The Clinton Thread

[Tron5000]

Can you tell me what she didn't accomplish?

Lets say she didn't get **** done. People were still fighting, going hungry, forced out of their homes etc. Again, she was there to try to help people, not for vacation, not for fun, you don't go to Bosnia in 1996 for kicks and giggles. She was there, trying to help people, be it our soldiers on the ground or the people of Bosnia. It was a relief effort trip. I guess sitting there and doing nothing would be better right? Since apparently, Obama can get away with that.:o

So can you tell me how any of the above in any way at all qualifies her to lead this nation of 300 million people?

"Can you tell me what she didn't accomplish?" Tell me that was not meant to be a serious question...

[Tron5000]

I'm sure there are relief workers in Bosnia that have done infinitely more than Hillary Rodham to help the people suffering there. Should we put them atop the 2012 ballot?

Edit: And by the way, "our soldiers on the ground" are apparently very offended by the lies that Hillary has been spouting about her Bosnia trip.

[Darthphere]

So can you tell me how any of the above in any way at all qualifies her to lead this nation of 300 million people?

"Can you tell me what she didn't accomplish?" Tell me that was not meant to be a serious question...

Oh it was a serious question. Since you're all about questioning her credibility and all that, tell me exactly why her trip to Bosnia is irrelevant. I'm here answering your questions, answer mine.

I'm sure there are relief workers in Bosnia that have done infinitely more than Hillary Rodham to help the people suffering there. Should we put them atop the 2012 ballot?

You're really reaching here and it shows your utter lack of credibility in your argument. If they're an American born citizen, over the age of 35, and have been a resident of any state for 14 years, then sure why not. They can run for President.:whatever:

EDIT: Responding to your edit, they have every right to be, but not to take their opinions lightly or ignore them, but it's really irrelevant to what I'm arguing here. Soldiers tend to be sensitive about things like that.

[Tron5000]

Oh it was a serious question. Since you're all about questioning her credibility and all that, tell me exactly why her trip to Bosnia is irrelevant. I'm here answering your questions, answer mine.



You're really reaching here and it shows your utter lack of credibility in your argument. If they're an American born citizen, over the age of 35, and have been a resident of any state for 14 years, then sure why not. They can run for President.:whatever:

EDIT: Responding to your edit, they have every right to be, but not to take their opinions lightly or ignore them, but it's really irrelevant to what I'm arguing here. Soldiers tend to be sensitive about things like that.

Yes, soldiers to tend to be sensitive about someone making up a story for political gain when the soldiers are experiencing those horrors every day, and losing their friends and fellow soldiers to sniper fire. Yeah, I would probably also be a bit "sensitive" of someone making up these fantastic stories if I were going through those things on a regular basis.

I never said her trip was "irrelevant." I said it doesn't qualify her to run this country, as you apparently think it does.

The reason I didn't answer your question at first is that you posted it in response to my query, as a way of not addressing it. So I ask again: what did she accomplish on her trip to Bosnia?

[Matt]

How the hell does going to Bosnia qualify you for the highest office in the land? And you accuse ME of "ridiculous logic"?

The same way making a pretty speech about the Iraq War in 2002 qualifies Barack Obama to be president.

The fact is, both candidates are horribly unqualified for the job.

[Kent]

Oh it was a serious question. Since you're all about questioning her credibility and all that, tell me exactly why her trip to Bosnia is irrelevant. I'm here answering your questions, answer mine.

^ Oh come on. Your post exclaiming "SHE STILL WENT TO BOSNIA" and implying this has relevance to how qualified she is to be president makes you the one making a positive claim, and as so it is up to you to back it up.

If I claim I have superpowers it is up to me to demonstrate that I have them, not up to you do demonstrate that I do not. No one has to buy into any positive claim without evidence, or we'd have to believe in all sorts of crazy nonsense.

EDIT: Wait. A lot of posts showed up while I typed this. There. Fixed.

[Darthphere]

Yes, soldiers to tend to be sensitive about someone making up a story for political gain when the soldiers are experiencing those horrors every day, and losing their friends and fellow soldiers to sniper fire. Yeah, I would probably also be a bit "sensitive" of someone making up these fantastic stories if I were going through those things on a regular basis.

Wow, I love you took me using the word "sensitive" and made it seem like I used it in a negative connotation. Good work at that spin, you could work for Fox news with those skills. Again, she lied, they deserve to be angry, doesn't remove the fact that Bosnia was a dangerous place to go at the time but yes, she exaggerated the danger. I don't see anyone discrediting all those Senators who go to Iraq and walk through open markets. IMO, that takes some balls, and Hillary has balls. Of course, any time a politician does anything like that, the danger is not going to be that apparent. She messed up with her sniper fire story, still doesn't remove the fact that she went.

I never said her trip was "irrelevant." I said it doesn't qualify her to run this country, as you apparently think it does.

Not alone it doesn't, but it gives her more credibility than Obama. Obama's campaign has been hell bent on destroying Hillary's experience claims but have done nothing to showcase any experience Obama has. Why? Because he doesn't have any, and all those Obama supporters just eat everything up when it comes to Obama. Hillary has traveled the world, talked to world leaders, been involved in resolving conflicts (albeit, you could argue how much of an influence she had in any of those talks) but just being in the room is an accomplishment enough. Sitting there while the Manhattan Project was going doesn't make you a nuclear scientist, but it does give you some insight into whats going on. Yes, I'm sticking to that analogy.

The reason I didn't answer your question at first is that you posted it in response to my query, as a way of not addressing it. So I ask again: what did she accomplish on her trip to Bosnia?

Apparently nothing because they were still fighting for years afterward. But she tried to do something.

[Darthphere]

^ Oh come on. Your post exclaiming "SHE STILL WENT TO BOSNIA" and implying this has relevance to how qualified she is to be president makes you the one making a positive claim, and as so it is up to you to back it up.

If I claim I have superpowers it is up to me to demonstrate that I have them, not up to you do demonstrate that I do not. No one has to buy into any positive claim without evidence, or we'd have to believe in all sorts of crazy nonsense.

EDIT: Wait. A lot of posts showed up while I typed this. There. Fixed.

Yes, you're slow.

[Tron5000]

Wow, I love you took me using the word "sensitive" and made it seem like I used it in a negative connotation. Good work at that spin, you could work for Fox news with those skills. Again, she lied, they deserve to be angry, doesn't remove the fact that Bosnia was a dangerous place to go at the time but yes, she exaggerated the danger. I don't see anyone discrediting all those Senators who go to Iraq and walk through open markets. IMO, that takes some balls, and Hillary has balls. Of course, any time a politician does anything like that, the danger is not going to be that apparent. She messed up with her sniper fire story, still doesn't remove the fact that she went.



Not alone it doesn't, but it gives her more credibility than Obama. Obama's campaign has been hell bent on destroying Hillary's experience claims but have done nothing to showcase any experience Obama has. Why? Because he doesn't have any, and all those Obama supporters just eat everything up when it comes to Obama. Hillary has traveled the world, talked to world leaders, been involved in resolving conflicts (albeit, you could argue how much of an influence she had in any of those talks) but just being in the room is an accomplishment enough. Sitting there while the Manhattan Project was going doesn't make you a nuclear scientist, but it does give you some insight into whats going on. Yes, I'm sticking to that analogy.



Apparently nothing because they were still fighting for years afterward. But she tried to do something.

Hey, you used the word "sensitive." I was merely quoting you.

And she didn't merely exaggerate the danger. She blatantly lied about her experience, and in doing so made light of those that actually have been shot at and killed by sniper fire.

You may feel that her trip gives her "credibility," but any that she gained from her trip was lost the moment she outright falsified the facts surrounding her trip.

