This is a campaign ad from the Edward's campaign. It's pretty good. It shows Hillary taking opposite positions on the same issues in the course of one debate. Pretty funny. I hope he doesn't mind if we borrow it for the general election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

I watched part of the debate the other night. I thought Edwards, Dodd and Obama did a fairly good job. Essentially, you agree with their positions, or you don't. Hillary, on the other hand, was a debacle. I seriously cannot understand why this woman has a chance to become president. During my spell in front of the TV, she never directly answered a question and refused to take a position on numerous issues that call for an essentially yes/no response. She obfuscated, circled, passed blame and complained. In the days following her poor performance, she's questioned the other candidates and the moderator. I think she just hates tough questions, and I'm glad someone is finally asking them to her...

That clip was brilliant, too. Pure Hillary. I guess that's what she mean's by playing "gotcha."

I seriously cannot understand why this woman has a chance to become president. During my spell in front of the TV, she never directly answered a question and refused to take a position on numerous issues that call for an essentially yes/no response. She obfuscated, circled, passed blame and complained. In the days following her poor performance, she's questioned the other candidates and the moderator.
All too true. But she's way out in front, and with the abbreviated primary season we've created this time around, there's really not much time for anyone to overtake her.

But, as I said in the OP, this ad will be a great one to recycle in the general election. It's funny how often candidates are destroyed by their own parties in the primaries. Remember the much maligned "Willie Horton" ads that helped sink Dukakis? Those were originally created by, I think, Al Gore's campaign during the primary.

I seriously cannot understand why this woman has a chance to become president.

She has gotten a free ride because of political allies and democratic voters think that they are just voting for Bill Clinton again. They are not interested in Hillary's record, in general.

I agree, but that's a hell of an attitude to pick what is arguably going to be an important president. Hillary Clinton, per my appreciation, hasn't done anything and isn't good at anything other than controlling her own image, which The Media seems reluctant to chip away at...

Personally I'm not sure how (in)accurate the notion that Hillary = Bill is. Even if she is the same, this isn't the nineties anymore. Bill Clinton was good (depending on your POV) when times were good. Even if Bill himself were back in office there is no way he could reproduce what he did before.

Bill at least knew how to politic and could compromise. He also didn't whine when he was attacked and had the personality to make himself useful even at his lowest moments during the presidency. He also had a record of achievement that could be debated. Hillary has none of this...

I think she did quite well. Her answers seemed honest, if not decisive. Some of these issues are complex.

Hillary sucks. She is a fraud, a chameleon, and she will say ANYTHING to ANYONE to appease them/get their vote. I was hoping our first woman POTUS candidate would be one of integrity, honor, honesty, etc... Not this poor excuse for a human. She is not to be trusted. I don't admire or respect her. She is a sell-out. :(

I think she did quite well. Her answers seemed honest, if not decisive. Some of these issues are complex.

We all know you are rankly partisan, Spider. But you do realize there are other Democrats to vote for than Hillary, don't you? Did you watch the link? If you did, how can you see that and use terms like "honest" and "decisive" to describe her answers. She obfuscated, which is largely what she did all night, by any sane person's reckoning. Volunteer for her campaign if you like, but please don't bludgeon our intelligence with the sharp end of your unbelievable bias.

Lest we forget, you are the person who denied FACTS, such as he support and cheer-leading of the war. I also seem to recall that you couldn't name one achievement of hers when put on the spot and asked.

Another example:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67939

Remember the much maligned "Willie Horton" ads that helped sink Dukakis? Those were originally created by, I think, Al Gore's campaign during the primary. ? !! This kind of memory oddity is one of the strangest things about the campaign scenes these days.

It's as if reality has no role. I can understand why Giuliani is in the lead over on the Rep side - who have they got, besides Paul? - but the Dems have decent choices besides Kucinich or Hillary. There is no benefit for the Dems in deciding on anyone so early, and setting them up as a target a full year before the vote - let alone someone with the negatives Hillary carries.

Has anyone else noticed how easy and slack recent NPR interviewing has been on administration representatives ? And how they've been treating Paul and Kucinich (the two candidates who poll the highest in overall issue agreement among voters) ?

