary vote (a majority of registered Democrats) so that she slips through. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will certainly vote for her. But I continue to find it hard to believe that my party truly craves that long nightmare of déjà vu -- with scandal after scandal disgorged and an endless train of abused women returning from Bill Clinton's sordid, anti-feminist past.

An amusing video (posted by Matt Drudge) shows a row of American flags chaotically tumbling down behind and almost on top of Hillary last weekend--hardly an auspicious omen for Veterans Day. I like the way Hillary uses her flat, practical, real-life voice to admonish the event organizers about properly weighting the poles. A plus is a glimpse of Hillary's top aide, the elegant Huma Abedin, wielding one of her formidable designer handbags:

Aside from the stylish Huma, there's definitely something weird and cultish in the sycophantish cathexis onto Hillary of the many nerds, geeks and vengeful viragos who run her campaign -- sometimes to her detriment, as with the recent ham-handed playing of the clichéd gender card. I suspect the latter dumb move, which has backfired badly, came from Ann Lewis (Barney Frank's sister), a fanatical Hillary true believer who has been spouting beatific feminist bromides about her for the past 15 years. (The transcript of my tangle with Lewis about Hillary on CNN's "Crossfire" in 1994 is reprinted in my second essay collection.) Hillary seems to have acolytes rather than friends -- hardly a reassuring trait for a potential president whose paranoia has already been called Nixonian. Isolated monarchs never hear the bad news until the people riot and the lynch mob is at the door.

Imperator · #54 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

god damn it meridious,

between robbing my wall st journal scripts and now this article which I have all teed up for posting, U gotta stop ripping off my sources...

anyway, nice to see us "evil cons" are not the only ones seeing through Hills "filter"...

I am however going to add Camilles opinion here regards Feinstein as the first viable female pres.

Why don't we have a stronger Democratic female candidate? I have repeatedly said that Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California should have been the first woman president. With all due respect to Salon's perspicacious Glenn Greenwald, whose hard-hitting columns on Feinstein as a Beltway politician have been must-reads, Feinstein's statewide and national popularity are mainly due to her unflappable performances on television as a shrewd, steady, articulate public servant, deeply informed about military matters. She handles and deflects media queries with silky ease. Exuding both authority and compassion, she has true gravitas -- a rare quality in women. Dianne Feinstein, not Hillary Clinton, has already created the paradigm for a female commander in chief.

agoodfella · #55 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

This YouTube video is a home run gold for anyone running against Hillary (Dem or GOP):

YouTube - The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (1of2)
YouTube - The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (2of2)

Sheriff · #56 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007

You have got to be a quick, agile liar to have more than one faces and I am afraid Hillary Clinton perfectly suits this explanation. One of the many faces of her manifests itself in her Iraq war record. Many times she asserted that when she voted for the Iraq War Authorization she was doing so to support "more diplomacy," which is not true at all.

Quote:

On October 10th 2002, one day before the Iraq-War Authorization vote, Sen. Clinton voted against an amendment to the Iraq-War Resolution sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton has said she was supporting through her vote on the Iraq War-Authorization. This so called "lost vote" on Iraq, Levin Amendment Number 4862, was designed to curb the rush to war by requiring a two-step process before Congress would actually authorize the use of force. The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin's words, "urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution."

Also on October 10th, Senator Clinton voted against The Durbin Amendment Number 4865, a less forceful Amendment than the Levin Amendment, but was yet another opportunity for Sen. Clinton to assert her desire for "more diplomacy". Again she refused to take that opportunity.

Senator Clinton actually voted against "more diplomacy" not once, not twice, but three times when she voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Senator Clinton has never fully explained why she voted against the Levin Amendment and the Durbin Amendment to the Iraq-War Resolution. Sen. Clinton has never explained why she says she was actually voting for "more diplomacy", while at the same time she voted against an effort to require diplomacy, and to restrict the President in his rush to war. These "lost votes" have never been raised as an issue in this campaign, but they are very important in the context of judgment and being honest with the American People.

The American people certainly knew that the Iraq War Resolution was paving the way for War, the mainstream media reported that vote as an authorization of force on Iraq, so how an "experienced" Senator such as Hillary Clinton did not know or believe that the resolution she voted for gave the President a carte blanche for war is beyond my comprehension, and it is inexcusable.
BarackObama.com | Sam Graham-Felsen's Blog: General Tony McPeak: Obama Was Right on the War from the Start

Who would challenge her in this race of having more than one face? And one other issue is the release of secret White House documents:

Quote:

But documents NEWSWEEK obtained under a FOIA request (made to the Archives in Washington, not the Clinton library) suggest that, while publicly saying he wants to ease restrictions on his records, Clinton has given the Archives private instructions to tightly control the disclosure of chunks of his archive. Among the document categories Clinton asked the Archives to "consider for withholding" in a November 2002 letter: "confidential communications" involving foreign-policy issues, "sensitive policy, personal or political" matters and "legal issues and advice" including all matters involving investigations by Congress, the Justice Department and independent counsels (a category that would cover, among other matters, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and the pardons of Marc Rich and others). Another restriction: "communications directly between the President and First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature."