[Darthphere]

Hey, you used the word "sensitive." I was merely quoting you.

And she didn't merely exaggerate the danger. She blatantly lied about her experience, and in doing so made light of those that actually have been shot at and killed by sniper fire.

You may feel that her trip gives her "credibility," but any that she gained from her trip was lost the moment she outright falsified the facts surrounding her trip.

Well if you believe the spin her campaign is doing now where she actually meant there was sniper fire in the surrounding hills maybe. But yeah, she messed up with the running with her head ducked down into the car and the lack of an opening ceremony. Again, I'm not defending her outright lies.

A trip is a trip though. I went to Key West last weekend and told everyone I caught a marlin, which I didn't, does that mean I really didn't go to Key West? Of course not. Does it show her to be a liar, of course. It was a stupid lie and a horrible mistake on her part. Doesn't change the fact that she was there, at least to me.

[amazingfantasy15]

Why would anyone lie like that in the age of 24 hour news networks and YouTube, you know it's gonna bite you in the @$$.

[jaguarr]

If you've been following the news, you're aware that Hillary has been questioned on and accused of embellishing some of her foreign affairs experiences, one such topic being an experience she's claimed she had in Bosnia where she said she had to dodge sniper fire upon arriving. I just found this little bit piece amusing and thought I'd share:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/hillary-says-8yearold-b_b_93485.html


Hillary Says 8-Year-Old Bosnian Girl Was Actually Sniper

Posted March 26, 2008 | 11:05 AM (EST)

Accused in recent days of embellishing her story of a brush with sniper fire in Bosnia, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today said "don't be fooled" by photos showing her being greeted at the airport by a pony-tailed 8-year-old Bosnian girl with a bouquet of flowers.

"That was no little girl," Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. "That was a covert ops midget sniper."

The New York senator said that moments after the "so-called little girl" presented her with the flowers, she revealed what the bouquet had been hiding: "a tiny semi-automatic weapon."

"Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to use some of the Tae Kwon Do techniques I had learned in preparation for the Northern Ireland peace talks," she said.

Defending his wife against charges that she had yet again fabricated her exploits while First Lady, former President Bill Clinton told CNN's John King that "Democratic voters have a clear choice this election: do they want a liar or a plagiarist?"

"Hillary tells some real whoppers, but at least they're original," he said.

In response to a question about whether he believes his wife's account of the events in Bosnia, Mr. Clinton said, "All I have to say about that is Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright."

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He is the host of "Countdown to '08" at the 92nd Street Y on Tuesday, May 13 at 8 PM with his special guests Calvin Trillin (The New Yorker), Susie Essman (HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm) and Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, MSNBC). For tickets, go to 92y.org.


:funny:

jag

[Kelly]

Yeah, we have a thread on it.......*sighs*

[Mr Sparkle]

I really want to know where the line is suppose to get drawn in this race. The way Ferraro said her comments was disgusting, and very stupid on her behalf. But seriously, she raises a valid point.

unlike wright who is just a stupid racist anti-american! right?
right?

:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad: I hate him soooooo much.

[The Senator]

unlike wright who is just a stupid racist anti-american! right?
right?

:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad: I hate him soooooo much.

You're responding to a post I made two weeks ago. I've debated this in another thread; take it there.

[jaguarr]

You're responding to a post I made two weeks ago. I've debated this in another thread; take it there.

Hey, settle down. We don't want you getting carried away and hurting someone with your Tae Kwan Do techniques. :funny:

jag

[jaguarr]

Posted this in the Clinton thread, but this one is probably even more appropriate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/hillary-says-8yearold-b_b_93485.html


Hillary Says 8-Year-Old Bosnian Girl Was Actually Sniper

Posted March 26, 2008 | 11:05 AM (EST)

Accused in recent days of embellishing her story of a brush with sniper fire in Bosnia, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today said "don't be fooled" by photos showing her being greeted at the airport by a pony-tailed 8-year-old Bosnian girl with a bouquet of flowers.

"That was no little girl," Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. "That was a covert ops midget sniper."

The New York senator said that moments after the "so-called little girl" presented her with the flowers, she revealed what the bouquet had been hiding: "a tiny semi-automatic weapon."

"Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to use some of the Tae Kwon Do techniques I had learned in preparation for the Northern Ireland peace talks," she said.

Defending his wife against charges that she had yet again fabricated her exploits while First Lady, former President Bill Clinton told CNN's John King that "Democratic voters have a clear choice this election: do they want a liar or a plagiarist?"

"Hillary tells some real whoppers, but at least they're original," he said.

In response to a question about whether he believes his wife's account of the events in Bosnia, Mr. Clinton said, "All I have to say about that is Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright."

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He is the host of "Countdown to '08" at the 92nd Street Y on Tuesday, May 13 at 8 PM with his special guests Calvin Trillin (The New Yorker), Susie Essman (HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm) and Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, MSNBC). For tickets, go to 92y.org.


:funny:

jag

[Tron5000]

Posted this in the Clinton thread, but this one is probably even more appropriate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/hillary-says-8yearold-b_b_93485.html


Hillary Says 8-Year-Old Bosnian Girl Was Actually Sniper

Posted March 26, 2008 | 11:05 AM (EST)

Accused in recent days of embellishing her story of a brush with sniper fire in Bosnia, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today said "don't be fooled" by photos showing her being greeted at the airport by a pony-tailed 8-year-old Bosnian girl with a bouquet of flowers.

"That was no little girl," Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. "That was a covert ops midget sniper."

The New York senator said that moments after the "so-called little girl" presented her with the flowers, she revealed what the bouquet had been hiding: "a tiny semi-automatic weapon."

"Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to use some of the Tae Kwon Do techniques I had learned in preparation for the Northern Ireland peace talks," she said.

Defending his wife against charges that she had yet again fabricated her exploits while First Lady, former President Bill Clinton told CNN's John King that "Democratic voters have a clear choice this election: do they want a liar or a plagiarist?"

"Hillary tells some real whoppers, but at least they're original," he said.

In response to a question about whether he believes his wife's account of the events in Bosnia, Mr. Clinton said, "All I have to say about that is Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright."

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He is the host of "Countdown to '08" at the 92nd Street Y on Tuesday, May 13 at 8 PM with his special guests Calvin Trillin (The New Yorker), Susie Essman (HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm) and Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, MSNBC). For tickets, go to 92y.org.


:funny:

jag

Bravo. :lmao: Awesome.

[raybia]

As Hillary recently revealed, her trip to Bosina was a memorable one. This is where she was under attack as she landed at the airport. This video is quite chilling. If you have any kids around please cover their eye's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2rtBUfc6YA


This proves that Hillary is the perfect candidate for President. Her audio comments were quite convincing. In fact she is so convincing that I still believe her in spite of what my eyes just watched.

The President of the U.S. should be a perfect Poker player.

[Marx]

Hey, settle down. We don't want you getting carried away and hurting someone with your Tae Kwan Do techniques. :funny:

jag

But if I got some popcorn I'd share it with you if you wanted to watch him go all ninja on someone! :cwink:

[Matt]

So long as she is campaigning for her mother, she is fair game for any question, no matter how tactless it is. If she were trying to stay out of the public image and had people following her around, it would be different, but as it is, she is out campaigning for her mother, making herself a public figure. Of course, at the same time, she does not have to answer the tactless questions that are asked of her.

[The Senator]

No one asked the Bush twins if their father's credibility was was injured because he received a DUI. A candidate's personal life has nothing to do with politics; give it a rest.

[Excel]

I dont see why its even a bad question...

No one asked the Bush twins if their father's credibility was was injured because he received a DUI. A candidate's personal life has nothing to do with politics; give it a rest.

Yes it does :o

[Excel]

I dont see why its even a bad question...

No one asked the Bush twins if their father's credibility was was injured because he received a DUI. A candidate's personal life has nothing to do with politics; give it a rest.

Yes it does :o

[PyroChamber]

I'm surprised she's doing this, because usually Chelsea doesn't speak in public.

[Marx]

I dont see why its even a bad question...

Because Monica Lewisnky has absolutely no place in this campaign! It's just another pathetic attempt to somehow railroad Hillary. I am so sick and tired of people bringing that woman up! Let's all burn Hillary at the stake because she decided to stay with her husband! How in the **** is her credibility somehow damaged because of Monica Lewinsky??? Give me a break! Chelsea answered it exactly how I think she should have.

IT'S NOT ANYBODY'S BUSINESS!!! :cmad:

[redfirebird2008]

Because Monica Lewisnky has absolutely no place in this campaign! It's just another pathetic attempt to somehow railroad Hillary. I am so sick and tired of people bringing that woman up! Let's all burn Hillary at the stake because she decided to stay with her husband! How in the **** is her credibility somehow damaged because of Monica Lewinsky??? Give me a break! Chelsea answered it exactly how I think she should have.

IT'S NOT ANYBODY'S BUSINESS!!! :cmad:

It was a Clinton supporter who said all of his friends that don't like Hillary hold that against her and he wanted to give Chelsea a chance to stand up for her mom.

[Marx]

It was a Clinton supporter who said all of his friends that don't like Hillary hold that against her and he wanted to give Chelsea a chance to stand up for her mom.

I know who he was and I saw his interview, but I firmly disagree with anyone trying to inject Monica Lewinksy into this campaign. I don't care for what reason, this isn't about Bill's extra curriculars, it's about Hillary. Period.

And anybody that holds the Monica Lewinsky scandal against Hillary is an idiot.

[Kelly]

That question about Monica was "WAY OUT OF LINE".....you don't ask someone's daughter that kind of question, no matter who they are........that is just ridiculous.......and she handled herself very well with the question.


And Memphis it has nothing to do with treating her like she's 9. No one is doing that......its about showing some class. The question simply made the guy look like an ass. I saw an interview with him.......maybe some do want to know more of Hillary's feelings on this subject....but you don't ask her freaking daughter.......that is just rude, crude, and socially disgusting....

[redfirebird2008]

I know who he was and I saw his interview, but I firmly disagree with anyone trying to inject Monica Lewinksy into this campaign. I don't care for what reason, this isn't about Bill's extra curriculars, it's about Hillary. Period.

And anybody that holds the Monica Lewinsky scandal against Hillary is an idiot.

I agree with you. Absolutely pointless to bring it up.

[Marx]

I agree with you. Absolutely pointless to bring it up.

And how disrespectful to Chelsea? I mean, come on. You just don't ask a child something like that about their parents. You know?

[Arkady Rossovich]

She should answer the questions if asked. Because she doesn't,it looks like she's the weak link and is just there to make her mother look nice. Also,if she's asked something tough..people might think she might say something wrong..or something she should not say.

[Hobgoblin]

Lewinski-gate happened over ten years ago. Some people need to get over it. The whole Monica episode has nothing to do with Hillary running for office. I say good for Chelsea.

[redfirebird2008]

And how disrespectful to Chelsea? I mean, come on. You just don't ask a child something like that about their parents. You know?

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's one thing to ask Bill or Hillary but Chelsea should be left alone. As I said though, the good thing for her is she can just shrug it off and not answer.

[Matt]

Where do you get off doing stuff like that? I know what I wanted it to say. Good Grief....

I get off doing it because it is my job to serve the Hype. Your poll was ridiculously biased and would've severely restricted the conversation of Hypsters and eventually turned it into a debate about semantics. Quit trying to force your biases on others. If you're going to make a poll, give everyone a fair chance to speak their voice.

[Matt]

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's one thing to ask Bill or Hillary but Chelsea should be left alone. As I said though, the good thing for her is she can just shrug it off and not answer.

If she wants to be left alone, she should stop campaigning. It would be one thing if they showed up at her apartment or place of employment. As it is, she is out on the campaign trail making herself a public figure. Therefore she is fair game. No one is holding a gun to her head and making her answer.

[Hobgoblin]

Okay....this is ridiculous. Why is this "woman" still bing treated like she's 9?? She's campaigning for her Mom. She works for a hedge fund!! She 27- years old.


Whats with the quotation marks? How isnt Chelsea a woman? :huh: I think she's very much a woman and a lady to boot.

[Marx]

She should answer the questions if asked. Because she doesn't,it looks like she's the weak link and is just there to make her mother look nice. Also,if she's asked something tough..people might think she might say something wrong..or something she should not say.

You don't honestly believe that, do you Arkady? Chelsea is very much a force to be reckoned with. I suggest you rethink your own suggestion of her only being there to make her mother "look nice."

[Marx]

If she wants to be left alone, she should stop campaigning. It would be one thing if they showed up at her apartment or place of employment. As it is, she is out on the campaign trail making herself a public figure. Therefore she is fair game. No one is holding a gun to her head and making her answer.

I don't think she wants to be left alone, she is actively campaigning in her mother's campaign. Questions about Monica have no business whatsoever in this election.

[Matt]

I don't think she wants to be left alone, she is actively campaigning in her mother's campaign. Questions about Monica have no business whatsoever in this election.

And that is why she can say "No comment" or "I'd rather not answer that." In a country with a free media, no question, no matter how stupid or off-topic should be off-limits.

[Marx]

And that is why she can say "No comment" or "I'd rather not answer that." In a country with a free media, no question, no matter how stupid or off-topic should be off-limits.

While I agree with the "free media" comment, what is a person trying to gain by throwing Monica into the mix again? Absolutely nothing. It's just provoking, nothing more. There is no valid reason to bring that woman up.

[Excel]

I dont mind Chelsea at all but the answer def. came off *****y. He didnt ask if Hillary made Bill sleep on the couch, he didnt ask if Hillary was a good cook ro some sexist crap; he asked if the affair made her stronger. As painful as it might be to think about, if she expected people to act as if it didnt happen she was dreaming more than her mother currently is :o

I dont know why it was so hard to just say "yes, it has".

[Marx]

I dont mind Chelsea at all but the answer def. came off *****y. He didnt ask if Hillary made Bill sleep on the couch, he didnt ask if Hillary was a good cook ro some sexist crap; he asked if the affair made her stronger. As painful as it might be to think about, if she expected people to act as if it didnt happen she was dreaming more than her mother currently is :o

I dont know why it was so hard to just say "yes, it has".

He asked her if Hillary's credibility had been damaged, he didn't ask if Hillary became stronger because of it. Chelsea handled it perfectly.

[Matt]

I dont mind Chelsea at all but the answer def. came off *****y. He didnt ask if Hillary made Bill sleep on the couch, he didnt ask if Hillary was a good cook ro some sexist crap; he asked if the affair made her stronger. As painful as it might be to think about, if she expected people to act as if it didnt happen she was dreaming more than her mother currently is :o

I dont know why it was so hard to just say "yes, it has".

Please, it is a passive aggressive attempt to bring the Lewinski scandal back to the front of people's minds. I am glad it backfired, even though Chelsea shouldn't of "off limits."

[Kelly]

I dont mind Chelsea at all but the answer def. came off *****y. He didnt ask if Hillary made Bill sleep on the couch, he didnt ask if Hillary was a good cook ro some sexist crap; he asked if the affair made her stronger. As painful as it might be to think about, if she expected people to act as if it didnt happen she was dreaming more than her mother currently is :o

I dont know why it was so hard to just say "yes, it has".


It was a question, in regards, to the marital screw up of her dad, in reference, to her mom...


It's not rocket science.....its just IN REALLY BAD TASTE to ask the daughter ANYTHING in regards to her dad's screwing of someone else besides her mom......

[The Senator]

I dont see why its even a bad question...



Yes it does :o

Then someone should ask Barack Obama's daughters if they think daddy's a bad person because he snorted cocaine and smoked marijuana when he was younger.

[QueerMike]

Uh, I think Chelsea is going to run for President eventually.

[The Senator]

Uh, I think Chelsea is going to run for President eventually.

I highly doubt it. And we're not talking about whether she'll run for President, because there's no indication that she even wants a political life. She hasn't run for office, nor does she plan to. She's just a private citizen.

[Excel]

Chelseas much like her father than mother when it comes to how she interacts with people, she could defiently go far.

Then someone should ask Barack Obama's daughters if they think daddy's a bad person because he snorted cocaine and smoked marijuana when he was younger.

When their 27, yes.

[hippie_hunter]

When their 27, yes.

No, it would still be inappropriate. Questions like that are just douchey.

[Matt]

Chelseas much like her father than mother when it comes to how she interacts with people, she could defiently go far.


I don't like this notion any more than I like the notion of Prescott Bush. We shouldn't have elite families ruling our country.


When their 27, yes.

Why? Why do we need to know what the children of someone who was once prominent thinks of their parent's morality? It is not a fair question.

[Mr Sparkle]

Why? Why do we need to know what the children of someone who was once prominent thinks of their parent's morality? It is not a fair question.

questions are seldom fair in journalism.
nowadays even more so.
they can ask, and we can say " that's wrong" and she can choose to NOT answer, just as she did.

[Superman]

I don't think she's off limits but I also don't think she has to answer personal questions about her parent's marriage either.

Now, As for the question she was asked. That wasn't really about her parent's marriage, It was more about Hillary's image since the Lewisnky affair.

I didn't see nothing wrong with that question and I think she should have handle it better than she did.

I liked the answer she gave, It was just the wrong answer to THAT question.

[Zen]

I dont think Chelsea is off limits either, but the question is retarded.

who cares... its in bad taste.

there are honestly other things to fixate on with politicians than this garbage.

[The Senator]

I don't think she's off limits but I also don't think she has to answer personal questions about her parent's marriage either.

Now, As for the question she was asked. That wasn't really about her parent's marriage, It was more about Hillary's image since the Lewisnky affair.

I didn't see nothing wrong with that question and I think she should have handle it better than she did.

I liked the answer she gave, It was just the wrong answer to THAT question.

Again, if Michelle Obama or his children were asked if Obama's cocaine use and marijuana use makes him incredulous, should they be required to answer that question?

[StrainedEyes]

http://break.com/index/the-truth-behind-hillary-in-bosnia.html

[raybia]

http://break.com/index/the-truth-behind-hillary-in-bosnia.html

classic!

[MaskedManJRK]

It really was a stupid question: it was about a decade-old scandal that Bill stupidly made into a public situation by lying about his involvement. I see no real reason as to what it has to do with anything.

[kainedamo]

Her comments aren't racist. She didn't say "Obama will be an awful President because he's black." She said she didn't think he'd be where he is because he's black. And her statement had a lot of truth to it, as idiotic as it was for her to say it.

Should she have said it? Absolutely not. Should Clinton condemn it? Yes. Is it racist? Hardly.

The ironic thing is, it was probably very difficult for Obama to climb up to where he is now because of his skin colour.

[The Senator]

The ironic thing is, it was probably very difficult for Obama to climb up to where he is now because of his skin colour.

I wouldn't say that. He won election to the Illinois State Senate in a predominantly black district, and won election to the United States Senate with 70% of the vote. Granted, he was up against a flimsy candidate, but he led Jack Ryan in opinion polls by twenty points shortly before Ryan dropped out of the race. So I don't see where he's had a hard time getting elected because he's African American.

[kainedamo]

I'm not talking about winning votes with black voters (they're voting 'cause they're black and don't think he's the better candidate??).

I'm talking about becoming a senator. Getting to where he is that he can even decide to run for President. Can't have been easy.

[kainedamo]

So Clinton and Obama are liars. Color me suprised.


Obama denying he was aware of a Pastor's questionable opinions can hardly be compared to Hillary boasting about being under sniper fire.

[Darthphere]

Obama denying he wasn't aware of a Pastor's questionable opinions can hardly be compared to Hillary boasting about being under sniper fire.

Sure it can. What a ridiculous statement when Obama himself has said he was "aware" of the comments.:huh:

[kainedamo]

Sure it can. What a ridiculous statement when Obama himself has said he was "aware" of the comments.:huh:

Did Obama not say he wouldn't have went to the church if the guy was preaching that kind of stuff there?

Meh.

[Darthphere]

Did Obama not say he wouldn't have went to the church if the guy was preaching that kind of stuff there?

Meh.

That's what he initially said then he came out with "I was aware of those comments" and that he wasn't there when he said them.

[Zen]

Again, if Michelle Obama or his children were asked if Obama's cocaine use and marijuana use makes him incredulous, should they be required to answer that question?


Obama's children are not 27 years old.

Michelle Obama would answer the question by referencing what her husband said about his own drug use... in his book.

i still don't think the original question posed to chelsea is important at all, neither is this comparison.

[redfirebird2008]

Again, if Michelle Obama or his children were asked if Obama's cocaine use and marijuana use makes him incredulous, should they be required to answer that question?

Michelle and Chelsea both open themselves up to any and all questions by campaigning for their family members, but the great thing about this country is that they can both simply refuse to answer the question. Chelsea handled it great.

[Cosmic]

Obama's children are not 27 years old.

Yeah I agree, that comparison falls a bit short.

And for my 2 cents...Chelsea is not off-limits anymore, but that doesn't mean that she has to answer rude or obnoxious questions. And yet, she must have expected to have to deal with this sort of stuff once she started campaigning with her parents. It's not her fault, but then again, nobody's forcing her to do this.

[amazingfantasy15]

No one asked the Bush twins if their father's credibility was was injured because he received a DUI. A candidate's personal life has nothing to do with politics; give it a rest.

Then someone should ask Barack Obama's daughters if they think daddy's a bad person because he snorted cocaine and smoked marijuana when he was younger.

These are really bad examples because both sets of daughters weren't/aren't actively campaigning for their parents. Chelsea is, that's the difference. I don't see what's wrong with the question, it sheds a light Hillary's private life, if she's willing to overlook her husband's many infidelities, what else is she willing to overlook? How is it any different than bringing up Obama's pastor? These are things in his personal life that people seem to think will have/had an impact on his professional life.

[Addendum]

Then ask the question of Hillary

[bell110]

To answer the question, no she is not off limits, but she doesn't have to answer anything she doesn't want to.

Was it a rude question, yes, but there is no law that people can't ask rude questions. It was a dumb question in that Hillary's credability is subjective. Some people admire that she stuck with her husband after he cheated, others feel she's dumb for not leaving him.

It's interesting because questions about Monica are going to start happening more frequently. How should Hillary or Bill respond to these questions if asked to them? Be more open and honest about it, or go with no comment?

Also, to Memphis or anyone else, will there be a double standard in the right? Remember when Bush was campaigning, his past drug and alcohol abuse was off limits because "it was in the past". And the **** really hit the fan when Kerry brought up Chaney's lesbian daughter. The right was outraged that he would bring up something so personal. Do you guys think that the right will unfairly harp on the Monica thing?

[Addendum]

Do you guys think that the right will harp on the Monica thing?

Does a bear **** in the woods?

[redfirebird2008]

Does a bear **** in the woods?

What's funny is that's the exact one-liner I was thinking when I read his question. :woot:

[MaskedManJRK]

Do you guys think that the right will unfairly harp on the Monica thing?

Does a bear sh** in the woods?

What's funny is that's the exact one-liner I was thinking when I read his question. :woot:

I was thinking "****ing DUH," actually. :o

[The Senator]

I'm not talking about winning votes with black voters (they're voting 'cause they're black and don't think he's the better candidate??).

I'm talking about becoming a senator. Getting to where he is that he can even decide to run for President. Can't have been easy.

Um, since he won 70% of the vote in Illinois when he was elected in 2004... yeah, I'd say it was just about a cakewalk for him.

And since the media saw his speech and said "oh, wow, this was sooo good... good words mean he can the president!"... yeah, he's had it pretty damn easy since before he was even a Senator...

As for the black remarks, he was running in a predominantly black district, he won the primary... African Americans tend to elect African American politicians, especially in districts which are 75-90% black... once he won the election, re-election was a cakewalk for him too when he was in the IL State Senate.

[Arkady Rossovich]

You don't honestly believe that, do you Arkady? Chelsea is very much a force to be reckoned with. I suggest you rethink your own suggestion of her only being there to make her mother "look nice."

You may be right,because I have heard she is going around to colleges trying to get young people to vote for her mother,since normally the young people go for Obama. But I still think she might slip up,because even with long time Politicians..they sometimes say something they should not.

[Handsome Rob]

To answer the question, no she is not off limits, but she doesn't have to answer anything she doesn't want to.

Was it a rude question, yes, but there is no law that people can't ask rude questions. It was a dumb question in that Hillary's credability is subjective. Some people admire that she stuck with her husband after he cheated, others feel she's dumb for not leaving him.

It's interesting because questions about Monica are going to start happening more frequently. How should Hillary or Bill respond to these questions if asked to them? Be more open and honest about it, or go with no comment?

Also, to Memphis or anyone else, will there be a double standard in the right? Remember when Bush was campaigning, his past drug and alcohol abuse was off limits because "it was in the past". And the **** really hit the fan when Kerry brought up Chaney's lesbian daughter. The right was outraged that he would bring up something so personal. Do you guys think that the right will unfairly harp on the Monica thing?

There shouldn't be a double standard, but you know there will be. An unfortunate but integral part of politics today is the exercising of the double-standard. When you're talking about being a leader, your personal life does matter. Now, to what extent someone's past should influence today's decision about them is a question of judgment and practicality--you may let an ex-burglar be a manager, but I doubt anyone will let an ex-con pedophile be an elementary school teacher.

A politician needs to have the guts to face questions about his/her past, but the public also needs to recognize that 1) people screw up--sometimes pretty badly, and 2) people can change.

[Marx]

These are really bad examples because both sets of daughters weren't/aren't actively campaigning for their parents. Chelsea is, that's the difference. I don't see what's wrong with the question, it sheds a light Hillary's private life, if she's willing to overlook her husband's many infidelities, what else is she willing to overlook? How is it any different than bringing up Obama's pastor? These are things in his personal life that people seem to think will have/had an impact on his professional life.

You're kidding right? You have absolutely no clue as to what went on behind the scenes between Hillary and Bill. I don't know what happened either, but COMMON SENSE says that she didn't just overlook everything. I fail to see how throwing that woman into this somehow creates an issue for Hillary and her credbility. It's a pathetic attempt to sabotage her. She decided to stand by her husband, for reasons only she knows. People should be commending them for staying together, not condemning them. Given the divorce rate in this country, maybe people should take another look at them and take some notes. Is their marriage perfect? Probably not, but it was their decision and I applaud them for it.

Monica Lewinsky has no place in this campaign.

[terry78]

http://thetimesonline.com/articles/2008/03/28/updates/breaking_news/doc47eced2b10c7c550666171.txt


I want to go over there, not to stir up trouble, but to see what she says. I'll bring a report later.

[Malice]

oh boy...lets all be excited!

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Stir up trouble so we can see your face on the news. :huh:

[The Senator]

No, she shouldn't drop out, because she can still win at the convention even if she loses the remaining of the states.

Not that it matters, since the Democratic Party will be defeated by McCain in November anyway.

Besides, Hillary will be in a better position to be the nominee, considering 1/4 of her supporters are willing to vote for McCain over Obama, whereas 20% of Obama's supporters would vote for McCain. I mean, we're only talking a difference of five percent... so it's just a question of whether McCain will win with 55% or 57% of the vote.

[Excel]

her approval ratings at 37%, I doubt if she steals the nominee from the popular vote winner due to technicality, she'll be looked at any better.

[The Senator]

her approval ratings at 37%, I doubt if she steals the nominee from the popular vote winner due to technicality, she'll be looked at any better.

And Obama's favorable rating isn't all that good, either, sitting at 49%. Which isn't a good thing, since I think Kerry's hovered around 53% throughout his campaign, and he still lost.

Besides, isn't John McCain's in the high fifties? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Excel]

Except Obama would be getting the nomination the voters gave him, not stealing it, which is how the media portray it.

[Matt]

So what? That is not how the rules of the Democratic Party work. And no matter what Richardson, Pelosi, or whoever say, that is not the way it works. If she is statistically in it, she owes it to the 50 % of the Democratic Party who voted for her to stay in.

[redfirebird2008]

And Obama's favorable rating isn't all that good, either, sitting at 49%. Which isn't a good thing, since I think Kerry's hovered around 53% throughout his campaign, and he still lost.

Besides, isn't John McCain's in the high fifties? Correct me if I'm wrong.

He's somewhere around there I think. The Dems are screwed either way at the moment.

[J. J. Jameson]

I can't believe people like John McCain so much. I mean, crap...what's the man's appeal? He's stiffer than a board when he speaks to crowds and he's worse than Bush when it comes to the war...

What the heck, America? :huh:

[terry78]

I can't believe people like John McCain so much. I mean, crap...what's the man's appeal? He's stiffer than a board when he speaks to crowds and he's worse than Bush when it comes to the war...

What the heck, America? :huh:

He's an old white man. That's our comfort zone.

[Arkady Rossovich]

Yes. I think it's clear that Obama has won. Clinton won't catch up.

[The Senator]

Yes. I think it's clear that Obama has won. Clinton won't catch up.

It's not clear that Obama has won. Once he receives 2025 delegates, he will have won. He doesn't have that yet.

[Marx]

So what? That is not how the rules of the Democratic Party work. And no matter what Richardson, Pelosi, or whoever say, that is not the way it works. If she is statistically in it, she owes it to the 50 % of the Democratic Party who voted for her to stay in.

Exactly. There is no way that she should drop out. Whether some people want to admit it or not, both of these campaigns are equal in strength and support. Any suggestion that she should drop out is ridiculous.

[Tron5000]

I can't believe people like John McCain so much. I mean, crap...what's the man's appeal? He's stiffer than a board when he speaks to crowds and he's worse than Bush when it comes to the war...

What the heck, America? :huh:

What the heck does that have to do with being president? Would Carrot Top be a better alternative for you?

[SuBe]

Well, some people actually like voting for someone with experience. Others like to vote for someone with more "appeal", whatever that means.

[The Senator]

Charisma should have little to do with whether one is Presidential material. Kerry had the charisma of a drunken horse, and I would have gladly given him my vote if I was able to do so during that election. Experience, and the ability to lead, should be the two qualifications one seeks in a President.

People shouldn't hold McCain's "lack of charisma" (he has more charisma than Bob Dole or Kerry did, though) against him.

[Excel]

It's not clear that Obama has won. Once he receives 2025 delegates, he will have won. He doesn't have that yet.

Thanks Huckabee :up:

[Marx]

Thanks Huckabee :up:

Huckabee had never had a chance Ex. They were 800 points apart! That's quite a big difference from 140.

[Excel]

That was also in January. We're approaching April. If She loses NC, she needs to drop out for the sake of the party.

[SuBe]

Thanks Huckabee :up:
What does Huckabee have anything to do with the Obama/Clinton Race?

Why are you thanking him? That makes no sense whatsoever.:huh:

[Marx]

That was also in January. We're approaching April. If She loses NC, she needs to drop out for the sake of the party.

In a recent interview, Howard Dean said that he is convinced that Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at the convention. Hillary is not going to drop out.

[Excel]

What does Huckabee have anything to do with the Obama/Clinton Race?

Why are you thanking him? That makes no sense whatsoever.:huh:

The "they dont have the amount of delegates needed to win, until they do its not over" argument is the same the Huckster used ;)

[SuBe]

The "they dont have the amount of delegates needed to win, until they do its not over" argument is the same the Huckster used ;)
AHHH, ok. I was thinking that someone was confused and was saying Huck was in the Democrat Party. My Bad, dawg.

Carry on.

[The Senator]

The "they dont have the amount of delegates needed to win, until they do its not over" argument is the same the Huckster used ;)

They're nowhere near the same! Neither candidate will have the amount of delegates necessary to win the nomination before the convention. There are six states left. Why should Hillary drop out, knowing full well that this will not be decided even after all the states have weighed in? Why not let these states, which traditionally never have a say in the nominating process, have their voices heard like the 44 states which have already decided? It doesn't make sense to force a candidate to drop out when the other candidate is just as likely as she is to win the nomination at this point. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, stayed in until it was clear that the party had decided their nominee. He didn't want McCain to be handed the nomination. And guess what? When McCain earned the amount of delegates needed to become the defacto Republican nominee, Huckabee dropped out of the race!

If Obama was ten delegates away from winning the nomination, then yes, I'd say she should drop out because there is no way she'd be able to win at this point. I'd say that she could continue through Pennsylvania, but once Obama became the defacto nominee, she should drop out. But since they both won't have the 2025 delegates needed, neither one of them has a reason to leave this race.

It's funny that some of the same people who complain about Florida and Michigan being seated, and used the false rationale "rules are rules," are calling for Clinton to exit, when the rules explicitly state that a candidate needs 2025 delegates to win the nomination and Obama has yet to reach that magic number. It's truly baffling to me.

I can't imagine how some of you would have reacted fifty years ago, when the nominees weren't decided until the convention. In fact, it wasn't until 1984, the year the party made primary frontloading and superdelegates the new fad, when Democratic candidates won the nomination without going to the convention. Even Carter had to fight, somewhat, against Ted Kennedy in 1980. Now that we've gone back to that era, where there is no clear winner, we have no idea what to do with ourselves. The rules are rules. No one has won yet, and no one will win until every voter has weighed in and there is a candidate taking center stage in Denver to deliver his or her acceptance speech.

[Zen]

No, she shouldn't drop out, because she can still win at the convention even if she loses the remaining of the states.

Not that it matters, since the Democratic Party will be defeated by McCain in November anyway.

Besides, Hillary will be in a better position to be the nominee, considering 1/4 of her supporters are willing to vote for McCain over Obama, whereas 20% of Obama's supporters would vote for McCain. I mean, we're only talking a difference of five percent... so it's just a question of whether McCain will win with 55% or 57% of the vote.

conservative supreme court justices living out there natural lives, stompin on the social laws you would like to see some kind of progress on.

but mark warner will eventually be president

[The Senator]

conservative supreme court justices living out there natural lives, stompin on the social laws you would like to see some kind of progress on.

but mark warner will eventually be president

The chances that McCain will be able to appoint extreme right-wingers to the Supreme Court are very slim. Do you think the Democratic Party, which will expand upon its majority, will vote to confirm people like that? At worst, McCain will appoint a Sandra Day-O'Connor like figure, someone who is a true moderate who will actually review precedents set in this country before weighing a decision. You won't get a Samuel Alito-like figure confirmed in this Congress, considering he had trouble being confirmed when there was a Republican-controlled Congress.

[SuBe]

conservative supreme court justices living out there natural lives, stompin on the social laws you would like to see some kind of progress on.

but mark warner will eventually be president
Better than Liberal Supreme Court Justices Piss'n on the Constitution. In my humble opinion ofcourse.

[Zen]

The chances that McCain will be able to appoint extreme right-wingers to the Supreme Court are very slim. Do you think the Democratic Party, which will expand upon its majority, will vote to confirm people like that? At worst, McCain will appoint a Sandra Day-O'Connor like figure, someone who is a true moderate who will actually review precedents set in this country before weighing a decision. You won't get a Samuel Alito-like figure confirmed in this Congress, considering he had trouble being confirmed when there was a Republican-controlled Congress.

2 spots are going to open... there was only one sandra day oconnor... i hope beyond hope that would be the case. but replacing liberal judges with moderates is unbalancing. the right wing judges are not being replaced with moderates.


alito got through.

[Matt]

That was also in January. We're approaching April. If She loses NC, she needs to drop out for the sake of the party.

If she still has the possibility of winning, she should not drop out. It would be a slap in the face to the 50 % of the Democratic party that is voting for her. Huckabee was statistically out of the race. Clinton is not and will not be even if she loses North Carolina.

[hippie_hunter]

That was also in January. We're approaching April. If She loses NC, she needs to drop out for the sake of the party.

I love it how you think that North Carolina is as important as Pennsylvania and especially with the other primaries that are not Pennsylvania and North Carolina, Clinton holds the advantage of winning the remaining contests.

[Superman]

I think that if she loses Pennsylvania It's over.

All this crap is killing the Dems. It's time to go after McBush and stop all this infighting.

[Matt]

I think that if she loses Pennsylvania It's over.

All this crap is killing the Dems, It's time to go after McBush and stop all this infighting.

If she loses PA, I would agree. As it is, she is up quite a bit in Pennsylvania.

[The Senator]

alito got through.

In a Republican-controlled Congress. The Dems control Congress now...

[Kelly]

Thanks Huckabee :up:



LMAO.....


what?????????????????????????:huh:


Ya know Excel......one moment I think....yeah the kid is learning something about politics....then you come up with one of these little tidbits......

I still believe you've learned a lot......don't stop....lol

[Superman]

In a Republican-controlled Congress. The Dems control Congress now...I wouldn't exactly describe what the Dems have as "control".

[kang604]

speaking as a canadian living part time in the US

i cannot for the life of me understand why you guys would vote john mccain into the white house. it just astounds me.

[Matt]

Am I the only one who finds it a tad insulting when someone who is a foreigner enters a discussion on American politics and says "I have no clue how you guys could've been stupid enough to do this or that,"?

I don't know how Canada has been stupid enough to allow itself to become a welfare state. I do not know how Mexico has allowed it's entire economy to go down the ****ter so now their citizens have to sneak into our country and illegally to obtain under the table jobs for ridiculously low wages.

Not fun when someone completely stereotypes the worst aspect of your culture either, is it? :cmad:

[rdh007]

^Agreed, except that I so often agree with them.

[Matt]

^Agreed, except that I so often agree with them.

The validity of their point (or lack there of) is not what bothers me. What bothers me is the way they say it as if they are talking to a child who has touched the oven. Who are they to get up on their pedestals and criticize what our country does as if theirs is perfect?

[Marx]

The validity of their point (or lack there of) is not what bothers me. What bothers me is the way they say it as if they are talking to a child who has touched the oven. Who are they to get up on their pedestals and criticize what our country does as if theirs is perfect?

I've often wondered that too.

[blackcobra]

I see the enthusiasim on this forum is astronomically high for Hillary;)

[Zen]

Ughhh...

how dare they, just how dare they :cmad:

outside opinions don't matter...

only ours do.

Amerika for Amerikuns, even though we have ceased to be isolationists and our government believes we have a say in every other countries rights, governments, goings on... but outside opinions on our government? thats downright balls right there, the nerve... the anger.

[Zen]

speaking as a canadian living part time in the US

i cannot for the life of me understand why you guys would vote john mccain into the white house. it just astounds me.

how about elaboration, othwise ill agree that you suck

;)

[Superman]

Ughhh...

how dare they, just how dare they :cmad:

outside opinions don't matter...

only ours do.

Amerika for Amerikuns, even though we have ceased to be isolationists and our government believes we have a say in every other countries rights, governments, goings on... but outside opinions on our government? thats downright balls right there, the nerve... the anger.Exactly!

[Matt]

Ughhh...

how dare they, just how dare they :cmad:

outside opinions don't matter...

only ours do.

Amerika for Amerikuns, even though we have ceased to be isolationists and our government believes we have a say in every other countries rights, governments, goings on... but outside opinions on our government? thats downright balls right there, the nerve... the anger.

Exactly!

Again, it has nothing to do with having an opinion. It has to do with people talking down to us like we are children being scolded for playing with matches.

And Zen, when it comes to our elections, only our opinions do matter. Would you prefer we let foreign citizens vote in our elections?

[SentinelMind]

The chances that McCain will be able to appoint extreme right-wingers to the Supreme Court are very slim. Do you think the Democratic Party, which will expand upon its majority, will vote to confirm people like that? At worst, McCain will appoint a Sandra Day-O'Connor like figure, someone who is a true moderate who will actually review precedents set in this country before weighing a decision. You won't get a Samuel Alito-like figure confirmed in this Congress, considering he had trouble being confirmed when there was a Republican-controlled Congress.

If a precedent was badly decided, a Supreme Court Justice should have a right to overturn it. Casey vs Planned Parenthood revisited Roe v Wade, and these cases will come back again. Alito was confirmed by 58 to 42 and was unanimously rated as qualified by ABA. McCain could appoint another John Roberts, someone who is strict constructionist, had high ratings by ABA, but not much of a paper trail. These strict constructionist may personally think Roe v Wade is a bad decision, but they are not going to ignore precedent set down by a higher Court and will apply the decision because they like and need consistency (its not about being ideologically conservative, its about being consistent). However, once these guys get on the Supreme Court, anything could happen, they don't have to listen to anyone. Many Justices have behaved differently on the Supreme Court than on the lower courts, so I wouldn't be so dismissive of another strict cosntructionist getting in under say a President McCain.

[The Senator]

I see the enthusiasim on this forum is astronomically high for Hillary;)

Well, to put things in perspective, I've been to about six events where Hillary Clinton spoke.... so any first-hand accounts in this thread aren't really going to have an effect on me....

[kang604]

how about elaboration, othwise ill agree that you suck

;)

first of all

i am not neccessarily an "outsider". i have lived part-time in NYC for the past 5 years and lived in phoenix when i was younger for about 4 years. i am 22 years old so i have spent a good chunk of my life, especially my adult life, in the USA.

secondly, the American public has elected a president with one of the worst approval ratings in recent memory. Not once, but twice. Bush is scorned in the media, and ridiculed as one of the worst presidents the US has elected. Even the American people that voted him in hate Bush.

Now you have the chance, after 8 years of a downward economic spiral and 4,000+ casualties in a war that did not need to be fought, to move in a different direction, whether it be Hillary or Obama. To move in a direction that would involve repairing your economy and ending a war that has cost so many lives and heartache for people all across the globe.

Now you guys have the chance, and I cant vote because I am not a US citizen, but YOU guys have the chance to make a difference, but I fear that if John McCain becomes the next president of the United States, we will see more of the same. The war will not end, and more and more lives will be senselessly lost.

That is my elaboration. And I am not "talking down" to Americans, I love this country too and I wouldn't live here if I didn't.

[Marx]

first of all

i am not neccessarily an "outsider". i have lived part-time in NYC for the past 5 years and lived in phoenix when i was younger for about 4 years. i am 22 years old so i have spent a good chunk of my life, especially my adult life, in the USA.

secondly, the American public has elected a president with one of the worst approval ratings in recent memory. Not once, but twice. Bush is scorned in the media, and ridiculed as one of the worst presidents the US has elected. Even the American people that voted him in hate Bush.

Now you have the chance, after 8 years of a downward economic spiral and 4,000+ casualties in a war that did not need to be fought, to move in a different direction, whether it be Hillary or Obama. To move in a direction that would involve repairing your economy and ending a war that has cost so many lives and heartache for people all across the globe.

Now you guys have the chance, and I cant vote because I am not a US citizen, but YOU guys have the chance to make a difference, but I fear that if John McCain becomes the next president of the United States, we will see more of the same. The war will not end, and more and more lives will be senselessly lost.

That is my elaboration. And I am not "talking down" to Americans, I love this country too and I wouldn't live here if I didn't.

Let's not forget that Bush didn't win the first time, Al Gore did. And let's not forget the second time that Bush narrowly won because of scare tactics and fear mongering.

[kang604]

Let's not forget that Bush didn't win the first time, Al Gore did. And let's not forget the second time that Bush narrowly won because of scare tactics and fear mongering.

i understand, but my point is that McCain would be more of the same, more of the same of a President who currently holds something like a 28% approval rating.

[The Senator]

secondly, the American public has elected a president with one of the worst approval ratings in recent memory. Not once, but twice.

His approval ratings when he was re-elected were at or slightly above 50%. They weren't perfect, but they weren't nearly as bad as the lower-30% approval ratings he's been stuck at since late-2006.


Bush is scorned in the media, and ridiculed as one of the worst presidents the US has elected. Even the American people that voted him in hate Bush.

Truman was also scorned by the media. He also had the lowest approval ratings of any U.S. president-- but history regards him as one of the ten-best Presidents we've ever had.


Now you have the chance, after 8 years of a downward economic spiral and 4,000+ casualties in a war that did not need to be fought, to move in a different direction, whether it be Hillary or Obama. To move in a direction that would involve repairing your economy and ending a war that has cost so many lives and heartache for people all across the globe.

But where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will lead us in the right direction? What if they screw up just as badly as Bush has?

You do realize that both of them have said that the majority of our troops will be unable to come home until 2013, correct? So if that promise sticks out, what's to say they'll be in a good position to come home in 2012? What if the war escalates to a new extreme? Wouldn't that give prospective Presidents Romney or Jindal fuel for the fire?

ROMNEY: Obama promised to get our troops out, and in the process, he's made them more vulnerable to attacks.

JINDAL: Hillary has spent four years trying to get our troops out when she should have focused on the mission. Now we've got an even bigger disaster on our hands than we did four years ago.

Don't you think the American people would be slightly turned off?

If the Democrat promises to get our troops out of Iraq, but fails, don't you think Americans will say "enough's enough" and kick their asses out? Following two years of failed promises to do the exact same thing by the Democratic controlled Congress, and four years with Obama or Hillary in the same boat, Americans will say "**** it" and vote for the Republican out of spite.

Then say McCain becomes President and is faced with the exact same situation. He keeps us in there for four years, and things escalate out of control. Don't you think that would reflect negatively on him? Don't you think that would give Democrats an edge in 2012?


Now you guys have the chance, and I cant vote because I am not a US citizen, but YOU guys have the chance to make a difference, but I fear that if John McCain becomes the next president of the United States, we will see more of the same. The war will not end, and more and more lives will be senselessly lost.

