Hillary Clinton

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Authored by the Marxist/Maoist theoretician Carl Oglesby, who was a leader of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, this piece defended Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence....Hillary later said that the Motive article had played a key role in her metamorphosis from Goldwater Republican in 1964 to leftist Democrat in 1968. During her years as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton would tell a Newsweek reporter that she still treasured the Oglesby piece.

Wow, thanks for the links Wingnut.

[FOTD]

I prefer the pics of McCaint hugging Dumbya. Far more destructive in the general election. At least Billary together looks somewhat democratic.

Save us Barack! Let's go Ohio or Pennsylvania!

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Authored by the Marxist/Maoist theoretician Carl Oglesby, who was a leader of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, this piece defended Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence....Hillary later said that the Motive article had played a key role in her metamorphosis from Goldwater Republican in 1964 to leftist Democrat in 1968. During her years as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton would tell a Newsweek reporter that she still treasured the Oglesby piece.

Wow, thanks for the links Wingnut.

That was great..

[FOTD]

Putin vs. Clinton

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Putin_vs_Clinton.html

[Wingnut]

quote: Wow, thanks for the links Wingnut.

Your certainly welcome.

While I'm not a big Obama fan, this is troubling...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293

For a history lesson...
che info

This is going to be one heck of an election!

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

quote: Wow, thanks for the links Wingnut.

Your certainly welcome.

While I'm not a big Obama fan, this is troubling...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293

For a history lesson...
che info

This is going to be one heck of an election!

Please, recognize the junk you are receiving, whether in emails and internet talk boards (anonymous), or in the airwaves (dominated by conservative infrastructure), as the manipulative misinformation and misdirection that it is.

You're not welcome....would be the appropriate phrasing.

[AngieB]

OK, this is just plain funny...I don't care who you're for, you have to see the humor in it!

[Wingnut]

quote: Hillary is a strong woman, one with "cajones" and there are men who have a problem with that.

?? Strong in what way? What has she done that shows she's "strong"? If she had some groinage, she would let her thesis and tax records be released. Let's see the real hillary clinton.

[RecycleMichael]

Please...the law does not require that politicians disclose their income tax records. If she is the nominee, she will release the tax records.

There is plenty of time. In 2000, Dick Cheney didn't release his until mid-September...or you could do it like Mitt Romney and hide millions of dollars in a blind trust.

[USRufnex]

Uh huh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?ref=opinion

Editorial
Show Us the Money
Published: February 15, 2008

As the presidential campaign narrows and its costs skyrocket, detailed disclosure of financial resources becomes ever more important. Of the leading contenders, so far, only Senator Barack Obama has released his full income-tax returns — a level of disclosure once routine for candidates after the political corruption of Watergate.

Release of the tax returns should not be made conditional on winning the nomination, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it. Both Senator John McCain, the Republican front-runner, and she owe it to their parties and to voters to promptly make available their Internal Revenue Service filings, and to respond to any questions about them. It is true that as senators, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are required to file financial disclosure forms. But those forms present only general parameters of family financial resources, not the detail available on tax returns.

The need for greater transparency regarding the income and overall financial dealings of candidates and their spouses was underscored by Mrs. Clinton's recent decision to make a $5 million loan to her campaign. Such borrowing is a permitted practice under the campaign laws. But the campaign said the money came from her share of the Clintons' joint resources, and that calls attention to the lack of information about their family finances. As a former president, Bill Clinton has been making millions annually giving speeches and traveling the globe. What is publicly known about his business dealings is sketchy, and clearer disclosure of them is required to reassure voters that Mrs. Clinton's candidacy is unencumbered by hidden entanglements.

In the same spirit, the Clintons are obliged to make prompt disclosure of the major donors who have been backing the former president's library and foundation. It is not even clear whether Mr. Clinton would disclose his library's donors if his wife won the White House.

------------------------------------------------

Hey, I'm from Illinois (which makes me biased for Obama) but I see a huge difference between the two...... Hillary touts her experience, but what did she accomplish in her self-proclaimed "35 years of experience?"  Do we in this country have the "Managed Care" solutions that were "championed" by Bill & Hillary Clinton over the more radical "single payer"???  No, we don't.  And what is the legacy of the Clintons on health care?  My memories from the 90s involve being offered to extend my health insurance through "COBRA" in-between jobs.... a very aptly named program.

---And when it comes to one of several issues that mean alot to me -- not passing off the federal deficit onto unsuspecting future generations of kids... well....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021303635.html?nav=rss_politics

Candidates' Earmarks Worth Millions
Of Front-Runners, McCain Abstained

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A01

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.

Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.........

I don't have a problem voting for a female president... I have a problem voting for this particular female.

[RecycleMichael]

Bogus stat...

Sometimes one Senator will do all the heavy lifting. Last year Coburn did zero, Inhofe did $146 million.

Hillary's efforts work out to $17 per New York resident. Inhofe's was over $41 per Oklahoman.

Obama has only been in the Senate for three years and has been busy running for President for more than half of those. I could say he has forgot the people who elected him because he has been selfish.

[Wingnut]

quote: I don't have a problem voting for a female president... I have a problem voting for this particular female.

Agreed. I perfer a man as president, unless there is a very good female candidate. The only real woman to seek a nomination that I would vote for is Liz Dole. She puts chillary to shame.
Liz Dole bio
I believe she would make a very good female president.

[Conan71]

Hey Ruf, isn't Hillary a Chicago native?

It's going to be hard to find a candidate without some sort of weird entanglement these days.  Hillary and Bill owe favors all around the globe.  McCain's been around long enough there are plenty of special interests he will do bidding for whether he admits to it or not.

That's where Obama is going to have an edge on McCain or Hillary- he's fresh enough that the casual voter will consider him "least tainted" amongst candidates.

Out of the three I trust McCain the most.  At least he's got a long enough voting record in the Senate to see where he really stands.  I have not seen him back track nor flip-flop on anything significant.  

Obama has shown very, very little other than being a Democrat party sock puppet.  Stats in WaPo show he's missed 38% of votes in the current Congress.  I guess I'm still miffed by some upstart who runs for President after two years as an un-distinguished Jr. Senator from Illinois. (I wasn't born when Kennedy was elected).

[Breadburner]

ChEnge.....

[guido911]

I do not know if this has been discussed, but here is a Hillary aide basically stating that Obama's victories are irrelevant.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/16/top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant/

This is absolutely delicious.