I swore I was finished writing about how bad a president I think Hillary Clinton would make. But the recent onslaught of mis-statements, made up stories and out and out lies could not be ignored. Between the stories of being under sniper fire in Bosnia, the unvetted story about a pregnant mother and child dying because she had no insurance and the claim that she criticized the Iraq war before Obama just shows a person who has a very lackadaisical attitude when it comes to being honest.
My question is, why is anyone still supporting this person? I was watching her questioning Patraeus and Crocker on CSPAN on Tuesday and she was monotone, lethargic, and all in all seemed to be phoning it in. In fact Clinton seems pretty much used up these days. By the way is it me or does the Way uh, Crocker uh, answers uh, questions uh, bother uh, any uh, body uh, else.
I saw in Wednesdays tacking polls that Obama has closed the gap to just 6 percentage points in Pennsylvania. But Clinton's talking heads spun it as "Obama can't seem to break out of the low 40's." Wow, he was at 30 just a few weeks ago. Got to love spin.
I just can't believe anyone thinks she still has a serious chance. Well, I'm getting ready to fly to Toronto Friday to compete in the Yuk Yuk's Great Canadian Laugh Off So I won't be able to contribute to this thread, but you guys know what to do.
*************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin's column, "Left Of The Right" published weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin's columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin's postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange "Connect" button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 80
A wiseguy Eh ?
Best of Luck in Toronto !!
Are you flying SkyBus ??
ABC News is still carrying water for her. I think it's because George Stephanoplous is looking for a White House Press Secretary job.
What about the Clinton Broadcasting System (CBS), or the Nationally Broadcasting Clinton network (NBC), or the Always Broadcasting Clinton network (ABC).
After all, if you want to repeat Bill Cunningham's rhetoric you might as well list them all, eh?
Devin, You don't need luck, you've got talent, man. BTW, if you drive to Toronto, you might get there in one piece.
Her dishonesty is a major character flaw. I can't imagine what would happen if she were negotiating with a foreign government or with Congress. Today, she is playing the condescending,"now you know all wives don't agree with their husbands on everything in a marriage" card, hoping to distance herself from NAFTA with Pennsylvania voters. Does she really think we are that clueless?
First came the news of the ties between the campaign official, Mark Penn, and Colombia.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, then came the revelation that Bill Clinton took $800,000 for 4 -- count them, 4 -- speeches in front of a Colombia development organization that advocated for the passage of the Colombia free trade deal!
I wonder what working families in Pennsylvania will think about that.
Now that's funny. Hitting the ground running, is much different than knowing what the hell is going on.. Early Alzheimer's.
Taking $800,000 from these people is very curious to me. What is $800,000 to 109 mil. Why take the money when your wife is running for president and opposes the deal. Dumb right? He is not dumb. That means she does not oppose it but it is politically convenient to be against free trade right now.
Good luck up there in Toronto, Devin....
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-1656880303867390173&esrc=gvre&ev=v&len=
6676&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-
1656880303867390173&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-1656880303867390173
&usg=
If that doesn't work, it's called, America: Freedom to Fascism, on YouTube
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
And also, Woodrow Wilson realized what he had done and mad this comment as he was leaving the WH.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
Not true Rich. bu$h is the least experience president ever. He had ''no'' foreign policy experience. The only economic experience he had was wrecking the Tx economy and Harkin oil.
But no matter who gets the Democratic nod, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NY Times, will all rally behind the democratic candidate.
I still am trying to picture Clinton stepping down?
If she does before the convention, will she speak? Or Bill?
Why can't she run and may the best person win? Isn't that fair? What happens if the race is run and they come pretty close but Obama leads in the votes? Say a 52% to 48%. Has Edwards pledged his votes yet?
Who does George Soros back?
These tacts are not working. Find an alternative to voting for Obama.
Someone above stated that "if you look at her record, she's done a bunch of stuff." I have thoroughly examined her record as senator and I cannot see any one thing that she has done of any sugnificant value.
Hillary Clinton is a LIAR!!! Period!
And as far as McCain being a centrist candidate, read today's New York Times. It begins with this:
WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain has long made his decades of experience in foreign policy and national security the centerpiece of his political identity, and suggests he would bring to the White House a fully formed view of the world.
But now one component of the fractious Republican Party foreign policy establishment — the so-called pragmatists, some of whom have come to view the Iraq war or its execution as a mistake — is expressing concern that Mr. McCain might be coming under increased influence from a competing camp, the neoconservatives, whose thinking dominated President Bush's first term and played a pivotal role in building the case for war.
Read the whole article here.
Nixon was a war hawk, and a social moderate. Reagan thought Nixon was a liberal. Most Republicans can see that they had no choice this year without nominating someone to the left of Bush.
Moderate war hawk Republicans pull troops out of war, the record for Democrats doing the same (even with promises and good intentions) is not good. Very bad, in fact.
Our United States military is under the command of our civilian government. Experts on the ground can say whatever they want, orders still always come from above.
Besides, since the goal in Iraq is (was) always only political, it will be the political commanders that will decide when leaving is appropriate.
The worst thing about all this is that the established mission readiness of our military has never included achieving political goals; only strategic and tactical military ones.
Achieving political objectives requires politicians, diplomacy and diplomats to work effectively. Our current selection of leaders seem completely content to let these goals go unachieved (aka; not finish the job) despite having been given more than what they asked for to do it.
If they were contractors, we could and would sue the hell out of 'em.
"The worst thing about all this is that the established mission readiness of our military has never included achieving political goals; only strategic and tactical military ones."
I agree with the above statement 100%, which is why I believe that the US Military is best served being re-deployed back to the United Staes of America. That includes our military stationed in Germany, Japan, Turkey, etc.
As much as it is not the role of our military to achieve political goals, I do not believe it is the role of our government to act as the world's police and/or peacekeepers.
I've read as many have suggested that if we pull out of Iraq, that money could easily pay for Universal Health Care (which I oppose), but imagine what we could safe if ALL of our military personel were returned to within our borders.
The military could domestically assist with: Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement, Infrastructure Rebuilding of roads, bridges, damns, etc., Airport Security and so on. Hell turn FEMA over to the military, they would certainly do a better job.
I am not suggesting that we allow our military to become weak....just the opposite. I am a firm believer that we should maintain the toughest, strongest, kick-ass military on earth. Put the world on notice that if anyone so much as thinks about attacking the US, we reserve the right and the might to use our arsenal of nuclear weapons and simply erase their sorry existance from the face of this earth.
Bill, our current selection of leaders are not contractors, but rather jobbers, hired to do a specific job within a certain time period. If they do that job in a successful and efficient manner and to the satisfaction of the employer (the US citizens) then we may hire them to do more of the same. We have somehow lost sight of that reality in the last 40 - 50 years and allowed these Washington blow-hards to entrench themselves within the "good ol boy club" and now they are like termites...we need to rip the entire structure down and rebuild!
It ain't so.
There are bad guys all over the place. Ruthless dictators who should be tried for war crimes and we cooperate with them. We created havoc in Iraq, and the reality is there will not be peace over there as long as American Boots are on the ground. Yes, there will be chaos when we leave. Be it a year from now or 10 years from now. How much stability do you want to achieve before you get out, that is the fundamental question. The utopia picture perfect Jeffersonian democracy will never happen.
Rich, what makes you think bu$h didn't appoint ''yes'' men on the ground in Iraq. He is surrounded by them everywhere else. That's the ''one'' thing bu$h, or should I say chency, doesn't stand for, someone with a mind of their own that can think.
Are the Clintons the only two people in America whose every word is disected and inspected?
Remember Al Gore in 2000? Every word out of his mouth was disected and inspected and
when he got the date wrong on a FEMA trip, the whore press labeled him "a serial liar."
Remember Kerry in 2004? Every word out of his mouth was disected and inspected and
when he super-stupidly said, "I was for it before I was against it," the whore press
labeled him "a flip-flopper" and he was clueless about how to correct that.
Now it's Hillary's turn - the whore press has labeled her with every slur under the sun
and the Obama people are loving every second of it.
But the day she drops out, it'll be Obama's turn and his fans and financial backers will be
shocked when the whore press labels him "a serial lying, Muslim surrender monkey."
To win you must vilify your opponent.
Not true, Rich. Just look at what dissent gets you in the bu$h administration. Shinseki, Zinni, Casey, Fallon, Bunnatine, Clarke, O'Neill, Leverett, Miller, Mann, Lindsey, Wright, Kiesling, Brown, Beers, Kwiatkowski, Carr, Preston, Wolf, Mcgregor, Redmond, Carlin, Wood, Davidoff, Novotny, Wilson, Zahn, Oppegard, Spadaro, Chambers, and well there's plenty more, if you get the picture. All of these people were either fired by bu$h or resigned in opposition of bu$h policies.
If you want to read more, here's just one link I used to get this info and their reasons for leaving.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=28817
It's called Bush Derangement Syndrome, Rich. It's really very sad. Maybe we should organize a telethon?
I do not share your view that we should pull all of our military home from other shores. I have zero problem with our having bases, personnel and equipment permanently stationed in foreign lands, so long as our forces are welcomed by those country's governments.
I DO believe that our National Guard troops should be stationed solely within its sponsoring states, and not used in regular active duty military exercises or missions. The National Guards were established to aid with local disasters, provide ready defensive troops at home and to compliment the regular military in times of significant international conflict; of which neither the Iraq war or the War on Terrorism are.
Al Queda is best fought with intelligence, and Iraq can only be won through diplomacy.
You are right, our leaders are not contractors, but neither are they jobbers. Jobbers have an even more limited scope of responsibility than a contractor would.
No, what our leaders are, are elected officials who are supposed to act in the best interest of our country and in the best interests of all of our country's people. Something that this administration has not done, at all.
I do not share the view that we need to "rip the entire structure down and rebuild". We could do just fine if we merely rout the trouble makers and re-strengthen the areas they have weakened.
''It seems half of these people resigned''
Rich, your statement, describes, ''yes'' men. And yes alot of these people ''did'' resign. For moral reasons, not political. And as far as your assumption that I see everything that bu$h does is ''evil'', is not true. Immoral, incompetent, stupid, arrogant, but not evil. Evil would indicate that he believes that Satan is his savior, and as we all know, he listens to a ''higher father''. Unfortunately we all assumed the he meant God. He actually meant daddy bu$h and his new world order.
Would this be a bad time to say "We told you so?" Weren't these things said of the Clintons for 2 terms but bashed as part of the vast right wing conspiracy? Are you part of this vast right wing conspiracy?
Never have supported HILL R E and NEVER will
Hillary...HILLARWHO???
Well Rich, There's ''always'' time to get different opinions, when you're talking about peoples lives. I know that humans are, by nature, ''flawed''. Anyone who believes that ''his'' views on ''any'' subject, is the right one, no matter what anyone else says, or the evidence shows, is not just wrong but arrogant too. We can see the results of this ''I'm right, and you're wrong'' attitude over the last 7 years. An illegal war, collapsing economy, extremely divided country, the rich /poor divide getting worse (for the poor, that is) and the hatred of America by far more of the world than in 2000. Unlike you guys on the right, who constantly say, ''you wait and see'' or, ''mcbu$h in a landslide'', I don't pretend to ''know'' that this election is anything but tight. To me it's either arrogance or corruption that ''some'' people ''know'' their candidate ''will'' win. For one thing, I know how both sides try to ''disenfranchise'' some Americans right to vote, during ''every'' election. Although it's done more on the right than the left. And I also ''know'' that ''anything'' can happen, at ''any'' time to affect the election, both true and false. But I also know that a large majority of the population, on both sides, are truly ignorant as to what a candidate is all about. Not ''everyone'' in America is as obsessed with politics, as we are, here on Gather / Politics. In fact, when asked, alot of people in America, don't even know who Condi Rice, Carl Rove, or even Nancy Pelosi are. As I have said before, most Americans get their information about America and the world, in 1, 1/2 hour news a day, and alot of them just want to hear the weather or sports. That's 2 & 1/2 hours a week, and most likely they watch the news that best fits ''their'' agenda. And what percentage of ''eligible'' voters, ''actually'' vote. Doesn't that mean anything to anyone but me.
She's made out of pliable plastic - No THANK YOU...I'll stick to Obama . I hope others do as well - Vote Obama. Salud.
"I don't know" sounds so much different than "I was opposed to this war since the beginning"
Jerry Lewis! You're Jerry Lewis, you look better than the last time I saw you.
I not only suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, I also have Manson derangement Syndrome, I can't see anything useful in Charly Manson either.
I knew they both had a fan club.
That being said, Hil did NOT "mis-state" the events surrounding her visit to Bosnia. She was trying to prove she has more experience. But to say she is qualified to BE president simply because she's married to one is like me claiming I have the talent and experience to be a stand-up comic simply because I'm married to one. Obama has a longer legislative resume than she does and she knows it. A lie, or a string of them, will not change that.
I'm not happy with McCain, but he'll get my vote, and my opposition, when warranted.
If this country has to endure another 4-8 years of being BETRAYED, LIED TO, and RAPED, I am very concerned the 'old girl' will not survive it!
GT
Hillary would make the perfect Republican.