Well, at least Hillary has cleared one thing up: She supports Driver's licenses for illegals.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/05/clinton-broadly-supports-states-efforts-to-license-illegals/

Well, at least Hillary has cleared one thing up: She supports Driver's licenses for illegals.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/05/clinton-broadly-supports-states-efforts-to-license-illegals/

do you understand the logic behind that or are you blowing smoke?

Personally, I fail to see much logic (other than electoral realpolitik) in anything she does. Maybe you could help me...

do you understand the logic behind that or are you blowing smoke?
The logic? If you show up at a government office and proclaim yourself a lawbreaker, you should be arrested; not given a license!

Illegal Alien: "Hi. I entered this country illegally and then used forged documents to get a job, breaking several state and federal laws in the process.
DMV: "Really? You shouldn't have to go to all that trouble. Here's an official government document you can use instead of the forged ones you've been using up to now"
Illegal Alien: "Hey, thanks a lot."

That's what I said the other day to a friend of mine who is a lawyer. Basically, I told him I thought the nation has reached a pretty strange place, in that the head of a state government is proposing legislation that will enable people to continue to break state and federal laws. Since when is the government supposed to enable criminal behavior?

This is a campaign ad from the Edward's campaign. It's pretty good. It shows Hillary taking opposite positions on the same issues in the course of one debate. Pretty funny. I hope he doesn't mind if we borrow it for the general election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
The logic? If you show up at a government office and proclaim yourself a lawbreaker, you should be arrested; not given a license!

Illegal Alien: "Hi. I entered this country illegally and then used forged documents to get a job, breaking several state and federal laws in the process.
DMV: "Really? You shouldn't have to go to all that trouble. Here's an official government document you can use instead of the forged ones you've been using up to now"
Illegal Alien: "Hey, thanks a lot."Thank God for MadAnthonyWayne! I never liked Hillary in the beginning. We need people like MadAnthonyWayne to know which politician to elect as president.

So do you have anything of substance to offer?

the nation has reached a pretty strange place, in that the head of a state government is proposing legislation that will enable people to continue to break state and federal laws. Since when is the government supposed to enable criminal behavior? Oh, man. This place? We've been here a while.

Hillary is a rightwing, authoritarian, "conservative", corporate-friendly politician. Always has been, always will be. The role of the law, to such people, is tool: expedience. The driver's licenses are expedient - her support needs cheap labor,the police have a large enforcement problem, etc. The same principle governs the special certification of "Made In USA" labels on clothes not made in the USA, to handle the problem of forgeries and knockoffs and bring the benefits of "made in usa" to people who will reciprocate with political support.

I'll grant that on the issue of trade and immigration, there seems to be little difference between the major figures in the two major parties.

People don't like Hillary's new position...

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071106/NATION/111050098/1001

19 states already allow illegal residents to get a license, it's a matter of public safety, if you can't get a license, you can't get insurance, and the last thing we need is a bunch of uninsured drivers. It also allows the government to track you down, since your address is on there.

19 states already allow illegal residents to get a license, it's a matter of public safety, if you can't get a license, you can't get insurance, and the last thing we need is a bunch of uninsured drivers. It also allows the government to track you down, since your address is on there. That's the argument ?

I was wondering who was benefitting - insurance companies, apparently. Makes sense.

The point of the question, Spider, is not what states are already doing (the 19 figure sounds high, too), but what Hillary thinks states SHOULD do. She failed to answer that question effectively, and has since waffled back and forth on what her position is. But please, go ahead and make excuses and apologize for her.

Here's another issue she was less than truthful about, in the debate and elsewhere:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

And now she's planting questions in the audience so she gets to answer what SHE wants to answer. If a Republican did this, especially Bush, the media would howl...

http://web.grinnell.edu/sandb/questions.html

If it is true I expect the media will howl, considering they already nitpick about her laugh. But even as an anti-Hillary person I don't think this is a big deal.

Fox News will howl, but I doubt it will get much play beyond there.