Archives officials say Clinton is within his legal rights. But other Archives records NEWSWEEK reviewed show Clinton's directives, while similar, also go beyond restrictions placed by predecessors Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom put any controls over the papers of their wives. This undoubtedly reflects the larger policy role Hillary played in her husband's administration. Still, some analysts are surprised at the broad range of documents Clinton asked the Archives to withhold. "It does sound pretty expansive. You start to wonder what's not included," says Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group suing the Clinton library for failing to respond to its FOIA requests, is struck by the former president's restriction on records relating to his and his wife's families. That, he says, blocks disclosure of records relating to Roger Clinton, the former president's half brother, and Hillary Clinton's two brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, both of whom were involved in controversial business deals and efforts to secure last-minute pardons later investigated by Congress...
Hillary's Secret White House Papers | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com

mudwhistle · #57 (**permalink**) 11-16-2007

Hillary said last night during the debates that her opponents were mudslinging. Democrats spar in heated debate - CNN.com

Only Hillary can do the mudslinging. But Hillary does it through her operatives in the media. That way she can't be held directly responsible for it.

Also, if you watched the debate Hillary got a ton of support from the crowd. Whenever she made a point the room erupted with loud cheers supporting her.

After the last few weeks and all of the proven allegations of planted questioners and the newly revealed stories about the Clintons using busloads of supporters at events to inject fake enthusiasm into a quiet crowd, it seems like last night's debate was orchestrated by the Clinton camp from top to bottom including the moderator Wolf Bitzer.

I expected this. I think after her missteps and the fact that she has been caught cheating several times I don't think anything she does now to counter the stigma that has developed around her candidacy will do any good. I think it is too late. But after the last election I think it is a mistake to underestimate the gulibility of the American public.

mudwhistle · #58 (**permalink**) 11-16-2007

Quote:

Clinton had her sharpest exchanges with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who accused the former first lady of inconsistency on a variety of issues.

"Sen. Clinton says she will end the [Iraq] war. She also says she will continue to keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq," Edwards said.

"She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans, but when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney."

"She says she will bring change to Washington, while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt," he said.

Clinton responded by criticizing Edwards for making a personal attack. Watch candidates make clear who they're chasing »

"I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and right out of the Republican playbook," she said.

"For him to be throwing this mud and making these charges I think really detracts from what we're trying to do here tonight. We need to put forth a positive agenda for America."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pleaded with his fellow debaters for a more civil atmosphere.

You see, with Hillary any attack personal or on the issues is deemed mudslinging. She always plays the victim. She's a girl and all the guys are ganging up on her.

Poor Hillary.

If she can't handle a simple exchange in a debate without crying foul or answer a direct question with a direct answer how does she expect to be able to handle the attacks that will surely come when she is President?

Sheriff · #59 (**permalink**) 11-16-2007

Everyone is mad at CNN's way of conducting a Presidential debate and, as was shown by the poll held by CNN after the debate, the winner is clear: Barack Obama. Hillary has already stained her credibility with the reports of plainted questioners and imported supporters to electrify the silent crowds.

On First Read, NBC's Chuck Todd writes:

Quote:

If the last debate was the moment where Democrats realized that the Clinton coronation was, at least, postponed, this one will be known as the debate that seemed to sharpen the contrast between Clinton and Obama and create a gap between the big two and everyone else. The sparring between Clinton and Obama on a number of issues is likely to set the tone for some time. Edwards was hurt, partially, by the fact that Clinton and Obama were next to each other, while Edwards was off to the side...

One final Clinton v. Obama point. Clinton really benefitted from the audience responses; I'd love to know who got tickets for this debate, whether one campaign was allowed to get more tix than another. Because the booing by the Clinton supporters when Edwards or Obama confronted Clinton were distracting to the candidates and did throw them off every now and then. Quick Post-Debate Impressions - First Read - msnbc.com,

And her knowledge about the American people is just noteworthy

. Sen. Clinton's answer on social security, and her notion that folks that make more than $97,500 are middle class. And her more absurd notion that firefighters make that much. They don't (Attention: New York)

PayScale - Fire Fighter Salary, Average Salaries

Election Center 2008 - Election & Politics News from CNN.com

TheLastBoyScout · #60 (**permalink**) 11-16-2007

The two faces are what I dislike most about Hillary. She showed them again when she acted as if she never supported drivers licenses for Illegal Aliens in her own state. She did support it before, but when asked if she supports it now, she gave a flat and loud "No".

And the vote on naming Iran's revolutionary guard a terrorist group was a gift to Bush. So she bashes Bush on the War and says he must be stopped and then she enables him at the same time.

I'm tired of hearing obvious BS in presidential speeches. Imagining Hillary as the president, I can see a lot of double talk as her words mean nothing and often contradict her actions.

The number one thing I wanted in a new president is to be able to trust them to run our country. I don't see Hillary as trustworthy. The promises she makes today carry no weight based on her record.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode