Presidential Candidate: Hilary Clinton

[and we whisper]

vent or praise. everyone has such an extreme opinion about her. you either praise her or you hate her. which is it?

*sidenote: i think she'll make a great president.

[Jason Tate]

/Hate. Hahha.

[dw1003]

eight more years experience in the white house than any other candidate...

but I like Barack Obama

[Dean Wormer]

I don't like her for any reason other than she is Hillary Clinton. Tate made me realize this coincidentally.

Tate in 08. Catchy.

[SevenOhThree]

<3 the Clintons.

[a speedo model]

I hate her.

[and we whisper]

I hate her.

/Hate. Hahha.

y? i've never really understood why people don't like her. honestly. i'm not trying to start some stupid debate defending hilary clinton but i really wanna know why people hate her so much.

[thejetstolehome]

y? i've never really understood why people don't like her. honestly. i'm not trying to start some stupid debate defending hilary clinton but i really wanna know why people hate her so much.

i think it's mostly 'cause she can come off as a raging bitch. people on the right dislike her because they think she's far too liberal, which is not true. people on the left don't like her because over the past year or so, she's shifted more rightward, which is a much more accurate statement.

[a speedo model]

y? i've never really understood why people don't like her. honestly. i'm not trying to start some stupid debate defending hilary clinton but i really wanna know why people hate her so much.
She's a bitch, I disagree with her politically, and find it offensive that she's hired people to try and convince me she gives a fuck about my religion.

[and we whisper]

i think it's mostly 'cause she can come off as a raging bitch. people on the right dislike her because they think she's far too liberal, which is not true. people on the left don't like her because over the past year or so, she's shifted more rightward, which is a much more accurate statement.

I can see that. thanks.

She's a bitch, I disagree with her politically, and find it offensive that she's hired people to try and convince me she gives a fuck about my religion.

i don't really understand that.

[a speedo model]

i don't really understand that.
Which part?

[and we whisper]

Which part?

what do you mean by the whole hiring people to convince you that she gives a fuck about your religion? what is that all about?

[a speedo model]

what do you mean by the whole hiring people to convince you that she gives a fuck about your religion? what is that all about?
She's hired people to convince the conservative religious people (I'd fall under in there) that she's on their side and they should vote for her.

[and we whisper]

o. well i guess i don't really agree with that but i guess to a politician, you gotta do what you gotta do. who do you want to be president in 2008?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

o. well i guess i don't really agree with that but i guess to a politician, you gotta do what you gotta do. who do you want to be president in 2008?


really?

[and we whisper]

really?

to some. is that suprising?

[a speedo model]

o. well i guess i don't really agree with that but i guess to a politician, you gotta do what you gotta do. who do you want to be president in 2008?
O rly?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

to some. is that suprising?


its not surprising that politicians have that attitude
but its frustrating to me that you accept it

[IAPAI]

eight more years experience in the white house than any other candidate...

but I like Barack Obama

good point - putting Bill back in the White House = more bang for your buck.

y? i've never really understood why people don't like her. honestly. i'm not trying to start some stupid debate defending hilary clinton but i really wanna know why people hate her so much.

She's emasculating.

[thejetstolehome]

its not surprising that politicians have that attitude
but its frustrating to me that you accept it

as cynical as that sounds, it is pretty much the norm for American Politics these days.

[and we whisper]

O rly?

not with respectable politicians...i guess i worded that poorly. i guess i meant that in some cases politicians become corrupt and they start living by that motto.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

as cynical as that sounds, it is pretty much the norm for American Politics these days.


true

[dw1003]

y? i've never really understood why people don't like her. honestly. i'm not trying to start some stupid debate defending hilary clinton but i really wanna know why people hate her so much.

People don't like her because she is a strong willed woman, they are intimidated, sexist and afraid.
I'm not saying that she is deserving of the presidency, but people assume that she is a bitch simply because she is a woman in power... it's amazing how sexism still exists

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

People don't like her because she is a strong willed woman, they are intimidated, sexist and afraid.
I'm not saying that she is deserving of the presidency, but people assume that she is a bitch simply because she is a woman in power... it's amazing how sexism still exists


thats the problem with a female candidate
if you dont vote for her, or speak against her, you'll be called a sexist.
the thing that scares me the most is masses of women going and voting for the first woman on the ballot just cause shes a woman. i have no problem with a woman president, just give me a qualified one. and before someone says, George Bush is a man and he sucks. that is not an excuse to just throw a woman in there and has no relevance in this conversation.

[thejetstolehome]

People don't like her because she is a strong willed woman, they are intimidated, sexist and afraid.
I'm not saying that she is deserving of the presidency, but people assume that she is a bitch simply because she is a woman in power... it's amazing how sexism still exists

while sexism is most likely a part of it, there are legitimate political reasons for people to dislike her.

[The Revisionist]

I like this thread.

[a speedo model]

I like this thread.
Your avatar's getting me hawt. hahaha

[icameonherface]

I don't like her.

1 - she seems fake.

2 - i think she's a big dyke - a real rug muncher.

[thatwasamoment]

the right wouldnt let it alone if she was to get elected. so i dont want to hear it.

but i think she can do the job just fine.

and she annoys the fuck out of me.

[wesgemm08]

Joe Biden for president(too bad he has no chance)

[and we whisper]

thats the problem with a female candidate
if you dont vote for her, or speak against her, you'll be called a sexist.
the thing that scares me the most is masses of women going and voting for the first woman on the ballot just cause shes a woman. i have no problem with a woman president, just give me a qualified one. and before someone says, George Bush is a man and he sucks. that is not an excuse to just throw a woman in there and has no relevance in this conversation.

i agree with people just assuming you are a sexist if you don't vote for her. i mean, i like hilary clinton and i hope she gets the presidency but if you don't like her, i respect that. i don't think that makes you sexist.

[exxxoduss]

you know i really am in between...i mean...if she does win...i hope its not everyone woman in america voting for her, for the pure fact that she's a woman. i hope that "IF" she does get elected, its because america thinks she is the best choice, due to attitude, experience, dedication, and willingness to make america better than what it is, to get it out of this shitty ditch were in because of bush...

[icameonherface]

you know i really am in between...i mean...if she does win...i hope its not everyone woman in america voting for her, for the pure fact that she's a woman. i hope that "IF" she does get elected, its because america thinks she is the best choice, due to attitude, experience, dedication, and willingness to make america better than what it is, to get it out of this shitty ditch were in because of bush...

Sadly, I just think the ditch will be deeper.

[IAPAI]

mySy9nWAsv4

[PaulsRightNut]

i dont like hillary, i think she's anti-israel. and the whole "1st woman president" thing is ghey, if she's such a great female she wouldnt have to rely on the whole 1st woman president thing to get votes.

[JulieLynn]

If she decides to run for president, i will not be voting for her.

[Jason Tate]

i dont like hillary, i think she's anti-israel. and the whole "1st woman president" thing is ghey, if she's such a great female she wouldnt have to rely on the whole 1st woman president thing to get votes.
How's she relying on it? That's a concoction of the media, not her platform.

[thejetstolehome]

i dont like hillary, i think she's anti-israel. and the whole "1st woman president" thing is ghey, if she's such a great female she wouldnt have to rely on the whole 1st woman president thing to get votes.

what if every other one of her issues lines up with yours, except for the Israel issue? would you still not vote for her?

If she decides to run for president, i will not be voting for her.

is that a personal thing or do you not like her politics?

i extend this question to people on the fence about mrs. clinton: if another candidate had the same views as Clinton does, would you vote for that candidate?

[icameonherface]

what if every other one of her issues lines up with yours, except for the Israel issue? would you still not vote for her?



is that a personal thing or do you not like her politics?

i extend this question to people on the fence about mrs. clinton: if another candidate had the same views as Clinton does, would you vote for that candidate?

depends if they seemed fake or not too.

[PaulsRightNut]

How's she relying on it? That's a concoction of the media, not her platform.


she says it all the time
what if every other one of her issues lines up with yours, except for the Israel issue? would you still not vote for her?



is that a personal thing or do you not like her politics?

i extend this question to people on the fence about mrs. clinton: if another candidate had the same views as Clinton does, would you vote for that candidate?

eh probably not - no i still wouldnt vote for her.

[JulieLynn]

what if every other one of her issues lines up with yours, except for the Israel issue? would you still not vote for her?



is that a personal thing or do you not like her politics?

i extend this question to people on the fence about mrs. clinton: if another candidate had the same views as Clinton does, would you vote for that candidate?

of course its for her Politics. I wouldn't have said anything if it was just because i didnt like her.

[we are cured]

i'll be voting for her just to see what old bill's going to be up to as first gentleman

[icameonherface]

i'll be voting for her just to see what old bill's going to be up to as first gentleman

for the 3rd term?

[we are cured]

for the 3rd term?

haha you win the prize

[JulieLynn]

haha you win the prize

Tim! where have you been?

[we are cured]

i've been here.

looks like you need to come out of the general forum wasteland more often. :wave:

[JulieLynn]

i've been here.

looks like you need to come out of the general forum wasteland more often. :wave:

hahaha sad but true.:wave:

[drmsofpsilocybi]

One of my rather politically declined friends referred me to a website today, anybodybuthillary.net. Upon reaching the site I immediately broke out in a fit of laughter, followed closely by rage. I am a democrat, I wouldn't call myself a liberal as I do share some (but few) conservative views. This site is probably one of the most god awful attempts at political slander I have ever seen. Obviously, the person who made this site has absolutely no clue of what the republican party's platform is or for that matter, really any of their beliefs. This is most obvious in the merchanise section.
http://www.anybodybuthillary.net/products/july4/july4.htm
This might quite possibly be the dumbest thing I have ever seen. If anyone looks forward to tax day, its the republicans. They are the ones that are constantly jacking up taxes for those in the middle class, and lowering taxes for the rich. So under republican rule, on tax day, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The democrats however are for the redistribution of wealth, lowering taxes for those who make just enough money to get by and financing all of this by taking just a few more dollars from those who can most definitely afford it. Although, it is good to see that the republicans still look forward to war, as noted by the republicans look forward to july 4th, as it was the cause of one of the major american wars.

http://www.anybodybuthillary.net/products/pidems/pidems.htm
This one was another real laugher for me. I do remember this one little feller named George Bush, who ignored all political standards, ignored the american people (and still is) but somehow remains in office. If there is anyone who is 'politically impared' its these dubmasses. (sorry for the strong language

In all of this, its still consoling to see that the republicans realize they have absolutely no chance in this election and must revert to slander, hence the name anybody but hillary. Any body but hillary only because the republicans don't even have a single worthy candidate to run in this election and the democrats have two.

In closing I would like to point out probably the funniest of them all. This site is nothing more than a political fundraising tool... oh how republican of them.

[selftitled85]

im hoping the democratic party picks anyone buy hillary.

[Jason Tate]

We already have a Hillary Clinton thread.

/Mergeing

[drmsofpsilocybi]

its not so much about hillary, I wont vote for her either. Right now is NOT the time to have our first female president when we are at war with an entire area that looks down upon women. But its more of the fact that the site is a democrat/ liberal bashing site, but the political slander on there makes absolutely no sense. It would actually make more sense if it was a liberal site. The way i view right wing republicans is completely typified in that webpage.

[thejetstolehome]

We already have a Hillary Clinton thread.

/Mergeing

mine got moved down haha.

[Jason Tate]