I think it's a big deal. Republicans are constantly beat up for this sort of behavior (Jeff Gannon, etc.) but Dems and liberals seem to get a pass on it. Take, for example, the liberal reporter who put the soldier up to asking Rummy about Humvees and armor. The exchange was widely reported, but the fact it was a staged question was not. I don't care who does it. It's dishonest. This isn't the first story about Hillary trying to control every facet of how the media covers her campaign, either. She's notoriously rigid about such issues, and in my opinion, dishonest. Do you want someone who can't answer real (IE tough) questions as president?

Apparently, Spider does.

If I am Obama or Edwards I hit her with this hard in the next debate...

Do you want someone who can't answer real (IE tough) questions as president?

No, and that is one of the major things that bothers me about Hillary. She brushes off hard questions all the time, trying to get a free ride all the way to the nomination.

19 states already allow illegal residents to get a license, it's a matter of public safety, if you can't get a license, you can't get insurance, and the last thing we need is a bunch of uninsured drivers. It also allows the government to track you down, since your address is on there.That argument is ridiculous. If someone shows up at the DMV and admits they're a lawbreaker with no right to even be in this country, they should be deported!

Rounding up all the illegals for mass deportation is one thing, but if they're going to turn themselves into a government agency, why the hell not deport them right then and there?

What's next? Drivers Licenses for escaped convicts?

That argument is ridiculous. If someone shows up at the DMV and admits they're a lawbreaker with no right to even be in this country, they should be deported!

Rounding up all the illegals for mass deportation is one thing, but if they're going to turn themselves into a government agency, why the hell not deport them right then and there?

What's next? Drivers Licenses for escaped convicts?

If that was the policy than obviously none of them would show up and you'd have no progress either way.

If that was the policy than obviously none of them would show up and you'd have no progress either way.
You call making a complete mockery of our laws "progress"? They should be afraid to show up at government agencies. They're illegals! It should be like a bench warrant. They don't necessarily go out looking for you, but if the police or a government agency runs into you, you're busted.

Another person has come forward. How many more will pop up in the next few days...

http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/11/10/another-question-planted-by-team-hillary/

That argument is ridiculous. If someone shows up at the DMV and admits they're a lawbreaker with no right to even be in this country, they should be deported!

Rounding up all the illegals for mass deportation is one thing, but if they're going to turn themselves into a government agency, why the hell not deport them right then and there?

What's next? Drivers Licenses for escaped convicts?

I have to agree with you. I find it strange that people in a country illegally can walk into a Government Department to attain a driver's license, but would probably be arrested and deported if stopped by the police. It does not make sense. Also if they are illegal, I would imagine getting insurance to be a tad difficult or a none event. Strange..

I think the license enables them to get insurance, which is why the proponents of the licenses say they want them: That is, they want to have insured illegals who can pay for wrecks whenever they get in them, as opposed to not paying and disappearing, as they often do now. There's a lot wrong with that scenario, if you ask me (I fail to see why an insured illegal would show up to court any more than an uninsured one), but the broader context is really what bothers me. We have people in our government, people who are charged by law to enforce the law, essentially proposing something that enables law-breaking. That astounds me...

Back to Hillary and how she must stage-manage everything...

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e01fdce-ad97-4dab-a07d-bf98dc52f681

That argument is ridiculous. If someone shows up at the DMV and admits they're a lawbreaker with no right to even be in this country, they should be deported!

Rounding up all the illegals for mass deportation is one thing, but if they're going to turn themselves into a government agency, why the hell not deport them right then and there?

What's next? Drivers Licenses for escaped convicts?

It's just state government.

More on the planted questions...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/13/student-given-question-for-clinton-i-just-want-honesty/

That is of less concern than Bush's entirely managed rallys, or their fake press conferences.

That is of less concern than Bush's entirely managed rallys, or their fake press conferences.

Still dishonest though.

It's not that bad. It's politically savvy. We wanted someone who could play politics with the Republicans and win, and god knows they play dirty.

It's not that bad. It's politically savvy. We wanted someone who could play politics with the Republicans and win, and god knows they play dirty.

So you want someone who can be be dirty but push the Democrat agenda instead. I realize that the other side can play far worse, but if the dishonesty was avoided altogether, there wouldn't be any controversy. Really, how would it have hurt Hillary if the plant wasn't there?

That is of less concern than Bush's entirely managed rallys, or their fake press conferences.

Based on this sort of behavior, how can one assume Hillary isn't prone to the same? (Remember, this is the woman who wanted the press corps out of the West Wing, and tried to erect a wall between them and the offices when that didn't materialize). One of the reasons I despise her as a politician, is I think she is less honest and less open than Bush. She has stage-managed her entire campaign to a degree that sickens me. Now there are reports of her threatening media to go easy on her during the debate this Thursday. Hillary is a control freak. She wants to control everything, and when she can't, she falls apart (as the last debate showed). If you want such a person for president, by all means, vote for her.

It's not that bad. It's politically savvy. We wanted someone who could play politics with the Republicans and win, and god knows they play dirty.

So in other words, when the Dems do it, it's OK? But you howl like mad if Bush or his ilk behave this way. Once again, you've shown your partisan colors, and in doing so, betrayed your intellectual dishonesty.

The Republicans don't do this with such subtlety, they just invite Republicans to their events and kick you out for a t-shirt or bumper sticker they don't like. All Hillary did is make sure she was asked about global warming, big deal.

Someone who likes to be in control in the White House? The horror!

Despite the past or the present, you're never going to see anything questionable about her methods — period. It's fine if she tries to control the media. It bothers me whenever anyone attempts to manipulate the process like this. You? Not so much...

The Republicans don't do this with such subtlety, they just invite Republicans to their events and kick you out for a t-shirt or bumper sticker they don't like. All Hillary did is make sure she was asked about global warming, big deal.

Someone who likes to be in control in the White House? The horror!

Now you're just using the tactic some Republicans use when faced with Bush-era scandals, pointing to Clinton-era ones and saying they were worse.

We should be pushing for honesty and accountability across the entire political spectrum, not just for the party that suits us. Even if the offense in question is tiny compared to others.

I agree, Ash.

Another position?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071114/D8STND5O0.html

Now you're just using the tactic some Republicans use when faced with Bush-era scandals, pointing to Clinton-era ones and saying they were worse. Except, of course, if one notes that in reality the Bush and Rove ones were in fact far worse - not just planted questions as a matter of routine, in every single campaign stop and press conference and debate forum of Bush's administration, but entire scripted events and planted news articles about them, for example.

Do we admit reality into our discussion, or not?

We should be pushing for honesty and accountability across the entire political spectrum, not just for the party that suits us. Even if the offense in question is tiny compared to others. Sure. But that doesn't mean confusing the tiny with the large, and presenting them as somehow equivalent, eh?

If we could somehow get the major media to treat the non-Paul Rep candidates the same way they treat the non-Kucinich Dems, for example, (and treat Kucinich the same way they treat Paul), we could begin to have a basis for equivalent "accountability" and equivalent pushes for "honesty", rather than the biased approach we enjoy now - in which Rudy Giuliani, say, can repeat his little story about how his prostate cancer would have been much more of a threat under a socialized medical system, even after being called on it, and not find himself the butt of mockery in the major media.

Sure. But that doesn't mean confusing the tiny with the large, and presenting them as somehow equivalent, eh?

I agree, who here is saying they should be considered equivalent? My issue is with how spidergoat so easily dismisses Clinton's dishonesty in this situation, welcomes it even.

If we could somehow get the major media to treat the non-Paul Rep candidates the same way they treat the non-Kucinich Dems, for example, (and treat Kucinich the same way they treat Paul), we could begin to have a basis for equivalent "accountability" and equivalent pushes for "honesty", rather than the biased approach we enjoy now - in which Rudy Giuliani, say, can repeat his little story about how his prostate cancer would have been much more of a threat under a socialized medical system, even after being called on it, and not find himself the butt of mockery in the major media.

I mostly agree with this.

Hillary has finally come out against driver's licenses for people living in New York illegally. Of course she was first for it, then against it and then four it and then against it and then for it, ad infinitum. She saw the damage the issue was doing to the Governor and has now finally made up her mind to be against it. Had she said before what she said yesterday I might believe her but her equvication convinces me that she is a consumate politician and has no core values. She will say and do anything to get elected.

Which is exactly why I wrote in another thread that a rudderless Hillary scares me even more than her previous liberal incarnation. Currently, she seems to be listless, and as such, a voter has no way of evaluating her candidacy.