On January 20, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) announced the formation of her presidential exploratory committee. Yet despite the claim by conservative news outlets such as Fox News that the Washington press corps is "pulling for her (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701100005)," media reports and commentary are already rife with myths and falsehoods regarding her record, her motivations, and Americans' perceptions of her, as Media Matters for America documents below. Whether new or old, these erroneous claims reinforce the baseless and often demonstrably false characterizations of Clinton commonly perpetuated by the media -- that she is "calculating," "dishonest," "vicious," "ruthless," "unelectable," "unlikable," and even "unqualified."
"CALCULATING"
Media frequently portray Clinton as "calculating" or overly ambitious, motivated by political considerations rather than conviction. These assertions are rarely accompanied by actual examples or support. For instance, on the January 29 edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886771/) of MSNBC's Hardball, Wall Street Journal national political editor John Harwood described Clinton as "very politically cautious and calculating." Similarly, Hardball host Chris Matthews has called her a "calculated politician (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904766/)." Conservative media figures have also joined in. On the January 31 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of Clinton's political tactics: "She'll lie. She'll change her mind. She'll say whatever she has to say." And in a February 1 column (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0702010146feb01,0,4864354.story?col l=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed), National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg claimed that "everyone understands that Clinton takes positions on issues based on political calculation."
In recent years, the media have also regularly described Clinton as repositioning herself to attract one set of voters or another. For instance, CNN has previously reported that there exist "two Senator Clintons (http://mediamatters.org/items/200506090005)" -- one that appeals to progressive Democrats and one that appeals to moderates.
This pervasive view of Clinton manifests itself in knee-jerk reactions to her actions, sometimes to the point of absurdity -- as in the case of Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg, who analyzed (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.slate.com/id/2142359/) the songs reportedly on her iPod and found that the playlist "suggests premeditation, if not actual poll-testing."
On the February 11 edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/page/5/) of NBC's Meet the Press, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz noted "the image that the many journalists have of Senator Clinton as being a kind of a cold and calculating and triangulating politician." In a February 5 post (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/02/johnny_be_bad.html) on his ABCNews.com weblog, ABC national correspondent Jake Tapper ridiculed this depiction of Clinton:
[Sen. Joseph R.] Biden [D-DE] shoots down the notion that he thinks Clinton is too calculating -- a meme that is emerging in this race, the notion that Clinton is a cool, calculating pol driven by a hunger for power. (As opposed to the other 300 politicians running for President, of course)
Following are examples of media claiming that Clinton has shifted her views on certain issues solely for political gain.
Clinton has moved to the center
One widespread characterization (http://mediamatters.org/items/200505310002#sampling) of Clinton is that of a presidential hopeful moderating her political and personal views in order to appeal to a broader swath of voters. On the January 22 edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/22/gb.01.html) of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, John Mercurio, senior editor of National Journal's "The Hotline," said: "[O]ver the past six years in the Senate, I think you've definitely seen her in a very calculated way move to the center." By contrast, in her column in the February 5 issue of Newsweek, Anna Quindlen identified this as one of the many myths that have surfaced regarding Clinton. "Today many of the contenders are enshrouded in the mists of myth," Quindlen wrote. "One is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a flaming liberal ... It's laughable to talk about the senator moving toward the middle. She's been there for years."
Critics often cite Clinton's views on reproductive choice as an example of her repositioning. For instance, Chris Matthews has described (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130003) Clinton as purportedly shifting her stance on abortion in a "transparent" effort to recover the so-called "values vote." He has also accused her of "trying to play it safe (http://mediamatters.org/items/200604240010)" on the issue by taking a "poll-tested path." Matthews has pointed to her assertion in a July 25, 2006, speech that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" as an example of her changing position on the issue. But far from representing a point of departure from earlier statements, Clinton's remarks in July were consistent with those she made in a January 22, 1999, speech. While first lady, she said: "But all too often, generally because of the loudest voices, the American people don't hear explained the efforts that we're engaged in to continue to work with people from all different walks of life to make abortion safe, legal, and rare."
Other media figures, such as Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett, have claimed (http://mediamatters.org/items/200501260014) that in a January 24, 2005, speech, Clinton "appeared to soften her historically hard-line defense of current abortion law by praising the role that religious faith has played in promoting teen abstinence." But while Clinton did praise religion and teen abstinence in the speech, she at no point backed away from her defense of abortion rights and even reiterated her support for keeping abortion legal. Referring to the Putting Prevention First Act (H.R. 4192 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR04192:@@@D&summ2=m&)), Clinton said: "It provides a roadmap to the destination of fewer unwanted pregnancies -- to the day when abortion is truly safe, legal, and rare."
Clinton has moved to the left
In contrast to those claiming that Clinton has moved to the center are media figures who suggest that she only recently became critical of the Iraq war to purportedly appeal to "anti-war Democrats (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300002)." For instance, in a January 18 article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701926.html), Washington Post chief political reporter Dan Balz wrote that Clinton is "continuing her steady evolution from one of the war's staunchest supporters to one of the administration's most prominent critics" -- an assertion later echoed (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701200001) by CNN. And a February 8 Wall Street Journal editorial (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009637) asserted that "as Mrs. Clinton bids to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, she is taking a marked turn to the left. Pressured by other candidates and by her party's left wing, she is walking back her hawkish statements and is now all but part of the antiwar camp."
But the claim that Clinton was once one of the "staunchest" backers" of the Iraq war does not withstand scrutiny -- nor does the claim that her criticism of the war is recent. While Clinton did vote in favor of the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, less than seven months after the war began, she expressed doubt about President Bush's leadership in the war, saying in an October 17, 2003, floor statement (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S12829&dbname=2003_record), that her "yes" vote for an $87 billion supplemental appropriation "was a vote for our troops, it was a vote for our mission. ... t was not a vote for our national leadership." During the same statement, Clinton accused (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=S12828&position=all) the Bush administration of having "gilded the lily" on pre-war Iraq intelligence at "the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at the least the administration that cried wolf."
In a December 7, 2003, appearance on ABC's This Week, Clinton said of the Bush administration's handling of the war: "[T]here were a lot of miscalculation and, frankly, inept planning that we're now living with the consequences." She went on to say, "I regret the way the president has used the authority" given to him by Congress.
Further, on the August 29, 2004, edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/29/le.00.html) of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Clinton criticized the administration for taking the country to war on faulty premises. Referring to the Iraq war resolution -- which she voted for on October 10, 2002 -- Clinton said, "f we had known then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote."
[I]Clinton has refused to "come out against" the Iraq war
Some media figures have depicted Clinton as hesitant to oppose the war. For instance, on the February 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said of Clinton, "I'm sick of what`s going on in Iraq. I wish she would come out against it." But as Bob Somerby noted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020907.shtml) on his blog, The Daily Howler, Clinton had clearly stated a week earlier that she would end the war if elected president. Indeed, in a February 2 speech (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/02/politics/p132932S78.DTL&type=politics), she said, "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."
Further, Clinton co-sponsored (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2006_record&page=S6204&position=all) and was one of 38 Democrats who voted in favor (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109 &session=2&vote=00182) of a resolution by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI), introduced on June 19, 2006, calling on the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006.
"DISHONEST"
Along with the media's frequent characterization of Clinton as calculating is their propensity to question her honesty. In a particularly absurd example, then-New York Times reporter Anne E. Kornblut suggested (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701170004) on January 16 that Clinton had faked a cell phone call in order to avoid speaking to reporters.
Following are other examples of media figures baselessly attempting to depict Clinton as having lied or deceived the public.
Clinton lied about why she voted for 2002 Iraq war resolution
In a January 31 column (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/493272p-415451c.html), New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin claimed that Clinton has "lied about her reasons for" supporting the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Goodwin highlighted Clinton's recent statements that Bush "said at the time he was going to the United Nations to put inspectors back into Iraq, to figure out whether they still had any WMD," and that he "took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it." Asserting that this account is "not even within spitting distance of being true," Goodwin went on to claim that Clinton did not express any concern about the Bush administration's drive to war during the five months between the October 2002 vote and the March 2003 invasion. He noted that several members of Congress had "urged Bush to let weapons inspectors finish their work," adding that "Clinton was not recorded as being part of that effort."
In fact, during those five months, Clinton repeatedly expressed her support for further U.N. inspections. For instance, in a January 31, 2003, letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, she wrote (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/hillary-responds-to-wsj-iraq-smear.html):
If our words about supporting UN inspectors have any meaning and if we truly want the United Nations to be effective, we must act to support the UN arms inspectors and act to unite the UN Security Council behind the use of U2 aircraft in Iraq ... Additionally if we are truly serious about supporting the UN inspections we should increase our intelligence support to the inspectors.
Further, a March 3, 2003, Associated Press article quoted Clinton stating that she would prefer further inspections over military action. "It is preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection," Clinton said. The AP went on to report that she "said the Bush administration still had work to do at convincing the American public and the rest of the world that Hussein presented a real threat that might require military action."
Clinton moved up '08 announcement because of Obama
Following Clinton's January 20 presidential exploratory announcement, numerous media figures suggested (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701230011) that she had accelerated the announcement in reaction to that of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) four days earlier. But such claims ignored news accounts preceding Obama's entry into the race reporting (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701197.html?nav=rss_politi cs/elections) that Clinton was expected to launch her presidential exploratory committee in January. Some media figures went so far as to portray Clinton as willfully covering up this purported change of plans. Chuck Todd, editor of National Journal's The Hotline, asserted that the allegation that Clinton changed her plans "certainly seems" to be true but her aides would "never admit (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701210002)" it.
Clinton taped her '08 announcement months ago
Some conservatives in the media -- including CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck, Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Steve Doocy, and Limbaugh -- pointed to the green foliage in the background of Clinton's announcement video in order to suggest (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701230009) that she had shot it months earlier. This attempt to cast Clinton as dishonest about the timing of her decision to run for president disintegrated, however, as The Washington Post (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013100469.html) and others (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill0121,0,6894207.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines) confirmed that Clinton had shot the video on January 18 at her Washington, D.C., home. Regarding the foliage specifically, the Post reported: "Sources familiar with the landscaping have identified those plants as small azaleas and nandina shrubs, still vibrant because of last month's unusually mild temperatures."
Clinton won't admit that her "evil men" comment was directed at her husband
Most recently, media figures have taken to speculating about whom Clinton was referring to when, in response to a January 28 question about her ability to deal with dictators, she jokingly answered, "And what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men?" The hypotheses regarding the "men" Clinton had in mind have ranged from former President Bill Clinton to Osama bin Laden to former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, and so on, as Media Matters has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702010001). But media figures have also accused her in this context of dishonesty. Indeed, on January 30, when asked by Pat Buchanan why the media had latched on to Clinton's joke, Chris Matthews answered (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904766/): "Because she won't honestly admit what she does. ... [S]he won't admit that was a joke about Bill."
Clinton planted Spencer plastic surgery story
During Clinton's 2006 re-election campaign, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson suggested that the senator had planted a story about a purported smear of her in order to garner sympathy among New York voters. On October 23, the New York Daily News reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/464422p-390714c.html) that former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, Clinton's Republican opponent, had said Clinton "used to be ugly -- and speculates she got 'millions of dollars' in plastic surgery" -- a comment Spencer later denied having made. Following the publication of the Daily News story, Carlson claimed (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610240009) that it "almost seems like a plant" by the Clinton campaign, because "that's how she wins in every case, when people think she's wronged."
"VICIOUS" and "RUTHLESS"
The repeated characterization of Clinton as calculating is also accompanied by the media's tendency to portray her as vicious and ruthless. For instance, Matthews has described her as a "sort of Madame Defarge of the left (http://mediamatters.org/items/200504250004)." Media figures such as MSNBC host Don Imus and conservative radio host Jay Severin have bashed her as a "buck-toothed witch (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250001)," "Satan (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250001)," and "the devil (http://mediamatters.org/items/200506280005)." Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly suggested (http://mediamatters.org/items/200509210002) that Clinton had then-deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster murdered while she was first lady.
In concert with this characterization, many in the media have predicted that she will ruthlessly (http://mediamatters.org/items/200612190010) attack (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701030007) her fellow Democratic candidates in the 2008 presidential race. Most recently, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240005) Clinton's seat at Bush's January 23 State of the Union address the "perfect spot" because she sat directly behind Obama and "could have inserted the knife right there without even being detected."
Following are examples of media figures baselessly accusing Clinton of having either smeared her political opponents or viciously attacked a person or group of people for her own political advancement.
Clinton was behind madrassa smear against Obama
The concept of Clinton's no-holds-barred campaign strategy reached an apex following Obama's January 16 presidential exploratory announcement when a smear regarding his religious background circulated throughout the media. From Media Matters' recent examination (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300007) of the manufactured scandal, which originated with a conservative website and was later debunked by CNN and others:
On January 17, InsightMag.com published an article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm) claiming that "researchers connected to" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) disclosed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." The story claimed that "sources close to [a] background check," which was supposedly "conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton," said that "[t]he idea is to show Obama as deceptive." These "sources" also speculated that the "the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended" might have taught "a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims." The InsightMag.com story also noted that in each of his two books, Obama "mentions but does not expand on his Muslim background." The article cited only anonymous sources. By January 19, the story had been picked up by conservative media figures and given prominent play on major television networks, such as CNN Headline News and Fox News.
Conservative efforts to raise questions about Obama's Muslim heritage had, in fact, begun days earlier. Indeed, on January 9 -- a week before the InsightMag.com article -- Chicago Tribune metro columnist Eric Zorn wrote (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/01/be_careful_be_v.html) on the Tribune's Change of Subject weblog, "The crazies are sending around an e-mail that attempts to establish that Barack Obama is actually a Muslim who masquerades as a Christian for political advantage." But following the publication of the InsightMag.com article, numerous right-wing media figures repeated (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701200003) the entirely unsubstantiated accusation that Clinton's campaign staff was responsible for spreading the madrassa allegation against Obama. Several Fox News hosts repeated the claim that Clinton had "outed Obama's madrassa past." Rush Limbaugh declared, "This is Hillary's team doing this." And conservative radio host Melanie Morgan asserted that Clinton "is going to try to derail the [Obama] train before it gets out of the station." As recently as January 30, Fox News political analyst Dick Morris persisted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300009) in leveling this baseless accusation.
Clinton leaked Obama drug story
The recent attempts to tie Clinton to the madrassa story recall an earlier suggestion (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701040011) by Hannity and conservative columnist Robert D. Novak that Clinton was behind a supposed "leak[]" to the press about Obama's admitted past drug use. But Obama himself disclosed that he had used drugs in his 1995 memoir, Dreams of My Father, as Media Matters noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701040011).
Clinton is anti-Semitic
Numerous conservative media figures have in recent years advanced discredited accusations suggesting that Clinton is anti-Semitic. For instance, right-wing radio host Debbie Schlussel claimed that Clinton, during a trip to the West Bank in 1999, did not make "a peep (http://mediamatters.org/items/200606160004)" when Suha Arafat, wife of former Palestinian National Authority president Yasir Arafat, stated that Israelis "poison Palestinian water and air and cause cancer for them." In fact, an October 6, 2000, New York Times article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2000/100600d.htm) reported that Clinton disavowed Arafat's remarks after receiving an official translation "hours later."
More recently, conservative radio host Dennis Prager revived (http://mediamatters.org/items/200608020008) the allegation that Clinton made "private remarks that were anti-Semitic" more than three decades ago. But these allegations were originally advanced (http://mediamatters.org/items/200506090002#20060802) by former President Bill Clinton's 1974 congressional campaign manager, who has reportedly "admitted to leveling charges 'without factual foundation' against the Clintons in the past." Moreover, Sen. Clinton biographer Gail Sheehy, author of Hillary's Choice (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780345436566) (Random House, 1999), told (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/18/politics/main216489.shtml) the Associated Press that she did not include the accusation because the source was "only moderately reliable" and "kind of flaky," and because "even he didn't back it up."
"UNELECTABLE"
Perhaps the most frequent line of attack against Clinton's political prospects is the assertion that she is unelectable. Media figures have offered various rationales to support this claim -- that Democratic voters would never nominate her, that she could not win a general election, that female voters will not support her, that her association with former President Bill Clinton would prove too big a liability. But recent polling rebuts each of these arguments.
Clinton can't win the Democratic primary
A recent Newsweek article declared (http://mediamatters.org/items/200612180007) that Clinton's polling numbers "will need to change for Democratic primary voters -- now comfortable with assessing electability -- to move her way." But contrary to claims that Democratic voters are yet to "move her way," recent polls show her leading her potential primary opponents:

A January 16-19 Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_012007.htm) asked Democratic or Democratic-leaning respondents: "If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?" Forty-one percent of respondents said they would vote for Clinton. Obama received the second-greatest amount of support, with 17 percent, followed by former Sen. John Edwards (NC) with 11 percent.
A Time magazine poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1582130,00.html) released on January 25 found that Clinton led Obama among registered Democratic voters by a margin of 40 percent to 21 percent. Edwards came in third with 11 percent of Democratic respondents saying they would vote for him.
A January 25-28 Gallup poll surveyed 504 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters and found that 29 percent (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26335) backed Clinton for the nomination, while 18 percent supported Obama, and 13 percent chose Edwards. Clinton can't win the general election
On the December 29, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews claimed (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701020007) that Clinton would not "do so well" in "the center of the country, Ohio, Michigan, those kinds of states where people own guns and boats and have a certain attitude towards modern women." But recent polls conducted in both Ohio and Michigan found that Clinton leads in head-to-head matchups with the current Republican front-runners:

A Quinnipiac University poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1009) released January 30 found that, among Ohio voters, Clinton leads Arizona Sen. John McCain (46 percent to 42 percent), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (46 percent to 43 percent), and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (52 percent to 31 percent).
A [I]Detroit Free Press poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070203/NEWS06/70203020/1002/BUSINESS) released February 3 found that, among Michigan voters, Clinton leads McCain (46 percent to 43 percent) and Giuliani (46 percent to 42 percent). Further undermining claims that Clinton could not win the general election are several recent polls showing her beating potential Republican opponents at the national level:

The January 16-19 Post/ABC poll also found Clinton outpolling McCain (50 percent to 45 percent) and Giuliani (49 percent to 47 percent).
A Newsweek poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16829011/site/newsweek/) conducted January 24-25, showed Clinton outpolling McCain (50 percent to 44 percent), Giuliani (49 percent to 46 percent), and Romney (56 percent to 37 percent). Clinton can't win because of ambivalent female voters
In a January 28 Post opinion article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601626.html), retired women's studies professor Linda Hirshman suggested that because "white, married women" are generally less engaged in politics than men -- and, thus, often consult their husbands when deciding on their vote -- they may not strongly support Clinton's candidacy. But recent polls appear to undermine Hirshman's theory, showing that Clinton currently derives much of her support from female voters:

The Post/ABC poll found (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301593.html) that "Clinton receives significantly higher support among women than men." Indeed, 49 percent of the Democratic or Democratic-leaning women surveyed said they would vote for Clinton over 12 other potential candidates from her party, while 29 percent of men supported her.
An American Research Group (ARG) poll released February 3 found that, among females likely to vote Democratic in the 2008 Iowa caucus, 56 percent would support Clinton. As ARG president Richard Bennet said on the February 5 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, "[S]he owns the women's vote at the moment." Clinton can't win because of her husband
Some in the media have suggested that Sen. Clinton's association with her husband, Bill Clinton, may represent a liability as she vies for the White House. For instance a December 17, 2006, Washington Post article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600894_pf.html) reported that the former president "could be a massive and messy distraction" on the campaign trail. But as Media Matters noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200612180006), the Post offered no concrete evidence that he is anything but an asset to his wife. Moreover, a May 2006 Post/ABC poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm) found that a strong majority -- 60 percent -- of Americans think Bill Clinton has "about the right amount" of political influence on Hillary Clinton, while just 9 percent thought he has too much influence. The same poll found that 47 percent of respondents stated that the way Sen. Clinton handled the Monica Lewinsky controversy had "not much impact" on their level of respect for her, and 34 percent respected her more for her handling of the situation.
"UNLIKABLE"
Conservative media figures are not shy in expressing their negative feelings toward Clinton. Time blogger Andrew Sullivan recently referred to her "cootie vibes (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701290006)" and declared, "I just can't stand her." MSNBC host Joe Scarborough described her as "very shrill (http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140012)." Glenn Beck previously labeled her the "Antichrist (http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080001)." But the expression of such views is not limited to conservatives. The Hotline's blog, On Call, posted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702030002) excerpts from speeches by several Democratic hopefuls at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting. But, while Clinton was by no means the only speaker to raise her voice, she was the only one described by On Call as striking a "discordant note."
Many in the media believe that most Americans -- including many Democrats -- also harbor unfavorable opinions of her. For instance, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes claimed on the December 9 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys that, in the eyes of the "Democratic hordes," Clinton is "not very likable." And San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders said on the January 28 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, "A lot of people don't think that she's very likable."
But recent polling data do not support these assumptions:

The January 25 Time poll found that 58 percent of respondents viewed Clinton positively. The poll also found that more respondents would choose to have dinner with her than with any of the other 2008 presidential candidates. Indeed, 26 percent chose Clinton as a dinner companion, while 15 percent named Obama and 15 percent picked McCain.
The recent Post/ABC poll similarly found that 54 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Clinton. (Nonetheless, media figures such as New York Times reporter Patrick Healy (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701210003#back) and National Public Radio's (NPR) Juan Williams (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701220005) misrepresented the poll results to claim that she received a favorability rating of 41 percent. Healy even reported that this figure had concerned "[s]everal New York and Hollywood donors.") "UNQUALIFIED"
In discussing Clinton's presidential prospects, some media figures have baselessly called into question her qualifications for the job. Most common is the suggestion that Clinton could not have become a U.S. senator and a contender for the White House if it were not for her marriage to former President Bill Clinton. During a January 22 interview with Sen. Clinton, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked, "You are a strong, credible female candidate for president of the United States, and I mean no disrespect in this, but would you be in this position were it not for your husband?" Similarly, on the January 31 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh asserted, "She is not a brilliant woman. She's not the smartest woman in the world. She is a hack!" He went on to ask, "f her name was Hillary Smith, would anybody be talking about her as a presidential candidate?"
Others, such as blogger Andrew Sullivan, have questioned whether Clinton possesses the political skills to win a presidential election. On the February 2 edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/02/02.php#12646) of NPR's [I]The Diane Rehm Show, Sullivan asserted that when Clinton "gets up in front of an audience, by and large, she bombs. She is a terrible orator. She does not have her husband's capacity to wow a crowd. Up against Obama, it's almost excruciating how uncomfortable she is in public." Sullivan added: "I don't think she's a good public politician."
Recent polling, however, shows that Democrats have significant confidence in Clinton's abilities as both a candidate and a potential president:

The January 31 Gallup poll found that 61 percent (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26332) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning respondents picked Clinton over Obama and Edwards as the "most qualified to be president."
Gallup also asked respondents to pick which of these three candidates would best handle the major issues facing the country. On nine of these 10 issues (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26335) -- including health care, education, the economy, terrorism, and Iraq -- a plurality named Clinton as the most capable.
A Fox News poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/020107_2008_Super_Bowl_web2.pdf#pag e=5) conducted January 30-31 found that when asked to choose which of seven potential Democratic and Republican candidates would be "toughest when it comes to terrorism," more respondents picked Clinton than any other. Regarding her political abilities, the January 31 Gallup poll found that 57 percent (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26332) of respondents thought Clinton would perform better than Edwards and Obama in debates. And 41 percent picked her as the best public speaker -- slightly less than Obama, whom 44 percent favored as an orator.
Claims that Clinton is not a capable candidate are also belied by the results of her two Senate victories in New York. In 2000, Clinton garnered 55 percent of the vote over her Republican opponent's 43 percent. And in 2006, Clinton made significant gains among New York voters, winning re-election with 67 percent of the vote and holding her GOP opponent to just 31 percent. Furthermore, Clinton's support was spread across the state, where she won in all but four counties (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/elections/2006/general/2006_ussen.pdf), including many in the more conservative upstate region. As The New York Times reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/08/news/hillary.php) on November 8, 2006, during her first term in the Senate, Clinton appeared to overcome New Yorkers' doubts about her abilities and intentions:
Six years ago, many voters, particularly upstate, were leery of her, and skeptical of what this woman from Arkansas, this former first lady with the outsized persona whose relationship with her husband had been the subject of endless scrutiny, wanted from New York.
After a full Senate term, even her opponents did not make an issue of her not being a native New Yorker. Her sizable victory reflected just how deftly Clinton had managed to balance her high profile with the day-to-day work of the Senate, winning the respect of even Republican colleagues who less than a decade ago were trying to impeach her husband, Bill Clinton.

[chronomic]

hillary would make a great president....












...for me to poop on!

[Jason Tate]

On the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper baselessly claimed that an "inherent contradiction" exists between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) statements prior to her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq and her recent explanation of that vote. Specifically, Tapper juxtaposed Clinton's comment during a September 15, 2002, interview that she could "support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security," with this February 11, 2007, statement: "I gave [President Bush] authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war." In fact, Clinton did specifically argue in favor of inspections during the very interview from which Tapper quoted. Further, in a Senate floor speech before the 2002 vote, Clinton stated explicitly that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and that she did not view her support for the measure as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism."
Tapper asserted that Clinton has contradicted herself on Iraq during a segment comparing the "campaign styles" of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). From Tapper's report, which appeared on the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline:
TAPPER: Clinton assails the war she voted for to appeal to anti-war liberals.
CLINTON: It is, without a doubt, one of the most painful challenges that we have faced in our country because of the arrogance and incompetence of our administration in Washington.
TAPPER: While Obama seems more centrist than his record and views would indicate, Clinton is clearly running to the left. This is what she said about her vote to authorize use of force in Iraq one month before she cast it in 2002.
CLINTON: I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security.
TAPPER: This is what she tells Democratic audiences today.
CLINTON: I gave him authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war.
TAPPER: With that inherent contradiction, Clinton faced some tough questions this weekend.
As presented by Tapper, the quote from the 2002 edition of Meet the Press, without more context, leaves the impression that Clinton unequivocally supported pre-emptive military action against Iraq. That impression is false. Tapper juxtaposed that with the 2007 quote -- "I gave him authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war" -- pronouncing her statements inherently contradictory.
But as the full Meet the Press interview and her explanation of the vote show, Clinton did voice several assumptions regarding how the Bush administration would proceed, including that full inspections would occur and that the United States would not engage in "any new doctrine of pre-emption." At the beginning of the Meet the Press interview, Clinton made clear that she believed that it was important that inspectors be sent to Iraq and that "it's important to continue down the United Nations' track, to do everything possible to get as much international support and buy-in as we can." From the interview:
CLINTON: I doubt it. But I do appreciate greatly the president going to the United Nations, making the case, which is really the United Nations' case. And I listened carefully to Secretary [of State Colin] Powell. It's apparent that he's working very hard with the Security Council to come up with a resolution that will set forth an ultimatum, perhaps demand the reintroduction of inspectors and set forth an authorization for force in the event that that doesn't happen.
TIM RUSSERT (host): You would prefer one resolution with those three components?
CLINTON: Well, I'm going to leave that to the secretary and his negotiators. Obviously, that would make it cleaner and faster for everyone, and I hope that's what can come from it. But I know he's working as hard as he can.
[...]
CLINTON: I do think that it's important to continue down the United Nations' track, to do everything possible to get as much international support and buy-in as we can. I think that's important for the ultimate objective, but then we're going to wait to see how this unfolds over the next several of weeks.
Clinton further explained her position in a Senate floor statement (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all) on October 10, 2002 -- the day before the Senate approved (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107 &session=2&vote=00237) the Iraq resolution:
CLINTON: Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular, democratic state in the Middle East, one which could, perhaps, move the entire region toward democratic reform. ... However, this course is fraught with danger ... If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us ... So, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, is not a good option.
Clinton advocated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10289&position=all) that the Bush administration seek a U.N. resolution calling for "complete, unlimited inspections," adding that if Saddam ultimately did not comply with the strict U.N. measure, "we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy":
CLINTON: While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. ... If we get the resolution the President seeks, and Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated ... If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
Clinton went on to acknowledge that the Iraq resolution was "not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first," but stated that she trusted Bush would gain a U.N. resolution requiring full inspections before proceeding with military action:
CLINTON: Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.
Finally -- just as she claimed in the 2007 statement included in the ABC report -- Clinton clarified that her vote in favor of the Iraq resolution did not represent support "for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism":
CLINTON: This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. ... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.

[Daveyhavok832]

She's a bitch, I disagree with her politically, and find it offensive that she's hired people to try and convince me she gives a fuck about my religion.

I believe you do not inform yourself and have no idea about her political ideology or strives she has made to help our country and the world... that is why you resort to calling her a bitch.

[Blocked_Signals]

Dude.....I JUST made a topic about this. lol.
I need to be more observent. sorry.

[myworstmistakes]

People don't like her because she is a strong willed woman, they are intimidated, sexist and afraid.
I'm not saying that she is deserving of the presidency, but people assume that she is a bitch simply because she is a woman in power... it's amazing how sexism still exists

couldn't have said it better myself.

[rikfrommf]

thats the problem with a female candidate
if you dont vote for her, or speak against her, you'll be called a sexist.
the thing that scares me the most is masses of women going and voting for the first woman on the ballot just cause shes a woman. i have no problem with a woman president, just give me a qualified one. and before someone says, George Bush is a man and he sucks. that is not an excuse to just throw a woman in there and has no relevance in this conversation.

agreed. Also to me it seems like she made the deal with Bill that she wouldnt divorce him if he helped her become president. I liked Bill Clinton. Alot. I still do. Scandal or not, he ran the country well. Hillary however isnt a "clinton" shes married to one. She doesnt have leadership experience. (senate term isnt really leadership)

[music3chick]

i really don't know what she stands for, so i can't say if i would vote for her or not

[Jason Tate]

i really don't know what she stands for, so i can't say if i would vote for her or not
www.ontheissues.org

[angelusdomini]

eight more years experience in the white house than any other candidate...

but I like Barack Obama

good point, i never thought about this.

But she is a ruthless power-seeking bitch.
She will drive Barack right out of the run on the democratic side of the business.

[oldwirehands]

Its either her or Obama. I still have a lot of research to do on the canidates but as far as I know, one of these two will get my vote. I am most definitely sick of conservative religious assholes who think they're always right. What wrong with opening your mind to different ideas? Got a problem with progress?

[downisthenewup]

ellect hillary and we'll soon be going the way of every other great fallen empire.

[rikfrommf]

ellect hillary and we'll soon be going the way of every other great fallen empire.

Not sure where you are going with this... but I don't like her either... but she IS still better than Bush.

[rikfrommf]

good point, i never thought about this.

But she is a ruthless power-seeking bitch.
She will drive Barack right out of the run on the democratic side of the business.

I hope not. I don't like how she is running the same campaign as every other democrat that has run in the past. I like to feel involved, Americans like to feel important, and being a part of a winning team makes you feel important. I like candidates who are smart and realize this, but also care for the people.

[aminorthreat55]

ellect hillary and we'll soon be going the way of every other great fallen empire.
We're already on the way chief.

[Jason Tate]

ellect hillary and we'll soon be going the way of every other great fallen empire.
9/10 of the previous fallen empires were ran by males.

[Jason Tate]

On the February 17 edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252768,00.html) of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report, host and Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot pointed to three brief statements by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- from a 2002 Senate floor statement, a 2004 interview on CNN's Larry King Live, and a 2007 speech -- as examples of her alleged "marked turn to the left" on the Iraq war. Gigot went on to ask Journal columnist Bret Stephens to comment on Clinton's argument that her 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution was not intended to serve as "a blank check for President Bush," but rather to "give the president more leverage" in the weapons inspection process. Stephens responded that this argument is "disingenuous" and claimed that Clinton "supported the war for a very long time, including after it became clear that weapons of mass destruction were probably not going to be found in Iraq." As proof, Stephens cited the quote from the 2004 CNN interview, in which Clinton stated that she "did not regret" voting for the 2002 resolution "because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction."
But Gigot and Stephens both ignored Clinton's subsequent statements during that same interview, which make clear she did not "support[] the war" at the time. Indeed, Clinton went on to say that she regretted "the way the president used the authority" granted him by the 2002 resolution and criticized his "short-circuiting of the inspections process" and his "failure to plan ... for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein." Further, in selectively quoting Clinton, Gigot ignored the part of her 2002 floor statement in which she stated she expected Bush to seek "complete, unlimited inspections" and did not view her support for the measure as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption."
Gigot began the segment -- titled "Hillary's Left Turn" -- with three brief quotes that he said represented "the arc of the senator's positions" on the issue:
GIGOT: As Senator Hillary Clinton vies for the Democratic presidential nomination, she is taking a marked turn to the left. Pressured by other candidates and by her party's left wing, when it comes to Iraq, the once-stalwart hawk is now embracing a get-out-fast strategy.
Let's take a look at the arc of the senator's positions on Iraq, starting with her speech on the Senate floor in 2002, endorsing the Iraq war resolution.
CLINTON [video clip]: So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote at that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him, use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, "This is your last chance, disarm or be disarmed."
GIGOT: Then we have a statement by the senator in 2004 when the war was growing more unpopular. But she said this: "I don't regret giving the president the authority, because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Unquote.
Now more recently, in 2007, to the Democratic National Committee.
CLINTON [video clip]: Nearly four years ago, our president rushed us into war in Iraq. If I had been president in October of 2002, I would have never asked for authority to divert our attention from Afghanistan to Iraq. And I certainly would never have started this war.
Gigot then asked Stephens to respond to Clinton's argument that she has been consistent on the issue. Stephens called this argument "disingenuous" and claimed she "supported the war ... [even] after it became clear" that no WMD would be found in Iraq:
GIGOT: The campaign now, in responding to this, is saying, "Look, that wasn't a blank check for President Bush. All that vote was was conditional. It was to influence Saddam Hussein, to give the president more leverage." What do you think of that argument?
STEPHENS: Well, she supported the war as the 2004 quote suggests. She supported the war for a very long time, including after it became clear that weapons of mass destruction were probably not going to be found in Iraq. So that's disingenuous.
But I think the real question you have to ask is: Which Hillary is real? And I think both answers are depressing.
But the full text of Clinton's 2004 interview suggests the opposite -- that while she stood by her 2002 vote, she strongly opposed the Bush administration's handling of both the pre-war inspections process and the conflict itself. From the April 20, 2004, edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/20/lkl.00.html) of CNN's Larry King Live:
LARRY KING (host): You voted for it, though, didn't you?
CLINTON: I voted for the authorization, and obviously I've thought about that a lot in the months since.
KING: Sorry you did?
CLINTON: No, I don't regret giving the president authority, because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.
What I regret is the way the president used the authority. I think that the short-circuiting of the inspections process, after going to the United Nations, and then basically not permitting the inspectors to finish whatever task they could have accomplished to demonstrate one way or the other what was there. The failure to plan is the most hard -- of all the things is the hardest for me to understand. I mean, how could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein? And there's just a number of questions that, you know, we still don't really have answers for.
Clinton went on to state that, while she believed the conflict "could have been handled differently," she supported "mak the best" of the situation in Iraq:
KING: So you favor us -- favor us being there?
CLINTON: Well, I favor the fact that now that we're there, we're going to have to make the best of it. I think it could have been handled differently. That's why I say I regret the way the president decided to use the authority.
And it's been bewildering to me, you know, the idea that they would reject out of hand all the planning that was done in the State Department, that they would, you know, basically ignore the warnings that so many people gave them about what would happen when the oppressive, you know, heavy hand of Saddam Hussein was lifted off. For the life of me, I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view about what was going to happen.
Clinton's comments during the 2004 interview are in concert with the expectations she laid out prior to voting in favor of the 2002 resolution. Indeed, as [I]Media Matters for America has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130010), elsewhere in the October 10, 2002, floor statement, Clinton stated explicitly that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and that she did not view her support for the measure as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism." From the statement:
CLINTON: While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. ... If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. ... If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
Clinton went on to acknowledge that the Iraq resolution was "not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first," but stated that she trusted Bush would gain a U.N. resolution requiring full inspections before proceeding with military action:
CLINTON: Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.
Further, she clarified that her vote in favor of the Iraq resolution did not represent support "for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism":
CLINTON: This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. ... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Gigot and Stephens' characterization of Clinton as having "supported the war" as late as 2004 before taking a "marked turn to the left" echoes a February 8 Wall Street Journal editorial, headlined "Hillary on Iraq: From stalwart hawk to get out fast (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009637)." In that piece, the Journal cited the same three quotes -- from 2002, 2004, and 2007 -- as evidence that Clinton is "steadily, even rapidly, moving" in the direction of the "antiwar left." Additionally, the Journal noted Clinton's remarks following the December 14, 2003, capture of Saddam Hussein as proof of her support for the war at the time. During a December 15, 2003, speech (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6600) before the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton had said she "was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured," and added, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote." But while Clinton celebrated Saddam's capture and again stood by her October 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution, she at no point in this speech expressly supported the conflict. To the contrary, she went on to note her "many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used" and criticized Bush's unwillingness to further "internationalize our presence" in Iraq. Moreover, as the Clinton camp noted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/hillary-responds-to-wsj-iraq-smear.html) in response to the Journal editorial, Clinton had assailed Bush's execution of the war in separate comments that month. Indeed, she had criticized the White House for "miscalculation" and "inept planning," and asserted that "the administration has from the very beginning not leveled with the American people."

[Jason Tate]

In a February 21 guest commentary (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77B A05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F79 1&tier=4&id=9FDDFF17DAD5424A86D4DF952E348DAF ) for the website InsightMag.com, Joseph Beaudoin, described by the website as an "author and former investment banker," claimed that during her February 1 speech (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/8.aspx) at the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting, "[Sen.] Hillary Rodham Clinton [D-NY] declared that her energy policy rests on the nationalization of America's oil companies." Beaudoin claimed Clinton's remarks were not "[t]houghtless words taken out of context" and asserted her comments to be Clinton "finally showing her true color ... red as in Lenin. ... Red as in if you are successful I will confiscate your property and, because I know how to utilize it better than you do, society will be better off. Red as in communism." Beaudoin's characterization of Clinton's energy policy echoes that of Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron, who said her policy would be unpopular with "capitalists."
In fact, in her February 1 remarks, Clinton proposed "to take" the oil industry's record profits and "put them into a Strategic Energy Fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy ... that will begin to actually move us towards the direction of [energy] independence." In a May 23, 2006, speech (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=255982) at the National Press Club, Clinton unveiled a planthat she said would "reduc[e] our dependence on foreign oil by at least 50 percent by 2025." A press release (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=255988) accompanying her speech stated that her proposal provides for levying a "temporary fee" upon oil company "profits that exceed a 2000-2004 profit baseline." In her May 2006 speech, Clinton proposed instituting this tax "over the next two years" on oil companies that "reap huge benefits from unexpectedly high energy prices." According to the press release, the companies would "be required to pay a portion of their profits into the strategic energy fund," which would invest in alternative energies. The press release also stated that this "temporary fee," combined with "eliminat oil company tax breaks" and "ensur[ing] that oil companies pay their fair share of royalties for drilling on public lands," would "raise more than $50 billion to fund research, development and deployment of energy technologies that will reduce America's oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions."
As [I]Media Matters for America has previously noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702050003), while reporting on Clinton's DNC speech on the February 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron said that Clinton's "pledge to take oil company profits and put them into an energy fund" is "an idea not likely to go over well with capitalists." Cameron provided no evidence for his claim that Clinton's plan would "not likely go over well" with those, beyond the oil companies themselves, who believe that a capitalist economy in general is superior to other economic structures -- a proposition that presumably none of the major presidential hopefuls would contest.
InsightMag.com is the successor to Insight on the News, a biweekly magazine published (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washtimes.com/business/20040416-105402-2628r.htm) until April 2004 by News World Communications, the company controlled (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newsworld.asp) by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church that also owns The Washington Times and the wire service United Press International. The website describes (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirsect.asp?sid=38594B6394DE4F19898 978BA7D9517E6&nm=About+Us) itself as a "weekly Internet news magazine."
From Beaudoin's February 21 guest commentary (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77B A05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F79 1&tier=4&id=9FDDFF17DAD5424A86D4DF952E348DAF ) on InsightMag.com:
At the 2007 Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting in early February, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that her energy policy rests on the nationalization of America's oil companies. In her own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g)):
"The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund [sic: Strategic Energy Fund] that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."
Thoughtless words taken out of context, these are not. That was a prepared speech to the DNC. And, to make matters worse, the Democrats in attendance heartily applauded in a way reminiscent of Lenin's long-dead "useful idiots."
The inventor of the "vast right wing conspiracy" is finally showing her true color. And it is red. Not red as in "red states" but red as in Lenin. Red as in if you are successful I will confiscate your property and, because I know how to utilize it better than you do, society will be better off. Red as in communism.
From Clinton's February 1 speech (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/8.aspx) before the Democratic National Committee:
CLINTON: The same is true of energy independence. The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working to try to push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a Strategic Energy Fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us towards the direction of independence. And, I have to tell you, I am not running for president to put band-aids on our problems. I am running to ensure that we actually address them and meet them and get results here in our country, because we have to prove to ourselves, as well as the rest of the world, that we're still the most creative, the most innovative, most effective nation in the history of the world.

[Jason Tate]

On the February 17 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor Melanie Kirkpatrick declared that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has "moved to the right on abortion" and "also moved right on health care," but she offered no evidence to support these assertions. In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented (http://www.google.com/items/200702130005#abortion), Clinton has been a consistent supporter of abortion rights throughout her political career. The Chicago Tribune also noted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070125health,1,1717747.story?coll=c hi-news-hed) recently that Clinton "has made health care coverage for all a central theme" of her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president.
Critics often cite Clinton's views on reproductive choice as an example of her repositioning. For instance, MSNBC host Chris Matthews has described (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130003) Clinton as purportedly shifting her stance on abortion in a "transparent" effort to recover the so-called "values vote." He has also accused her of "trying to play it safe (http://mediamatters.org/items/200604240010)" on the issue by taking a "poll-tested path." Matthews pointed to her assertion in a July 25, 2006, speech that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" as an example of her purportedly changing position on the issue. But far from representing a point of departure from earlier statements, Clinton's 2006 remarks were consistent with those she made in a January 22, 1999, speech. While first lady, she said: "But all too often, generally because of the loudest voices, the American people don't hear explained the efforts that we're engaged in to continue to work with people from all different walks of life to make abortion safe, legal, and rare."
Other media figures, such as Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett, have claimed (http://mediamatters.org/items/200501260014) that in a January 24, 2005, speech, Clinton "appeared to soften her historically hard-line defense of current abortion law by praising the role that religious faith has played in promoting teen abstinence." But while Clinton did praise religion and teen abstinence in the speech and described abortion as "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," she at no point backed away from her defense of abortion rights and reiterated her support for keeping abortion legal. Referring to the Putting Prevention First Act (H.R. 4192 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR04192:@@@D&summ2=m&)), Clinton said: "It provides a roadmap to the destination of fewer unwanted pregnancies -- to the day when abortion is truly safe, legal, and rare." Moreover, as Media Matters noted (http://www.google.com/items/200501260014#village), in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.simonsays.com/content/content.cfm?sid=33&pid=406135) (Simon & Schuster), Clinton wrote, "I think we need to do everything in our power to discourage sexual activity and encourage abstinence."
Further, on January 27, the Tribune quoted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070125health,1,1717747.story?coll=c hi-news-hed) Clinton stating that universal health care would be a central theme to her presidential bid:
"One of the goals that I will be presenting ... is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American," Clinton said on Sunday. "That's a very major part of my campaign."
From the February 17 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report:
GIGOT: So assuming that she needs to do this -- that is, move left on the war to win the Democratic presidential nomination -- it's going to hurt her in the general election potentially, if she gets it?
KIRKPATRICK: Oh -- yeah, absolutely. It's just another example, as [Journal editorial page deputy editor] Dan [Henninger] is suggesting, of her lacking the courage of her convictions. She's moved to the right on abortion, she's -- to the extent that no one less than Kate Michelman is supporting John Edwards instead of the female candidate.
GIGOT: Former head of the National Abortion Rights [Action] League [now NARAL Pro-Choice America].
KIRKPATRICK: Yes. And she's also moved right on health care and so, the question has to arise among the voters' minds: What does she stand for?
GIGOT: All right, thanks, Melanie.

[Tre~Cool]

Hate. Very much so hate. She is barely one step above Bush on the retard scale. And almost twice as annoying.

[thejetstolehome]

what a great contribution to the discussion.

:rolleyes:

[EightyTwo]

I don't like Clinton. Ralph Nader said he would run if Clinton won the Democratic nomination.

[utossthatsalad]

naw shes a crack house whore

[senatorlamb]

naw shes a crack house whore

you're an idiot.

[utossthatsalad]

you're an idiot.

says u

[senatorlamb]

says u

yes. correct. I called you an idiot.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

naw shes a crack house whore

says u


you're a captain on your middle school debate team arent you?

[utossthatsalad]

you're a captain on your middle school debate team arent you?

nope, and im not even in high school so that wouldnt work

[senatorlamb]

nope, and im not even in high school so that wouldnt work

MODS! bant plez :-)

[utossthatsalad]

yes. correct. I called you an idiot.

well of course u know u did i didnt say u didnt

[utossthatsalad]

MODS! bant plez :-)

wha

[utossthatsalad]

haha i mean middle school

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

haha i mean middle school


yea i know you arent, it was one of those.....jokes
in any event, you cant vote, and are contributing nothing to the discussion
was there a reason you decided to post?

[utossthatsalad]

yea i know you arent, it was one of those.....jokes
in any event, you cant vote, and are contributing nothing to the discussion
was there a reason you decided to post?

ya i know i cant vote but i try 2 pay attention 2 whats going on anyways, and i dont like her so i just felt i needed to type that

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

ya i know i cant vote but i try 2 pay attention 2 whats going on anyways, and i dont like her so i just felt i needed to type that


so after "paying attention" you decided you didnt like her, and that is how you chose to express it?

[utossthatsalad]

so after "paying attention" you decided you didnt like her, and that is how you chose to express it?

ya thats what i just said

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

o...ok
well i was gonna vote for her, but now that i know shes a "crack house whore", ill be sure not too
thanks

[utossthatsalad]

or u could not take things so seriously

[Lueda Alia]

or u could not take things so seriously
Please don't take this ban seriously.

[senatorlamb]

Please don't take this ban seriously.

wow. don't think I'm sucking up or anything, but you're amazing. haha. awesome. :-)

[thejetstolehome]

Please don't take this ban seriously.

haha, best banning line ever.

[Lueda Alia]

I'm glad you guys appreciate it. :-)

[Jason Tate]

In an article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17313110/site/newsweek/) for the March 5 edition of Newsweek about Maureen Dowd's controversial February 21 New York Times interview (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/opinion/14dowd.html) (subscription required) with Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a longtime donor to former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) who is supporting Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Evan Thomas reported that Dowd told the magazine, in Thomas' words, that during her interview with Geffen, "Geffen did not seem out to get the Clintons," adding: "Dowd says Geffen was initially reluctant to be interviewed for her column. ... Dowd says she was the one who brought up questions about Bill Clinton's past as a campaign issue."
Following their publication, Geffen's harsh personal comments on the Clintons have been the subject of countless media reports framed like the Newsweek piece, which carries the headline, "Fragged by an F.O.B. [Friend of Bill]" But that very same Newsweek piece went on to show that the circumstances surrounding the interview suggest it instead to apparently be little more than a proxy war waged by Dowd.
After goading Geffen, Dowd appears to have left out the fact that he was a source for a critical paragraph in the column, which she presented only as the negative views of other unnamed donors about the Clintons.
In her Times column, Dowd wrote:
Terry McAuliffe and First Groupie Bill have tried to hoard the best A.T.M. machine in politics for the Missus, but there's some Clinton fatigue among fatigued Clinton donors, who fret that Bill will "pull the focus" and shelve his wife's campaign.
But according to Newsweek, after Dowd "brought up questions" about Bill Clinton:
Geffen acknowledged that some big donors and celebrity Clinton supporters were fretting, as Dowd put it, "that Bill will 'pull the focus' and shelve his wife's campaign."
Geffen also spoke to Newsweek, and he flatly contradicted both a key assertion Dowd quoted him making just a few days ago, as well as the wholly negative portrait of the Clintons Dowd painted from his comments. The lead Geffen quote in the Dowd column was, "Whoever is the nominee is going to win, so the stakes are very high." But Geffen told Newsweek: "I think Bill Clinton is a great guy. ... I support them both. I just don't think she can be elected president."

[write me a song]

i hope hillary wins. that would be so awesome.!:-D

[angelusdomini]

Please don't take this ban seriously.

hahahahaha.
You're my favorite.

[NotOkay,Promise]

I REALLY don't like her. Shes the oppisitte of me, I respect her views... But that doesn't mean I agree w/ them. If she wins, I won't be happy.

[rocktometal]

I REALLY don't like her. Shes the oppisitte of me, I respect her views... But that doesn't mean I agree w/ them. If she wins, I won't be happy.

Hillary wouldn't make a good President in my opinion.

[chronomic]

i hope hillary wins. that would be so awesome.!:-D

im gonna put a snuke up your sniz

[spiffymuffins]

i'm all for a woman pres.



http://www.fan2band.com/DynamicImages/64834_191_10_872.gif (http://www.fan2band.com/dynamiclink/64834_191_10_872)

[clover21]

I strongly dislike her. She has no business being in a presidential position. Maybe she should o to Oxford like Bill.

[BlueJackets]

HILARY!

and Bill as the first lady!

[PadraicPrincess]

hmm first black president or first female president.. hmm

[theguy77]

hahaha yeah hate. kind of like nancy pelosi. yes its great that shes the first woman and all, but why couldnt it have been a different woman? everyone seems to use this whole first woman crap as a gimmick and its a way to get the ignorant majority of america to vote blind of policy. all they say is "first woman and she opposes the war in iraq! wooo!" and she doesnt need good policy otherwise.

[dejaxentendu]

hilary is like elvis presley they only shoot her from the waist up when they pan an event

she is probs hiding some junk in her trunk and those pants suits arent that flattering

[Nowisnotthetime]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?ei=5090&en=fafaac090e276942&ex=1337313600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Clinton Moved Wal-Mart Board, but Only So Far

By MICHAEL BARBARO
In 1986, Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart, had a problem. He was under growing pressure from shareholders — and his wife, Helen — to appoint a woman to the company’s 15-member board of directors.

So Mr. Walton turned to a young lawyer who just happened to be married to the governor of Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is based: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton’s six-year tenure as a director of Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest company, remains a little known chapter in her closely scrutinized career. And it is little known for a reason. Mrs. Clinton rarely, if ever, discusses it, leaving her board membership out of her speeches and off her campaign Web site.

Fellow board members and company executives, who have rarely discussed her role in Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart’s only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business. On other topics, like Wal-Mart’s vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said.

Her years on the Wal-Mart board, from 1986 to 1992, gave her an unusual tutorial in the ways of American business — a credential that could serve as an antidote to Republican efforts to portray her as an enemy of free markets and an advocate for big government.

But that education came via a company that the Democratic Party — and its major ally, organized labor — has turned into a target, accusing it of offering unaffordable health insurance and mistreating its workers.

So rather than promote her board membership, Mrs. Clinton is now running from it, even returning a $5,000 campaign donation from the giant discount chain in 2005, citing “serious differences” with its practices. But disentangling herself from the company is harder than it may seem.

Despite her criticism, Mrs. Clinton maintains close ties to Wal-Mart executives through the Democratic Party and the tightly knit Arkansas business community. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, speaks frequently to Wal-Mart’s current chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., about issues like health care and even played host to Mr. Scott at the Clintons’ home in New York last July for a private dinner.

And several months ago, Mrs. Clinton helped broker a secret meeting between a top Wal-Mart executive and former Democratic operative, Leslie Dach, and leaders of the retailer’s longtime adversary at the United Food and Commercial Workers union, according to several people briefed on the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so publicly.

The goal of the meeting was to tamp down the rancor between the company and the union, which has set up a group, WakeUpWalMart.com, that has harshly criticized the chain and leaked embarrassing internal documents to the news media, though little progress has been made.

Mrs. Clinton declined to be interviewed for this article. In a statement, her spokesman said, “Wal-Mart is now one of the country’s largest employers, and Mrs. Clinton still believes it is important to try to influence the decisions they make because they can affect so many people.”

In Mrs. Clinton’s complex relationship with Wal-Mart, there are echoes of the familiar themes that have defined much of her career: the trailblazing woman, unafraid of challenging the men around her; the idealist pushing for complicated, at times expensive, reforms; and the political pragmatist, willing to accept policies she did not agree with to achieve her ends.

“Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No,” said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign.

“But,” Mr. Mauro added, “was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes.”

Mrs. Clinton was not Mr. Walton’s first choice. That honor belonged to a female executive at Nordstrom, the upscale department store. But Nordstrom opposed its employees sitting on a competitor’s board, so Wal-Mart turned instead to the 39-year-old Mrs. Clinton. They offered her about $15,000 a year for her time, generally four meetings a year.

She was a logical candidate: the wife of the governor, a Wal-Mart shareholder — with stock worth nearly $100,000 at one point — and a highly regarded lawyer at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in several cases.

But if her circumstances made her a natural choice for the board, her often liberal beliefs did not and she struggled to change the rigid, conservative culture at Wal-Mart, achieving modest results.

Early in her tenure, she pressed for information about the number of women in Wal-Mart’s management, worrying aloud that the company’s hiring practices might be discriminatory.

The data she received would have been troubling: by 1985, there was not a single woman among the company’s top 42 officers, according to “In Sam We Trust,” the 1998 book about Wal-Mart by Bob Ortega.

John E. Tate, who served as a director with Mrs. Clinton from 1988 to 1992, recalled that by her third board meeting Mrs. Clinton had announced “that you can expect me to push on issues for women. You know that. I have a reputation of trying to improve the status of women generally, and I will do it here.”

Mr. Walton appeared relieved to have a woman on the board to deflect criticism, telling shareholders during the annual meeting in 1987 that the company had a “strong willed young lady on the board now who has already told the board it should do more to ensure the advancement of women.”

Still, the board’s discussions did not translate into significant progress. By the late 1990s, after Mrs. Clinton had left the board, Wal-Mart had added a second female director, but the number of women in senior management remained paltry, according to company records. (Today, 23 percent of Wal-Mart’s top 300 corporate officers are women, but the company is fighting a lawsuit claiming sex discrimination by 1.6 million current and former female employees.)

Mrs. Clinton had greater success on environmental issues. At her request, Mr. Walton set up an environmental advisory group, which sent a series of recommendations to the company’s board.

When it came time to pick members, Mrs. Clinton, who led the advisory group, reached out to at least two colleagues from the McGovern presidential campaign — Mr. Mauro and Roy Spence, who headed an advertising firm in Texas that did extensive work for Wal-Mart.

Under her watch, the advisory group drew up elaborate plans. Consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling. Suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging. And Wal-Mart would build stores with energy-saving features.

Wal-Mart executives put much of the program into place. In 1993, for example, they opened an experimental “eco-store” in Kansas, with dozens of skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut.

One executive derided it as “Hillary’s store” because it was more expensive to build than the average Wal-Mart, but several of its features, like the skylights that cut energy bills by reducing the need for artificial lighting, were widely copied across the industry.

“We were on the leading edge of something that is being mandated now,” said Bill Fields, the head of merchandise at Wal-Mart in the early 1990s who worked closely with Mrs. Clinton on the environmental project.

For Wal-Mart, the largest employer in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton’s presence had obvious advantages: on matters big and small, the company had the ear of the governor’s wife.

For Mrs. Clinton, being a director at Wal-Mart gave her access to several of the state’s most powerful business executives. In the early 1980s, for example, Mr. Walton was instrumental in building support for a corporate tax program, pushed by Mrs. Clinton, that financed a major education overhaul in Arkansas, a signal achievement of her husband’s governorship.

Though she was passionate about issues like gender and sustainability, Mrs. Clinton largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions, board members said. Since its founding in 1962, Wal-Mart has fought unionization efforts at its stores and warehouses, employing hard-nosed tactics — like firing union supporters and allegedly spying on employees — that have become the subject of legal complaints against the company.

A special team at Wal-Mart handled those activities, but Mr. Walton was vocal in his opposition to unions. Indeed, he appointed the lawyer who oversaw the company’s union monitoring, Mr. Tate, to the board, where he served with Mrs. Clinton.

During their meetings and private conversations, Mrs. Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, said Mr. Tate and John A. Cooper, another board member.

“She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,” Mr. Tate said. “It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position.”

Mr. Tate, a prominent management lawyer who helped stop union drives at many major companies, said he worked closely with Mr. Walton to convince workers that a union would be bad for the company, personally telling employees when he visited stores that “the only people who need unions are those who do not work hard.”

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said, “Wal-Mart workers should be able to unionize and bargain collectively.”

[we live to love]

hate that bitchhhh

[thejetstolehome]

http://207.199.174.56/img/pvpcPUtdHN_495212942_f3eae433da_o.j pg (http://lolpresidents.com/photo.pl?id=406)

[thejetstolehome]

lolpresidents.com, ftw.

[Yes. And?]

i don't get why people hate her so much. her being a woman has some part in it, no doubt in my mind.

[thejetstolehome]

i don't hate her--well, too much. her shift to the right for this election has pissed me off to no end. i just thought that was funny.

[Love As Arson]

i don't get why people hate her so much. her being a woman has some part in it, no doubt in my mind.
Perhaps it is her hawkish positions on Iraq/Iran, her move to the right with regard to abortion, her support for neoliberal policies, her support for Israel's brutal policies, etc.

[Yes. And?]

that's fine. i don't like her shift either, but i guess she's gotta appeal to the general population or whatever.

i just feel a lot of the attacks on her are way too personal.

[Yes. And?]

Perhaps it is her hawkish positions on Iraq/Iran, her move to the right with regard to abortion, her support for neoliberal policies, her support for Israel's brutal policies, etc.
well, i didn't really mean why the left is opposed to her. i was talking about how rabid some conservatives are about attacking her.

[Nevuk]

Hey, YA? , is that a girl in your sig?

[thejetstolehome]

they're Conservatives and her last name is "Clinton." do the math.

[thatwasamoment]

demigod

[Nowisnotthetime]

HillDog gets fucking owned in Michael Moore's new movie.

[musicunderfire]

I hate politics b/c its a popularity thing... America isn't ready for a woman pres. just yet.

[Lueda Alia]

besides for her policies, she just rubs a lot of people the wrong way...i can't really explain it. i remember one time in particular when president bush was giving a speech and she was in attendance - at one point he made a mistake or something, and they showed her with this grin on her face and sort of laughing softly. my dislike of her was heightened by 10 fold during that - a lot of people don't like him and thats fine, but for a politican to act like that during a formal lecture by the president was so unprofessional - none of the other democrats were seen acting like that. that's just an abstract example - i forget the exact circumstances, etc....maybe someone else will know. also, i don't think any self-respecting woman would stay with their husband after the way he acted...that made me lose a ton of respect for her as well.
Haha self-respecting woman, huh? You know nothing about their relationship and it's not your place to judge them. Many, many people stay with their significant others even after they cheat. I guess it's worse when someone popular does it though.

You're saying the same BS that every religious conservative says to argue their dislike for Hillary. Come up with a good point, please.

[thatwasamoment]

If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her...unless she was up against Ron Paul.

[Lueda Alia]

haha okay, i'll make sure not to judge any of the candidates since i don't know any of them personally. i really do think it's my place to judge her, since she is attempting to become the leader of my country. i think there's a difference between looking at her as "someone popular" and as someone who is running for president of the u.s.a.

i think having affairs outside of marriage and publicly humiliating your wife with whom you have a daughter with kind of goes past any religious beliefs... yeah, i really don't think it's so much "BS religious conservative" thinking as much as it is common sense.
I don't see Conservatives getting on Bush's case for being an alcoholic, nor do I see them getting on Laura's case for killing someone. What gives?

I also don't see Conservatives getting on Giuliani's case as much for what he's done to his wives, which in my opinion is much worse than what Clinton did.

All I'm saying is that you are in no place to judge the decisions she makes regarding her family. That's all.

[Al Gore666]

Bush may be a dumbass president with no credentials, but even HE is better Then Hillary, i had to do a lot of studying on her this semester, as i chose her for my politics class...she is one SCARY Bitch.

[senatorlamb]

Bush may be a dumbass president with no credentials, but even HE is better Then Hillary, i had to do a lot of studying on her this semester, as i chose her for my politics class...she is one SCARY Bitch.

incorrect.

[slenygoodbi]

bill clinton did a heck of a job as president at least shell have someone to lean on?

id vote for her...but i cant...lol

[White Noise]

i think that people want a female president just to have a female president, not because of there political views or anything like that.

[lovelyladyluck7]

your next president has already been elected.

the clinton's are in the bush's pockets,.


love it or leave it, we're fucked.

[BAAAAH.]

She's a bitch, I disagree with her politically, and find it offensive that she's hired people to try and convince me she gives a fuck about my religion.

pretty much this person has it right. :]
and
she's just fucking creepy.

[Rebs]

Hate her.

Hate her flip-flopping and the Clinton political machine.

[(SceneNameHere)]

She's hired people to convince the conservative religious people (I'd fall under in there) that she's on their side and they should vote for her.

Conservative =/= Religious. You're a tool.

[GoWaitInTheCar]

Tate in 08' is catchy.

Btw Jason, I'm sure you already know and everyone else does too but congrats on making Blender magazine.

[Jason Tate]

Tate in 08' is catchy.

Btw Jason, I'm sure you already know and everyone else does too but congrats on making Blender magazine.
Thanks !

[boykosaurus]

what if every other one of her issues lines up with yours, except for the Israel issue? would you still not vote for her?

is that a personal thing or do you not like her politics?

i extend this question to people on the fence about mrs. clinton: if another candidate had the same views as Clinton does, would you vote for that candidate?

It all depends...

For example if Barack, Hillary, and all the other democratic candidates had the same exact platform, I believe one would vote for the candidate that connects on a very personal level with him/her. Even if the agendas of each candidate are different, I think a politician's personality greatly influences voters' decision on who they vote for. That being said, if Clinton shared the same exact views with the other democratic runners I'm not sure if I would vote for her. I don't think she is a bad person, but she hasn't necessarily - in my opinion - projected a very friendly image or personality. Barack has had my attention since the DNC in '04, and I think I would vote for him (or maybe another candidate, I really like Bill Richardson as well) because he has caught my attention and connected with me; and he did it before I cared to really know who Hillary was.

I don't know, when you ask it like that, it is a tough decision to make.

Also, it would be very unwise for a U.S. presidential candidate to be "anti-Israel" (I think "crtitical of Israel" is better terminology to use). Considering the strong ties our country shares with Israel, I don't think any candidate could win with a critical view of Israel

[boykosaurus]

Conservative =/= Religious. You're a tool.

I don't think he was implying that?

[essie]

It all depends...

For example if Barack, Hillary, and all the other democratic candidates had the same exact platform, I believe one would vote for the candidate that connects on a very personal level with him/her. Even if the agendas of each candidate are different, I think a politician's personality greatly influences voters' decision on who they vote for. That being said, if Clinton shared the same exact views with the other democratic runners I'm not sure if I would vote for her. I don't think she is a bad person, but she hasn't necessarily - in my opinion - projected a very friendly image or personality. Barack has had my attention since the DNC in '04, and I think I would vote for him (or maybe another candidate, I really like Bill Richardson as well) because he has caught my attention and connected with me; and he did it before I cared to really know who Hillary was.

I don't know, when you ask it like that, it is a tough decision to make.

Also, it would be very unwise for a U.S. presidential candidate to be "anti-Israel" (I think "crtitical of Israel" is better terminology to use). Considering the strong ties our country shares with Israel, I don't think any candidate could win with a critical view of Israel


I understand that it's important for a candidate to have a great personality that's relative to many Americans such as yourself, but I definitely don't feel that it's enough to support the country in the long run. Look what happened to Bush. Many people felt that he made a connection with them which, in turn, swayed their votes. Ultimately, it didn't matter because we're all in one hell of a rut. Obviously, there were other reasons as to why people voted for him, but I'm sure that his personality (as opposed to his leadership skills and beliefs) enabled him to become the president for 2 terms.

[thursday727]

i hate this woman
i don't think she'll live up to over half the things she says she'll do as president
a friend of lobbyist does not get my vote

i'm for Kucinich , the man is a genius

[thursday727]

hahaha oh god
http://www.hildog.com/

[Grybo]

socialist scum

[CurtyB]

socialist scum

hm?

[lightcollapse]

i love hilary, hooray! attn people who do'nt love hilary: you suck.

[lauren<3s music]

It all depends...

For example if Barack, Hillary, and all the other democratic candidates had the same exact platform, I believe one would vote for the candidate that connects on a very personal level with him/her. Even if the agendas of each candidate are different, I think a politician's personality greatly influences voters' decision on who they vote for. That being said, if Clinton shared the same exact views with the other democratic runners I'm not sure if I would vote for her. I don't think she is a bad person, but she hasn't necessarily - in my opinion - projected a very friendly image or personality. Barack has had my attention since the DNC in '04, and I think I would vote for him (or maybe another candidate, I really like Bill Richardson as well) because he has caught my attention and connected with me; and he did it before I cared to really know who Hillary was.

I don't know, when you ask it like that, it is a tough decision to make.

Also, it would be very unwise for a U.S. presidential candidate to be "anti-Israel" (I think "crtitical of Israel" is better terminology to use). Considering the strong ties our country shares with Israel, I don't think any candidate could win with a critical view of Israel


you nailed it. the problem with hilary is that she appears to be cold and calculating which is exactly what voters do not like, even when voting within their own party. obama is incredibly charasmatic and hilary needs to step it up if she wants to be able to connect to voters.

[lauren<3s music]

i hate this woman
i don't think she'll live up to over half the things she says she'll do as president
a friend of lobbyist does not get my vote

i'm for Kucinich , the man is a genius

1. most presidential candidates don't do 1/2 of the things they say they'll do. this is nothing new.
2. obviously you don't know the importance of lobbyists in the legislative process.
3. your boy isn't getting the nomination and doesn't have enough money to compete.

sorry but thats the way it is.

i can't believe i just defended hilary. ew.

[TheOtherAndrew]

I bet Hilary's glad she's getting support from this neck of the woods... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/20/hollywood-madam-big-fan-of-clinton/#comments)

[Syz]

1. most presidential candidates don't do 1/2 of the things they say they'll do. this is nothing new.
2. obviously you don't know the importance of lobbyists in the legislative process.
3. your boy isn't getting the nomination and doesn't have enough money to compete.

sorry but thats the way it is.

i can't believe i just defended hilary. ew.
You didn't

[grizbo]

I don't care who wins, as long as it isn't her.

[thejetstolehome]

I don't care who wins, as long as it isn't her.

why?

[grizbo]

why?

I guess I don't really have a reason. And I know I should learn more about her views before saying that. I think I just have a bad stereotype of her in the back of mind.

[thejetstolehome]

ok. follow your own advice.

[anarkistkris]

really?

politicians try to stay as moderate as possible when they run for office. If that means that they're trying to appeal to the religious beliefs of potential voters, then they will do it. Instead of hating her because she's "faking" liking your religion, why don't you look at the rest of the canidates and see what they are "faking"

[Al Gore666]

Fuck Hillary.

:}

[atticus1492]

Fuck Hillary.

:}

You have the worst username in the history of usernames.

[Al Gore666]

You have the worst username in the history of usernames.



HAHA.....i know...it twas to spite me politics teacher...i used it for everything.

[Name_Taken]

only females like her(dont comment me back about this, because you're just wasting your time). she would make a horrible president, and she will never be president. i don't even consider her a candidate because her winning elections is impossible.

[thejetstolehome]

only females like her(dont comment me back about this, because you're just wasting your time). she would make a horrible president, and she will never be president. i don't even consider her a candidate because her winning elections is impossible.

so i guess she never won those elections for NY senate? and that's why she's winning just about every single poll? she can never win, right? it's impossible? shut up. why do you think she'd make a horrible president? is it because she's a woman? is it becuase her last name is Clinton? is it because she's "too liberal" (which she isn't)? give a good reason that isn't just 'i hate Hillary.'

[Name_Taken]

so i guess she never won those elections for NY senate? and that's why she's winning just about every single poll? she can never win, right? it's impossible? shut up. why do you think she'd make a horrible president? is it because she's a woman? is it becuase her last name is Clinton? is it because she's "too liberal" (which she isn't)? give a good reason that isn't just 'i hate Hillary.'
i meant presidential elections, i didn't realize i would have to be that specific in a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE thread, damn. first things first, don't tell me to shutup. second, just seeing how you responded to my original post gives me a repulsive view towards you and i don't want to go into a deep and intelligent discussion with a person such as yourself. so i'll result in going along with the bolded questions quoted from your post, as a general response for you.

[yayfortoday]

yea lets elect a woman who has yeast infections ...id rather live in iraq in that case

[atticus1492]

yea lets elect a woman who has yeast infections ...id rather live in iraq in that case

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/bf/Lolwutpear.jpg

[AEast317]

stop that

[meliisssaaaa]

yea lets elect a woman who has yeast infections ...id rather live in iraq in that case

??

[TranscendTrends]

i have no problems with voting for a woman presidential candidate, but goddammit, i despise hillary clinton. she's been on the inside of the political game for 30+ years, which tells me that she has no real connections with normal americans. experience doesn't mean shit in my opinion (ex. dick cheney). she seems so eager to show that she is the manliest candidate in the democratic race, and her hawkish behaviors are frightening (most recently, the move in the senate to label iran''s rev. guards as a terrorist org.). she's too power-hungry for my liking, and i just don't like the oligarchial leanings of our current executive branch (bush sr., clinton, clinton, bush jr., bush jr., mrs. clinton). fuck that.

[lauren<3s music]

FYI for anyone who's interested she's talking about health care reform right now. presidentialforums.health08.org sponsored by Kaiser Family Foundation

[Lueda Alia]

i have no problems with voting for a woman presidential candidate, but goddammit, i despise hillary clinton. she's been on the inside of the political game for 30+ years, which tells me that she has no real connections with normal americans. experience doesn't mean shit in my opinion (ex. dick cheney). she seems so eager to show that she is the manliest candidate in the democratic race, and her hawkish behaviors are frightening (most recently, the move in the senate to label iran''s rev. guards as a terrorist org.). she's too power-hungry for my liking, and i just don't like the oligarchial leanings of our current executive branch (bush sr., clinton, clinton, bush jr., bush jr., mrs. clinton). fuck that.
Where do you guys get the idea that she is power hungry? I'm not sure how she's acting any differently than all the other male candidates? I feel like everyone labels her as a "power-hungry" politician only because she's a woman and she wants what (only) males go after in this society. It's very sad and unfair.

[Lueda Alia]

I guess I don't really have a reason. And I know I should learn more about her views before saying that. I think I just have a bad stereotype of her in the back of mind.
I find that a little sad. I don't mean to be rude, but I would expect someone your age to know a little more and be informed, especially about such important decisions. It's sad hearing that you don't like her just because of a stereotype. For all you know, she could be the one that's willing (or promising..) to give you everything you look for in a candidate.

[TranscendTrends]

Where do you guys get the idea that she is power hungry? I'm not sure how she's acting any differently than all the other male candidates? I feel like everyone labels her as a "power-hungry" politician only because she's a woman and she wants what (only) males go after in this society. It's very sad and unfair.

i'm sorry that you interpreted it in that way. that was in no way a sexist remark. mr. giuliani is just as power-hungry as mrs. clinton is. i see her as a very calculated politician, which might be a factor of her success, but it is very off-putting for me. and most of the other candidates are doing the same thing, but this IS the hillary clinton thread. she has been on the inside of politics for over 30 years, which has a tendency of distorting the perspective of what america is really like. i really hope that obama gets the nomination, because he has greater promise to actually bring the nation together, instead of furthering the division. sorry, but hillary will most likely lose at the national level because of her divisiveness, and then we'll be stuck with another fucking republican in the white house.


if and when another female candidate comes along that i can support, I most definitely will. but i've never trusted hillary.

[lauren<3s music]

i'm sorry that you interpreted it in that way. that was in no way a sexist remark. mr. giuliani is just as power-hungry as mrs. clinton is. i see her as a very calculated politician, which might be a factor of her success, but it is very off-putting for me. and most of the other candidates are doing the same thing, but this IS the hillary clinton thread. she has been on the inside of politics for over 30 years, which has a tendency of distorting the perspective of what america is really like. i really hope that obama gets the nomination, because he has greater promise to actually bring the nation together, instead of furthering the division. sorry, but hillary will most likely lose at the national level because of her divisiveness, and then we'll be stuck with another fucking republican in the white house.


if and when another female candidate comes along that i can support, I most definitely will. but i've never trusted hillary.

bravo

[Syz]

Kudos to Giuliani for making Hillary look like the fool she is. "If she thinks answering a question about the illegal driver's license voter fraud is a "gotcha" question because she's ahead in the polls then she's not ready for handling the complexities of a parking ticket, let alone terrorism.

Bill and Hillary are nothing more than Court Jesters for Soros and I'm still laughing at Bill the swill pretending he's protecting Hillary by announcing "she was the victim of swift boating" Lord knows, Bill Clinton should know about "swift boating" Hillary, he's done it throughout their marriage. Funny, when Bill swift boats Hillary she takes his side by abusing the same women he abused by calling them liars when she knew they weren't. Those two are the American Con Artist's Du Jur and you can find them in any backyard where wild turkeys are picking each other to death.

Have you noticed wherever the Clintons are there's B.O. Plenty's stench cloud? That's because they've wiped their behinds on our Constitution for lo these many years, then shoved it in our face and wear it as a badge of honor. This conjoined couple salivate over who can generate the most hatred from citizens and still get the main fools to vote Bill back in office. Love of their Con has been their only challenge- never our Nation and so goes the sociopaths and the liberals who refuse to be Mugged by Reality.

[Nevuk]

I'm confused about the BO stench part. Giuliani is horrible, just as Clinton and the rest of the front runner candidates are. Although I'm surprised you didn't bring up the recently rumored to have been confirmed lesbian affair of Hillary's with the blasting you just gave her.

[rokchika]

Hilary is riding Bill's coattails in this presidential race. I won't vote for her just because she's a woman. I want to see a woman in the White House that didn't get there by way of her husband. I don't really love or hate her. I just feel like she's getting a boost (from her former status of first lady) that the other candidates aren't getting.

[nbaontcty]

hillary clinton is a whore.

she needs to go suck her husbands balls and get all the STD's he has from all the other BJs hes recieved.

[and we whisper]

hillary clinton is a whore.

she needs to go suck her husbands balls and get all the STD's he has from all the other BJs hes recieved.
Seriously? How 'bout we only post stuff that is worth taking the time to read. This is not.

I'm not all for Hillary Clinton, but I detest people who make comments like this about political figures. Speak about her voting record, or her political platforms not about how you detest for no sane reason.

[atticus1492]

hillary clinton is a whore.

she needs to go suck her husbands balls and get all the STD's he has from all the other BJs hes recieved.

Thank you for your contribution.

[asmolitor]

... so speechless on the planted question issue?

i mean, every candidate has to use that tactic at some point... but i figured the ship would be airtight by now.

[mattybobviously]

MyC7loMop58

[Intertwined]

GO CLINTON!

She's awesome and pushes for Free Healthcare.

[@n[)y]

belive me its not that i dont want a woman president .... just not this crazy skank!
and its upsetting to me that almost every female i know supports her just becuse shes got a fucking vagina ... people always ask me why dont you support hillary is its becuse shes a woman?
but you should look at it rationaly and ask yourself ...really... why DO you support her is it becuse shes a woman?

[rikfrommf]

GO CLINTON!

She's awesome and pushes for Free Healthcare.

FREE healthcare? Really?

[bossman calling]

Another ignorant fool who thinks that health care is free. God bless their cute, naive little souls.

[bossman calling]

Then don't call it free, simple as that. Call it government or taxpayer funded, but don't call it free.

[supersonic182]

i'm not fond of her.
that's just me, and my opinion.
however, seeing as i cannot yet vote, i do hope people are smart and actually think about who they do vote for and at least they go out and vote.
less than half of the population that could vote didn't vote last election.
that's pretty pathetic. people have fought for that right over decades and centuries, and yet people don't make do with it.

[supersonic182]

With Media Matters putting everything Liberal in the headlines, and putting biased judgement in most everything and everything; I can see where you're going. Few people know that Hilary Clinton was actually one of the founding members that started endorsing the media bias to distort headlines, news, and select what exactly to put in the paper.

If you read most papers, you notice that any good or factual news about the war, is typically hidden until maybe the seventh or eighth page or hidden behind editorials. Give that to Hilary Clinton in similarity to her picking and choosing questions, which obviously is nothing in comparison to the biast and slander of Media Matters in recent years. I think it's appalling for anybody to vote for somebody that has been so dishonest and hypocritical.

She has also been fighting with Congress to pass a law that would demean and degrade conservative and right wing media, which in my opinion is demeaning and wanting to disintegrate the whole meaning of free speech. It sounds like propoganda if you ask me, and notice that everything is 'free of speech,' unless you are either moderately conservative or a hardcore Republican. I am being moderate, I reconsider every issue, and I do not agree with any particular side on many matters. Most politicians are phonies.

Some of these issues have been around since the fight between Federalists and Democratic Republicans -- yes, a very much oxymoron, or between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. They were concerned with the growing concern rate of politicians being more self centered than actually evidently concerned for steering the United States into a good path. And that's what we have here.

[boykosaurus]

what?

[supersonic182]

It's a generally liberal group that has for a decade or so been wrongly anti-Conservative, and trying to prevent the Conservative or any of factual GOP information from coming out in the media. For example, it's unlikely that you'll see any breaking headlines cover the good aspects of the war or GOP candidates. That we've eliminated a few Al Queda members in recent times, and nobody seems to recognize that much. It's as if they want us to lose the war, which mirrors the now non-existant Federalist party wanting a war with France in the late 1790's after the XYZ affair to lose so that it would gain popularity and weaken the opposing Democratic-Republican party. If you read the newspapers, a good chunk of the people that write are liberal, and more than eighty percent of appearances made on networks such as CNN, and MSNBC are liberal scholars, journalists, senators, or candidates. They have a very low percentage in covering Republican campaigns, verses their Democratic candidates, the majority being Hilary Clinton in the long run.

The group, head by David Brock, with many prime followers such as Hilary Clinton; have attempted to censor the freedom of speech for Conservatism. They have recently attempted to pass a bill through Congress that would ban, censor, and remove any Conservative talk show but not the liberal ones. A bit bias? More than a bit. She claims to uphold the long standing tradition of freedom of speech, and yet she indefinitely wants to censor it out from the right side. I find that more than a bit peculiar, and hypocritical if you ask me, in the long run.

[bossman calling]

It is implied.

And that is intellectually dishonest. Some might call it "doublespeak."

[bossman calling]

She has also been fighting with Congress to pass a law that would demean and degrade conservative and right wing media, which in my opinion is demeaning and wanting to disintegrate the whole meaning of free speech. It sounds like propoganda if you ask me, and notice that everything is 'free of speech,' unless you are either moderately conservative or a hardcore Republican. I am being moderate, I reconsider every issue, and I do not agree with any particular side on many matters. Most politicians are phonies.
The kid has a point here. See all of the liberals clamoring to bring back the Orwellian-titled "Fairness Doctrine."

[Syz]

Supersonic 182--you have renewed my faith in our youth and especially women. Let an old lady add to your wisdom by telling you to google: Health-Care Socialism. (by Scott McPherson) You will find Hillary's original plans for National Health Care and it's enough to scare the b-geesus out of everyone. Believe me, she has not changed her mind one bit.

We will be obligated to purchase government health care and be fined if not done on time. Once enrolled, we will be sent through medical gatekeepers who would determine our medical needs.

Present and future Doctors will be under direct control of Government. Those who do not "obey" orders can be fined, have their assets forfeited, and be imprisoned.

Any Doctor who doesn't tell the government everything it wants to know about your medical history, buys services from a company the government hasn't approved, or doesn't open his offices to governmental inspection on demand is history.

This is a small part of this horrifying document and it is right from Hillary's files so don't be fooled by this B-tch from Buchenwald (my terminology for her from 2nd world war-LOL) The document is filled with sociopathic mad controlling desires so research dutifully as a citizen.

I will send you good news on my next reply which follows.

[Syz]

Supersonic 182--you have renewed my faith in our youth and especially women. Let an old lady add to your wisdom by telling you to google: Health-Care Socialism. (by Scott McPherson) You will find Hillary's original plans for National Health Care and it's enough to scare the b-geesus out of everyone. Believe me, she has not changed her mind one bit.

We will be obligated to purchase government health care and be fined if not done on time. Once enrolled, we will be sent through medical gatekeepers who would determine our medical needs.

Present and future Doctors will be under direct control of Government. Those who do not "obey" orders can be fined, have their assets forfeited, and be imprisoned.

Any Doctor who doesn't tell the government everything it wants to know about your medical history, buys services from a company the government hasn't approved, or doesn't open his offices to governmental inspection on demand is history.

This is a small part of this horrifying document and it is right from Hillary's files so don't be fooled by this B-tch from Buchenwald (my terminology for her from 2nd world war-LOL) The document is filled with sociopathic mad controlling desires so research dutifully as a citizen.

I will send you good news on my next reply which follows.
Good Things Now and Soon:

We're living in the most positive, exciting Technological Age of Science. Soon, our non-functioning Representatives, Constitution and Judiciary will be replaced by scientific biosensors throughout the Universe. Big Brother watching us ends up not being ALL THAT BAD!

Yeaterday, my car told me to watch out for sleet (I will no longer need a weather man with such nanosensors at my fingertips.

Last night, as I slept, my Latitude Communicator box at the end of my bed checked my heart implant and will correct any problems I might have no matter where I am in the world.

Today, in the right shops in Singapore, I can shop in store "A", buy a shirt and by the time my car informs shop "B" that I'm on my way, they'll have just the right tie to match the shirt.

No more will be have to suffer through every geezer in public office on shill TV with their propaganda nonsense. We'll scientifically know whether there is global warming or not. (even though we really know better now) but Al Gore won't get to use the taxpayer dollar for a lot of government pick pockets.
No more socialists grabbing for votes with their bread services to the poor and their transparent efforts to keep illegal immigrants in this country to acquire votes. All I can say is: GO NANOS GO!

WE'RE STANDING ON THE EDGE OF A TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION THAT WILL PROVIDE US WITH EVERYTHING WE NEED TO DEFEAT TRANSNATIONAL TERRORISM IN THIS SO-CALLED LONG WAR. It won't be some secret government project, this revolution will be driven primarily by the private sector's response to the growing desire of average citizens for hyperconnected lives and to keep those who are not qualified to handle the complexities of a parking ticket from holding positions of power as they do now.

Our Constitution was originally for the purpose of the citizens to control those in Government.
This no longer exists. Our Government is using this great document to control all of us. It will be nice to have it back.

[thetrueblood]

I am tired of all these headlines about racial tension in the democratic campaigns. I don't think Hillary's statement was racist but she hasn't tried to defend her statement by explaining what she actually meant. She was trying to imply that Dr. King's strong voice wasn't enough- that it took Johnson's signing of the civil rights act to actually make change. While yes, she is right. But obviously without King and other civil rights leaders Washington wouldn't have been pressured to make the changes it did. Again, she is trying to contrast a strong speaker vs. Washington experience. Instead of turning this into a race issue, Obama's campaign shouldn't of asked the question-- How much change could be brought if we had a president that was a strong, articulate speaker like King and also in a position powerful enough in Washington to put that power of speech to it's greatest use.

This whole incident leaves me disappointed in both campaigns.

[riseagainst89]

I find it funny that Hillary talks about change in her campaign, when in fact she accepts more money from special interest, and Washington lobbyist than any other candidate.. hummmmm their are only 3 men in this election that could bring about change gravel, kunnich,and paul has the best change of winning at the moment.

[thetrueblood]

I find it funny that Hillary talks about change in her campaign, when in fact she accepts more money from special interest, and Washington lobbyist than any other candidate.. hummmmm their are only 3 men in this election that could bring about change gravel, kunnich,and paul has the best change of winning at the moment.

If by best chance of winning, you mean no change at all. Paul has done an exceptional job at fund raising and if for some reason who defies the odds and gets the nomination, there's no way in hell he would win the general election.

[BlameTheTetons]

The best indication of what people will do in the future is what they did in the past.

See - Hillary Clinton.

[Mitch]

Question:

If Hillary were to win the presidency, do you believe she would be awful, bad, average, good, or great?

I have found that I believe some of what she says because you can tell she is passionate about some of it, but there is a lot of stuff she has said where I get the distinct feeling that she is saying things simply to win.

[mattybobviously]

Question:

If Hillary were to win the presidency, do you believe she would be awful, bad, average, good, or great?

I have found that I believe some of what she says because you can tell she is passionate about some of it, but there is a lot of stuff she has said where I get the distinct feeling that she is saying things simply to win.

I don't believe she'd win, McCain is stronger on foreign policy, will get the independent vote, and even Democrats will leave to vote for a Bloomberg, just to teach the party a lesson.

[BlameTheTetons]

The stupid idea that Clinton is more electable is coming from the fact she has been around for so long. That's it. Factually, it's not there. It's just a dumb assumption.

She would be a shitty president. Why? Because when I look at Obama, I see a man who when he votes, votes for the betterment of society. When Clinton votes, it's to stand up for issues that poll well. It's to get elected. It's to have power. It's to pay people back who have invested millions in her and expect something in return.

She can spin all she wants. Eventually, it's going to fail. Example - South Carolina coming up.

I wish the media and half of Clinton's supporters would go back to saying exactly what they were saying a few hours before New Hampshire. She's going to crash and burn, and Obama's honesty, record, and leadership skills will win the nomination.

Now, Clinton supporters will do exactly what she does. They will pull one vote out to question Obama's sincerity. Some story about present votes or smoking pot. They have no right to speak of sincerity. How easily the American public forgets that how the great president Clinton looked America in the eye and lied blatantly.

Get off the bandwagon, Dems.

[wesgemm08]

Clinton/Rendell 2008

[rikfrommf]

I find it funny that Hillary talks about change in her campaign, when in fact she accepts more money from special interest, and Washington lobbyist than any other candidate.. hummmmm their are only 3 men in this election that could bring about change gravel, kunnich,and paul has the best change of winning at the moment.

I just have to ask. What is Paul going to "change"? Everything he runs on are constitutional issues. Those are decided by the supreme court and congress. No republican or democrat alive would vote for anything the man proposed as legislation. I don't think you can find 357 people that WOULD support him that could be elected into enough congressional seats to implement any of his plans. Even if he somehow WON the election, why vote for a lame duck?

[saysmydoctor]

Ron Paul is tricky because some of his ideas are good (his economic and foreign policy ideas) but some of his ideas are just ridiculous (minimizing the bureaucracy).

[captainhampton]

Ron Paul is tricky because some of his ideas are good (his economic and foreign policy ideas) but some of his ideas are just ridiculous (minimizing the bureaucracy).

explain why minimizing bureaucracy is a bad thing?

[blondiex293]

I dont "hate" her then again I do not "praise" her
She shouldn't become president because
Most of all she's a WOMAN and I may be one but I am against women leaders
That is not what they are made for
Thats a man's job and it's worked out fine so far
so why change the tradition?
Women are not made to handle such a big thing
I really hope she doesnt become president
but I won't be complaining because at least her husband was a good president

[saysmydoctor]

I can't take you seriously when you consider O'Reilly a liberal.

[saysmydoctor]

I dont "hate" her then again I do not "praise" her
She shouldn't become president because
Most of all she's a WOMAN and I may be one but I am against women leaders
That is not what they are made for
Thats a man's job and it's worked out fine so far
so why change the tradition?
Women are not made to handle such a big thing
I really hope she doesnt become president
but I won't be complaining because at least her husband was a good president
Yeah, women are for sex, babies, and doing dishes.


Shut the fuck up.

[captainhampton]

I can't take you seriously when you consider O'Reilly a liberal.

didn't answer the question. and also you can't read, never said he was a liberal.

[Nevuk]

explain why minimizing bureaucracy is a bad thing?
I agree with you. I now feel like some gear is moving wrong.

[saysmydoctor]

didn't answer the question. and also you can't read, never said he was a liberal.
Explain to me how getting rid of the DoE is beneficial.

And yes, you did.

[captainhampton]

I agree with you. I now feel like some gear is moving wrong.

that's because i think most people realize that by increasing bureaucracy, the less that gets done. I don't think it's a partisan issue.

[captainhampton]

Explain to me how getting rid of the DoE is beneficial.

And yes, you did.

you said minimizing bureaucracy is a bad thing. so do you not like getting things done? Now if you are talking about Ron Paul trying to get rid of way too many programs, then I agree with you.

until you can find the quote where I said "O'reilly is a liberal" shut your mouth. saying he leans liberal on certain positions does not equate to me saying, "Bill O'Reilly is a liberal" got it?

[Nevuk]

that's because i think most people realize that by increasing bureaucracy, the less that gets done. I don't think it's a partisan issue.
While both sides profess decreasing bureaucracy is a good thing, it seems like the partisan take on it is to just increase it as much as possible.

[saysmydoctor]

you said minimizing bureaucracy is a bad thing. so do you not like getting things done? Now if you are talking about Ron Paul trying to get rid of way too many programs, then I agree with you.

until you can find the quote where I said "O'reilly is a liberal" shut your mouth. saying he leans liberal on certain positions does not equate to me saying, "Bill O'Reilly is a liberal" got it?
Is getting rid of cabinet positions/departments, IRS, etc, not minimizing the bureaucracy?

[captainhampton]

Is getting rid of cabinet positions/departments, IRS, etc, not minimizing the bureaucracy?

i actually think we are in agreement on this one. In general, I think minimizing bureaucracy is a good thing. in this case, however, he is trying to minimize it too much and wants to get rid of too many things.

[saysmydoctor]

That's what I was talking about.

[trypeace]

I dont "hate" her then again I do not "praise" her
She shouldn't become president because
Most of all she's a WOMAN and I may be one but I am against women leaders
That is not what they are made for
Thats a man's job and it's worked out fine so far
so why change the tradition?
Women are not made to handle such a big thing
I really hope she doesnt become president
but I won't be complaining because at least her husband was a good president


haha poor child...you really dont know anything.
i was "made" to do more than be a mans sidekick..sorry

im just gonna pretend you didnt say that

[silverstein91]

I couldn't hate anyone more than Hillary.

[saysmydoctor]

http://hillaryproject.com/

Now you can.

[HelpMeSleep]

I couldn't hate anyone more than Hillary.
i completely agree with you. i can't stand her. if she wins over Obama, i'll die.

aside from hating her, i really don't want a woman president right now. and i dont even think its fair for her to run when her husband was president for two terms. to me, its too close to having Bill do another term. i dont see how thats allowed.

plus i'll never respect her for staying with him after he publicly cheated on her.

[Jason Tate]

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton has replaced her campaign manager with a longtime adviser, Maggie Williams, the campaign announced Sunday.

Williams served as Clinton's chief of staff when the New York senator was first lady.
Ex-campaign chief Patti Solis Doyle has been reassigned to a senior adviser's job, the Clinton's campaign announced in a memo to its staff.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/10/clinton.campaign/index.html

---

I think she's worried.

[saysmydoctor]

What a slap in the face to the old chief to give her that job. Wow.

[Phish724]

she's great except Obama has more support.

[Becs]

Hilary Clinton is so... I don't know. I used to like her but the more I saw her in public, teh more robotic she seemed.

[ninetwentyfour]

No real problem with Hillary, I guess. Think she'd make a better president than McCain or Huckabee. I'm pretty indifferent on her, she just seems as if a middle ground canidate to me. However, I love the idea of Bill as first man. In Hillary's first term, i expect a slick willie to have a keg party in the white house with the playboy bunnies, a trip to a nascar rally with a foriegn prime minister, and atleast one minor drug scandal.

Anything less i'd be sorely dissapointed.

[jacosaurus]

I haven't really read any posts in this thread simply because I know a lot of it is about how people hate her but I am going to say I absolutely love her.

first of all she is realy fighting for the issues and has been all along. She has the experience that no other canidate has and she is really the best person to make history. Our country is all about the freedom and she's really fighting for it in her own way. I can't wait to see how she does.

[nfggc10]

I haven't really read any posts in this thread simply because I know a lot of it is about how people hate her but I am going to say I absolutely love her.

first of all she is realy fighting for the issues and has been all along. She has the experience that no other canidate has and she is really the best person to make history. Our country is all about the freedom and she's really fighting for it in her own way. I can't wait to see how she does.
http://www.hillaryproject.com/

[loveisdead]

How have I net heard about this site before? Thank you for showing me that.

[Mike Kraft]

so does my anal post go here?

[industrialbelt]

i could never support a "democrat" who votes for the patriot act. i don't understand anyone who would.

[nfggc10]

I suppose convenience should be her new campaign slogan:

"Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says there is no difference between delegates chosen by voters and the superdelegates — they are all delegates with a vote at the convention."

"After the disputed 2000 election, she supported abolishing the Electoral College. “I believe strongly that in a democracy,” she said, “we should respect the will of the people.” At least until that strong belief ran up against her pursuit of a presidential nomination. “I hope no one is ever in doubt again about whether their vote counts,” she said. This turns out to have been a wan hope."

So in her opinion, the Electoral College and superdelegates should only be in effect when they benefit her campaign. Interesting.

[chris1152]

I suppose convenience should be her new campaign slogan:

"Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says there is no difference between delegates chosen by voters and the superdelegates — they are all delegates with a vote at the convention."

"After the disputed 2000 election, she supported abolishing the Electoral College. “I believe strongly that in a democracy,” she said, “we should respect the will of the people.” At least until that strong belief ran up against her pursuit of a presidential nomination. “I hope no one is ever in doubt again about whether their vote counts,” she said. This turns out to have been a wan hope."

So in her opinion, the Electoral College and superdelegates should only be in effect when they benefit her campaign. Interesting.

That's Hillary for you. I think it's interesting that she really didn't tout the idea of change until after she saw how much success Obama had with the theme.

[nfggc10]

That's Hillary for you. I think it's interesting that she really didn't tout the idea of change until after she saw how much success Obama had with the theme.Yeah she's all about change yet she plays the experience card so that's a bit of a contradiction. And the degree of her hunger for power scares me just about as much as the ridiculous policy proposals she's running on.

[chris1152]

Yeah she's all about change yet she plays the experience card so that's a bit of a contradiction. And the degree of her hunger for power scares me just about as much as the ridiculous policy proposals she's running on.

I heard on the radio that Clinton hired a drama coach to help her seem more genuine.
Ridiculous.

[hanglikeabat]

love her.

[nfggc10]

love her.Can you explain a bit what it is you love about her?

[hanglikeabat]

her views on abortion and energy oil and the environment. her past actions. MAINLY HER VIEWS ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
the fact that she vote YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007) then she voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
i especially love her views on immigration. there are alot of other things, but i also really like that she shows a great interest in the scientific community. she has a lot of support from them, and to me that is VERY important :)

[nfggc10]

her views on abortion and energy oil and the environment. her past actions. MAINLY HER VIEWS ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
the fact that she vote YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007) then she voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
i especially love her views on immigration. there are alot of other things, but i also really like that she shows a great interest in the scientific community. she has a lot of support from them, and to me that is VERY important :)I was more or less looking for why you prefer her over Obama. I mean Barack voted the same on those issues as well. I just don't see how people can vote for her knowing her character issues and that she's too hesitant to cross party lines and will burn anyone who disagrees with her on anything that she presents for a potential bill.

[hanglikeabat]

I was more or less looking for why you prefer her over Obama. I mean Barack voted the same on those issues as well. I just don't see how people can vote for her knowing her character issues and that she's too hesitant to cross party lines and will burn anyone who disagrees with her on anything that she presents for a potential bill.

oh. well i dont dislike obama. i think he would make a great president too, i was just replying to the orginial thread to say that i like clinton. however, i read on some iowa newspaper that he (obama) wanted to propose 10 billion be used toward kindergarten programs and to up the pay of public school teachers. he wanted to do that by taking away money for space and mars missions. and as this is totally my opinion, i feel that you shouldnt take away from the scientific community to do that. i also don't know how true that statement even was, so i dont hold anything against him. and i am personally content with her character for president.

[nfggc10]

oh. well i dont dislike obama. i think he would make a great president too, i was just replying to the orginial thread to say that i like clinton. however, i read on some iowa newspaper that he (obama) wanted to propose 10 billion be used toward kindergarten programs and to up the pay of public school teachers. he wanted to do that by taking away money for space and mars missions. and as this is totally my opinion, i feel that you shouldnt take away from the scientific community to do that. i also don't know how true that statement even was, so i dont hold anything against him. and i am personally content with her character for president.http://www.hillaryproject.com/

See I like the idea of putting that money towards our education programs. Then again, I think the amount of resources we put towards space exploration is a waste.

[hanglikeabat]

http://www.hillaryproject.com/

See I like the idea of putting that money towards our education programs. Then again, I think the amount of resources we put towards space exploration is a waste.

no, i understand. a lot of people disagree with me. and plenty agree.

[nfggc10]

no, i understand. a lot of people disagree with me. and plenty agree.Yeah, I do think there's value in exploration though. I just believe that too much emphasis is placed on it and when there's so many programs, not just for educational purposes, that need money and could have more of an immediate impact than space-related projects.

[hanglikeabat]

Yeah, I do think there's value in exploration though. I just believe that too much emphasis is placed on it and when there's so many programs, not just for educational purposes, that need money and could have more of an immediate impact than space-related projects.

Yeah and to be quite honest, you have an excellent point. Truth is, I grew up in Florida, around the space program and I absolutely love it. I feel (and very strongly) that what they do is extremely important and amazing and educational. I could probably easily work for NASA if I wanted to, because I know so much about everything they do and I am a history and scienece geek. So for me, its something that I personally love. By no means do I feel that education is second best, I mean, without education we couldn't have the space program and scientists! I know this. I just wish Obama could find another way to get the money for his proposed plan, and not have it affect the mars and moon missions. And he probably could think of something, he is a smart guy.

[lightcollapse]

http://www.hillaryproject.com/

See I like the idea of putting that money towards our education programs. Then again, I think the amount of resources we put towards space exploration is a waste.

stop posting that link to a fucking biased piece of shit website with no credibility whatsoever.

[nfggc10]

Yeah and to be quite honest, you have an excellent point. Truth is, I grew up in Florida, around the space program and I absolutely love it. I feel (and very strongly) that what they do is extremely important and amazing and educational. I could probably easily work for NASA if I wanted to, because I know so much about everything they do and I am a history and scienece geek. So for me, its something that I personally love. By no means do I feel that education is second best, I mean, without education we couldn't have the space program and scientists! I know this. I just wish Obama could find another way to get the money for his proposed plan, and not have it affect the mars and moon missions. And he probably could think of something, he is a smart guy.He could find other sources to draw from but the space program is one of the easier ones to use. From a political point of view it's something that most people don't really care about (relative to where those funds would be re-distributed).

[nfggc10]

stop posting that link to a fucking biased piece of shit website with no credibility whatsoever.Of course it's biased. Doesn't mean it's incorrect however.

[hanglikeabat]

Of course it's biased. Doesn't mean it's incorrect however.

i didnt even check out the site until he mentioned it was bias. (and i still havent. i just clicked the link and kind of browsed the front page then left.)

i do like how the site does try really hard to make her look shaken, disoriented, and some hateful penny-penching white lady.

these days, its kind of hard to believe anything you see or hear...especially on the internet. i usually try to stick to what they've actually done and approved and gone against in the past. it says a lot.

[Zethora]

I think she'd make a great president but not right now. We'll lose whatever little bit of respect we have over seas because she is a woman. :( I like her stance on all of the issues and wish the world would cut us women a little slack.

[Nevuk]

Wait, what? There have been far more female Prime Ministers and presidents over seas than here. Its really kind of a laughingstock we have so few female leaders.

[HelpMeSleep]

everytime i see Hilary on tv, i look at her and i just cant not laugh. if it ends up being her and McCain, i'm moving to Australia or something.

[HelpMeSleep]

http://www.hillaryproject.com/

See I like the idea of putting that money towards our education programs. Then again, I think the amount of resources we put towards space exploration is a waste.
i think money towards education is always a good thing. i'm working at a bunch of elementary schools in a town right next to mine and its completely different from all the schools i went to. the money is so unevenly distributed between the different schools in the same city, its insane to see the differences between all of the ones i'm at. my favorite doesn't even have paper and pencils for their after school rec programs and we have like two board games and i was at another school last week that had even less than that while the one i was at today has an entire closet full of brand new games and tubs full of toys that they auction off to the kids on fridays with the fake money they get for being good. sorry.. random rant. its just something i see everyday now.

[CurtyB]

everytime i see Hilary on tv, i look at her and i just cant not laugh. if it ends up being her and McCain, i'm moving to Australia or something.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/deathcab4curtie/clap-1.jpg
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/deathcab4curtie/clap-1.jpg)

[mutualaddiction]

Anybody see Hillary on the Daily Show? Looks like she's just trying to save face by going on a "hip" show. And I'm a bit disappointed, Jon hasn't been asking her anything real tough, and the satellite delay is a bit annoying.

[saysmydoctor]

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/deathcab4curtie/clap-1.jpg
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/deathcab4curtie/clap-1.jpg)
Best Colbert episode.

Furthermore, Clinton is bad. End.

[Occasional]

Clinton sucks, yes. But so do the other canidates. America is screwed no matter which way you look at it.

[saysmydoctor]

Wow.