Remember the $5,000 bonds she was keen on offering? She's backed away from that, too, which makes me wonder what she really considers to be a "good idea." One would assume if a person puts something forward, they think it is a "good idea." But in Hillary's case, she continually floats ideas and takes positions she later abandons. Either she is incapable of rational assessment, which I doubt very much, or she intentionally doesn't assess anything and leaves herself open to the whims of the wind. That's not leadership, and it's not what I want from a president.

Hillary has finally come out against driver's licenses for people living in New York illegally. Of course she was first for it, then against it and then four it and then against it and then for it, ad infinitum. She saw the damage the issue was doing to the Governor and has now finally made up her mind to be against it. Had she said before what she said yesterday I might believe her but her equvication convinces me that she is a consumate politician and has no core values. She will say and do anything to get elected.

And she only made up her mind to be against it after Spitzer announced that he would be dropping his initiative to give illegals licenses.

I watched part of the debate the other night. I thought Edwards, Dodd and Obama did a fairly good job. Essentially, you agree with their positions, or you don't. Hillary, on the other hand, was a debacle. I seriously cannot understand why this woman has a chance to become president. During my spell in front of the TV, she never directly answered a question and refused to take a position on numerous issues that call for an essentially yes/no response. She obfuscated, circled, passed blame and complained. In the days following her poor performance, she's questioned the other candidates and the moderator. I think she just hates tough questions, and I'm glad someone is finally asking them to her...

That clip was brilliant, too. Pure Hillary. I guess that's what she mean's by playing "gotcha."

it because she is a policy wonk she doesn't see the problem has being black and white therefore their are no simple answers

That's the argument ?

I was wondering who was benefitting - insurance companies, apparently. Makes sense.

BINGO!

it because she is a policy wonk she doesn't see the problem has being black and white therefore their are no simple answers

So what flavor was your Kool-Aid?

I just watched the first 20 minutes of the debate. She says everyone knows what she stands for because she has been in public life for 35 years (not true). I have no idea what she stands for...

So what flavor was your Kool-Aid?

you missed my point. it is a hell of alot easier to say things counter to each other when discussing something complex than a black and white issue

And you're being exceptionally naive. The question was did she support licenses for illegal immigrants. And she could have said "Yes but only if..." or "No because...", both of which could've explored the grays of the issue, but she said neither. Why? Because she doesn't have a position. Her position is wherever the political wind lands her.

And you're being exceptionally naive. The question was did she support licenses for illegal immigrants. And she could have said "Yes but only if..." or "No because...", both of which could've explored the grays of the issue, but she said neither. Why? Because she doesn't have a position. Her position is wherever the political wind lands her.

you seem to think i am defending her i'm not all i wanted to do was point out when describing a position on a complex issue it is easier to stumble over yourself thats all

Oh, please. The driver's license issue is black and white. On the other issues in the add, the issue was not that she was describing a complex position, it was that she was saying things that directly contradicted earlier statements she made, some of which were in the same damn debate.

Stumbling is one thing. Repeatedly and purposefully contradicting yourself is another. Counte has it exactly right.

What is equally bothersome to me about Hilary is her ability her continued evasions regardint tough questions. This problem is quit prevalant among the candidates in both parties, however. Among major candidates in either party, the only ones who have agreed to answer the difficult questions in Project Vote Smart's political courage test are Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Mike Gravel. (For those who wish to cry foul after seeing only democratic candidates listed, Project Vote Smart is a bipartisan organization who's board has included people like Gerald Ford, Barry Goldwater & John McCain, who still hasn't gotten around to answering those questions either).

For more see
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/candidates-tested-on-courage/#more-3025
&
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha

I just watched a montage of Hillary clips on Hannity and Colmes showing her flip-flopping all over the place on Iraq. She is a double-talker. The clips were pathetic. She says whatever she thinks her supporters want to hear on any given day. Ugh. And her stupid "husband" says he was against the Iraq war since day one. Liar. :(

I just watched a montage of Hillary clips on Hannity and Colmes showing her flip-flopping all over the place on Iraq. She is a double-talker. The clips were pathetic. She says whatever she thinks her supporters want to hear on any given day. Ugh. And her stupid "husband" says he was against the Iraq war since day one. Liar. :(

I think I actually agree.

I might be missing Bill Clinton's protest, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. I wonder why he'd even bring that up.

Because he's self-delusional, always has been. Like a lot of narcissists who have minor pathological obsessions, he can probably convince himself that he actually did things he never did (like speak out against the war or take terrorism seriously when he was in office) or didn't do things he obviously did (Monica et al).

His spin today on the trade deals was interesting too, given that his wife is essentially proposing a moratorium and review of all the deal he championed when he ran the show. Nothing about Bill and Hillary Clinton surprises me, except Americans' continued fascination with them.

Because he's self-delusional, always has been. Like a lot of narcissists who have minor pathological obsessions, he can probably convince himself that he actually did things he never did (like speak out against the war or take terrorism seriously when he was in office) He did take terrorism seriously while in office. More so than any President before or since.

As far as the rightwing fascination - bordering on obsession - with the Clintons goes, I too find that mysterious.

The Clenis lied his @ss off recently just like his lying wife:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_po/on_deadline_bill_clinton_1

Even the NYSlimes finally admits it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

We have no obsession/fascination over the Clintons. We just want them to fade back into oblivion. They're evil abominations who will burn in hell. Ugh...:puke:

Except you are lying, not Clinton. His position is perfectly consistent.

I dispute that Clinton took terrorism seriously, but doubt that's worth debating with you.

You'd have to first define what "taking terrorists seriously" actually means. For example, some but not all people are of the mind that it means a war in Iraq.

Non sequitur. Iraq had nothing to do with our terrorism problem.

I agree, but that's why you have to establish what taking terrorists seriously actually is. A lot of people don't agree with you and me about this. That's why when some people read that Clinton took terrorists seriously, they'll scoff and ask where his Iraq war was (although obviously not in the same terms).

This happened prior to 2000, so it's obvious I am not refering to the current War in Iraq, though it is interesting to not that Clinton encouraged an insurrection in Iraq late in his term, then abadoned it at the last minute (see Robert Baer's See No Evil). What I mean is his policy toward terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and the resources he allowed to be brought to the task. But this is a topic for an entirely different thread.

Because he's self-delusional, always has been. Like a lot of narcissists who have minor pathological obsessions, he can probably convince himself that he actually did things he never did (like speak out against the war or take terrorism seriously when he was in office) or didn't do things he obviously did (Monica et al).

His spin today on the trade deals was interesting too, given that his wife is essentially proposing a moratorium and review of all the deal he championed when he ran the show. Nothing about Bill and Hillary Clinton surprises me, except Americans' continued fascination with them.

Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than bush

The Clenis lied his @ss off recently just like his lying wife:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_po/on_deadline_bill_clinton_1

Even the NYSlimes finally admits it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

We have no obsession/fascination over the Clintons. We just want them to fade back into oblivion. They're evil abominations who will burn in hell. Ugh...:puke:

may i ask why you are so filled with hate?

I think that yahoo article said it well. If he was against the war but did not speak out, it is not something to be proud of.

In truth, Clinton did not oppose the Iraq war from the start — at least not publicly.

If the former president secretly opposed the war but did not want to speak against a sitting president (as some of his aides now claim), what moral authority does he have now? And did he share his objections with his wife? She started out as a hawkish Democrat but is now appealing to anti-war voters.

Either way his opinion does not matter. We know what Hillary's opinion was quite well. Not just for the war, but very for the war.

If Bill was against it, it means that he and Hillary have vastly different decision processes and will be very different presidents, something I wish those Hillary supporters who are trying to relive the nineties would grasp.

This happened prior to 2000, so it's obvious I am not refering to the current War in Iraq, though it is interesting to not that Clinton encouraged an insurrection in Iraq late in his term, then abadoned it at the last minute (see Robert Baer's See No Evil). What I mean is his policy toward terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and the resources he allowed to be brought to the task. But this is a topic for an entirely different thread.

There actually was an insurrection after the Gulf War (Bush 41), but for some reason we let Saddam have his helicopter gunships in spite of the no-fly zones, and he put down the insurrection with force. No wonder the Iraqis feel no love for the US.

I'm aware of that, but what I mentioned came later.

I think that yahoo article said it well. If he was against the war but did not speak out, it is not something to be proud of. There was a lot of controversy about mere suggestions of mild criticism of the war from Clinton - lots of talk about how ex presidents didn't do that sort of thing and never had, how it was very early in W's term to be so unfairly critical, etc.

Democrats were scum to have their ex-president Clinton (who was already being missed by the fans of competence and diplomacy) hinting at criticism of Republican administration. The Dems had lost, and should behave themselves, was the standard take. IIRC Limbaugh made a lot of noise about it. It was potentially damaging Hillary's political career.

I remember because I ran across some quotes of Reagan waxing very critical of Clinton just a few weeks into Clinton's first term. But that had been forgotten, of course. And attacks on Clinton were and are in their own special category, not to be confused with accountable speech.

As far as Hillary being "for the war" - hard to tell. She played it safe with her eye on her own political future, it seemed to me. People who don't support war efforts can lose their political futures in the US, regardless of the outcome of the war itself. And at the time W was still claiming that war was just an option he needed to threaten Saddam with - he was denying that invasion was already in motion and inevitable. The vote was a vote for a strong negotiation stance, officially; war was to be a "last resort", as more than one administration spokesman put it in the lobbying for the bill.

I don't know if Hillary believed that. But it was convenient for her to pretend to. And being a natural conservative and business-oriented politician, with experience in how power is wielded, she may not have fully realized just how different the consequences of W-level corruption and incompetence could be from the ordinary boardroom dealings.

There was a lot of controversy about mere suggestions of mild criticism of the war from Clinton - lots of talk about how ex presidents didn't do that sort of thing and never had, how it was very early in W's term to be so unfairly critical, etc.

I didn't hear any of this, but that makes sense.

As far as Hillary being "for the war" - hard to tell.

She didn't just vote for it, she made the case for it.

She played it safe with her eye on her own political future, it seemed to me. People who don't support war efforts can lose their political futures in the US, regardless of the outcome of the war itself.

This would be my guess, but I think it is a very negative quality just the same.

And at the time W was still claiming that war was just an option he needed to threaten Saddam with - he was denying that invasion was already in motion and inevitable. The vote was a vote for a strong negotiation stance, officially; war was to be a "last resort", as more than one administration spokesman put it in the lobbying for the bill.

I don't know if Hillary believed that. But it was convenient for her to pretend to. And being a natural conservative and business-oriented politician, with experience in how power is wielded, she may not have fully realized just how different the consequences of W-level corruption and incompetence could be from the ordinary boardroom dealings.

I don't think that anyone really doubted that it was a vote for war, not a vote for the option of war.

I don't think that anyone really doubted that it was a vote for war, not a vote for the option of war. You mean no one really believed the White House or any of its spokesmen ?

Cynical, but possible.

Pretty much.

But if not, a wise man said, "you can't hand the president a blank check and then be surprised when he cashes it." Poor judgement either way imo.

Seems the Media have begun to tire of her (some).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902165_pf.html

Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than bush :roflmao:

Clinton called terrorism a "law enforcement problem" :mad:

He had THREE chances to take out binLaden but the cowardly POS slut didn't want to "offend" anyone.

He did NOTHING against terrorism while he was POTUS. He was too busy fornicating.

He did order a hit on an aspirin factory to take our attention off his exposed adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky.

He cut the military budget (which made us even more weak against terror) to pay toward the deficit. What a freakin moron.

Clinton behaves like a filthy pig, an abomination, and a loser. I despise his actions. :(

Bush has the b@lls to go after the evil filth terrorists.

Nice summary of Republican talking points. Too bad most of them are wrong or misleading.

No talking points. Just facts. The Clintons are evil. If we HAVE to have a liberal, at least give us one with some morals. Like maybe Edwards. Without his forced healthcare "garnish your wages" bs.

Sandy,
Bearing false witness is a sin. Not that I care, just puttin' it out there.

Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison...

On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.

On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.
(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours...

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/Clinton_and_Terrorism.html

:roflmao:

Clinton called terrorism a "law enforcement problem" :mad:

He had THREE chances to take out binLaden but the cowardly POS slut didn't want to "offend" anyone.

He did NOTHING against terrorism while he was POTUS. He was too busy fornicating.

He did order a hit on an aspirin factory to take our attention off his exposed adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky.

He cut the military budget (which made us even more weak against terror) to pay toward the deficit. What a freakin moron.

Clinton behaves like a filthy pig, an abomination, and a loser. I despise his actions. :(

Bush has the b@lls to go after the evil filth terrorists.

clinton couldn't have cut the milatary budget with out the support of republicans in congress. also under bush world wide terrorism has increased

Meanwhile the GOP were shouting "no war for Monica", and "wag the dog", and impeaching him for trivial matters.

I think if people want to haggle over how tough Clinton was on terrorism, they ought to find another thread and do it there. This thread is supposed to discuss Hillary's candidacy, which should have little or nothing to do with her husband's past actions.

This thread is supposed to discuss Hillary's candidacy, which should have little or nothing to do with her husband's past actions. Both the bizarre hatred from the one demo, and the mysterious support from the other, seem to be based on her husband's past actions (alleged and real) though.

And his image of competence.

I think a fair number of Hillary supporters are kind of thinking they're getting a two-fer, maybe a sideways analogy to the support W got from people who sort of figured Cheney would be making certain critical decisions.

Correct assessments, possibly, but not necessarily sound judgments based on them.

I think it's sort of ridiculous to posit the 'two-for' scenario. A president's spouse is precisely that, and I'm troubled by the notion that an unelected official could be allowed access to positions of authority simply because they said "I do." My qualms here extend to whoever is the chief executive, regardless of the party.

To continue this line of thinking, Bill is a much different politician than Hillary. Generally speaking, I can't complain much about his time in office, beyond the various circuses that he helped create with his sometimes bizarre personal choices and behavior. I've already lamented the people the Clintons choose to surround themselves with, and this, I think, is a great reason to vote against her. There are others, too. Bill, for all his "slickness" doesn't seem as cold and calculating as Hillary. And at the very least, he was able to answer tough questions, even if his answers sometimes lacked substance. Hillary represents everything I dislike about politics. She's an automaton. A product of a system. Why vote for her and keep the Democratic half of the same 60-100 people in power for another four years?

Hillary represents everything I dislike about politics. She's an automaton. A product of a system. Why vote for her and keep the Democratic half of the same 60-100 people in power for another four years? Be disappointing to have to do that, true. I doubt too many people are looking forward to it.

Well, apparently they are. She's still the front runner, and why? Democrats seem to be blindly in love with her. The Republicans, for all their faults, are extremely skeptical of their candidates this time round (after the Bush fiasco). They're running the rubric over their field, while it seems the hard corps Dems are organizing a coronation.

Well, apparently they are. She's still the front runner, and why? Democrats seem to be blindly in love with her. The Republicans, for all their faults, are extremely skeptical of their candidates this time round (after the Bush fiasco). They're running the rubric over their field, while it seems the hard corps Dems are organizing a coronation.

They're blindly in love with Bill. They'll take Hill just to get him back. Don't discount the Republicans in '08. We were "supposed" to lose '00 and '04, ya know? :D :D :D

They're blindly in love with Bill. They'll take Hill just to get him back. Don't discount the Republicans in '08. We were "supposed" to lose '00 and '04, ya know? :D :D :D

and you did. just because you commit election fraud doesn't mean you won.

Well, apparently they are. She's still the front runner, and why? Democrats seem to be blindly in love with her. More of a fear-based intuitive calculation, I think. And maybe reaction to the phenomenal hatred directed toward her.

Obama seems to be the only Dem with "blind love" working for him.

and you did. just because you commit election fraud doesn't mean you won.

Of course we did. More kool-aid? :rolleyes:

You guys just can't accept that George W. Bush won. TWICE. lololol...... HA!

Of course we did. More kool-aid? :rolleyes:

You guys just can't accept that George W. Bush won. TWICE. lololol...... HA!

no the standerd method of determaining election fraud exit polls says he commited election fraud