Again, show me evidence that Hillary or Barack will end this war, because neither one of them have a record which proves they are against this war. Hillary voted to authorize it, while Obama has consistently voted to keep funding it. Meanwhile, they both said at a debate this past fall that they'd have to keep troops in Iraq until 2013. That doesn't indicate that they're going to end the war. The only indication you have that they'll end the war is what they say in their speeches. And in 2000, George W. Bush said he would scale back the U.S.'s role in the international community... we see how far that went, don't we?

We've had two presidents who have served eight years in a row. It's often rare to see that happen, but in our nation's history, we have had few, if any, cases where three presidents have served consecutive eight year terms. If history is any indication, whoever wins this election will lose in 2012. I'd rather McCain be on that end then Hillary or Obama. I'd rather avoid Presidents Romney and Jindal, under any means necessary.

[The Senator]

Let's not forget that Bush didn't win the first time, Al Gore did. And let's not forget the second time that Bush narrowly won because of scare tactics and fear mongering.

Al Gore won the popular vote. The electoral college is the only thing which determines the winner of the election. Hence, Bush won by a technicality.

[Excel]

Calm down, every country talks **** about other countries problems...and in doing so it always make you seem as if you think your counties better. King was saying something a lot of Americans are thinkings.

[Zen]

Again, it has nothing to do with having an opinion. It has to do with people talking down to us like we are children being scolded for playing with matches.

And Zen, when it comes to our elections, only our opinions do matter. Would you prefer we let foreign citizens vote in our elections?

I think part of being a true patriot is having the maturity to handle criticisms constructively and reflect objectively on... objective opinions about our country.

and no, they shouldn't be able to vote in our elections. but they may have some information that may cause me to research and understand something from a more "worldly" angle that *might* affect how i vote.

...in the hopes of becoming a fully rounded, highly rational, adult American.

[Zen]

His approval ratings when he was re-elected were at or slightly above 50%. They weren't perfect, but they weren't nearly as bad as the lower-30% approval ratings he's been stuck at since late-2006.



Truman was also scorned by the media. He also had the lowest approval ratings of any U.S. president-- but history regards him as one of the ten-best Presidents we've ever had.



But where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will lead us in the right direction? What if they screw up just as badly as Bush has?

You do realize that both of them have said that the majority of our troops will be unable to come home until 2013, correct? So if that promise sticks out, what's to say they'll be in a good position to come home in 2012? What if the war escalates to a new extreme? Wouldn't that give prospective Presidents Romney or Jindal fuel for the fire?

ROMNEY: Obama promised to get our troops out, and in the process, he's made them more vulnerable to attacks.

JINDAL: Hillary has spent four years trying to get our troops out when she should have focused on the mission. Now we've got an even bigger disaster on our hands than we did four years ago.

Don't you think the American people would be slightly turned off?

If the Democrat promises to get our troops out of Iraq, but fails, don't you think Americans will say "enough's enough" and kick their asses out? Following two years of failed promises to do the exact same thing by the Democratic controlled Congress, and four years with Obama or Hillary in the same boat, Americans will say "**** it" and vote for the Republican out of spite.

Then say McCain becomes President and is faced with the exact same situation. He keeps us in there for four years, and things escalate out of control. Don't you think that would reflect negatively on him? Don't you think that would give Democrats an edge in 2012?



Again, show me evidence that Hillary or Barack will end this war, because neither one of them have a record which proves they are against this war. Hillary voted to authorize it, while Obama has consistently voted to keep funding it. Meanwhile, they both said at a debate this past fall that they'd have to keep troops in Iraq until 2013. That doesn't indicate that they're going to end the war. The only indication you have that they'll end the war is what they say in their speeches. And in 2000, George W. Bush said he would scale back the U.S.'s role in the international community... we see how far that went, don't we?

We've had two presidents who have served eight years in a row. It's often rare to see that happen, but in our nation's history, we have had few, if any, cases where three presidents have served consecutive eight year terms. If history is any indication, whoever wins this election will lose in 2012. I'd rather McCain be on that end then Hillary or Obama. I'd rather avoid Presidents Romney and Jindal, under any means necessary.

when criticizing the democratic candidates (and to some lesser extent McCain as well) you cite such open ended hypotheticals i wonder where exactly your support for people now or in the fute gets foundation?

i mean any candidate has unforseen variables and probabilities. It is understandable that you could say that inexperience is a marker for playing the odds...

but for the love of Hector this war could go on for 20 years... effectively making every candidate for 5 more elections face such a hypothetically dangerous political landscape regardless of their experience.


Personally, i want a full phased withdrawl in one years time. Im just not going to get that. as socialized as i can be on such issues as healthcare... i dont think democracy needs to be patriated and fostered by another government such as ours... we need to focus on domestic policy, economy and security. Not Iraqii's. there will be turmoil with such a plan...

as much as you say throw the democrats under the bus this term... the war could be equally a politically poisonous threat for mark warner and everyone else in the same way it is now.

People want out. i dont think this will change. if we get attacked we will want to fight the real threat. if we see progress we will want to leave... if it continues to get hairy over there we will want to leave. i do not see how it will be different in 4 years.

its not going to be easier for a democrat to win in 4 years than it is right now. if bush didnt make it easy enough to get some blue blood in the white house... McCain will certainly not be able to stir up any more emotion.

especially if so many democrats (and especially first time voters) are disenfranchized by losing this time. and imagine if the right wing gets a serious candidate in 4 years they can all fall behind emphatically? John McCain is as weak a candidate as we can get... disguise it all you want with the bi-partisan rhetoric... he is a weak republican candidate whos current strength is only being butressed by the sheer bedlam going on in the democratic primary.

[Matt]

I think part of being a true patriot is having the maturity to handle criticisms constructively and reflect objectively on... objective opinions about our country.

and no, they shouldn't be able to vote in our elections. but they may have some information that may cause me to research and understand something from a more "worldly" angle that *might* affect how i vote.

...in the hopes of becoming a fully rounded, highly rational, adult American.

Key word is maturity. I discuss American politics all the time with my "sister" from France. Do you know what the difference between our discussions and kang's post was? She doesn't speak like Americans are children who need to be lectured and scolded for being "stupid enough" to elect someone. Do you honestly not see how that is insulting?

[Zen]

Key word is maturity. I discuss American politics all the time with my "sister" from France. Do you know what the difference between our discussions and kang's post was? She doesn't speak like Americans are children who need to be lectured and scolded for being "stupid enough" to elect someone. Do you honestly not see how that is insulting?


I understand what your saying. i guess i should back up here and say you are free to feel insulted by others, especially those who do not seem to have the same grasp of a situation as you do, in your opinion.

i totally understand that. i think Kangs post isn't necessarily the best example of a scolding one, but i see how your approaching it.

when i read over Kangs post i imagine 3 different people reading it. those who support McCain, those Who support someone else and those who have yet to decide.

If I supported McCain i would engage people like Kang and disect why they feel this way... probably with a zealous force if i wasnt carefull ;) true, investigating people who may not be voters or are foreigners may seem unproductive, and pointless... but sometimes outside opinions offer some clarity otherwise unattainable. though Kang is claiming ties to the US so perhaps we have already run off the rails on this discussion. i might glean a more efficient avenue of attack against his ilk in the future... cause if history teaches us anything, **** rolls downhill.

If i have yet to support anyone, i would be interested... in hearing more as to why they are so Awe struck at the candidate, and people choosing said candidate.

If i supported another candidate i might let it pass and not feel a need to flesh it out. i might throw "thumbs up" on them desperately seeking mob rule against this candidate... send this kid flowers and chocolates... trace their IP and stand outside their house with a boombox above my head piping the Obama "yes we can" will.i.am song.... i would feel dangerously stupid being out in canada doing this,

but Obamamaniacs might do strange things.

Clintonites would send them a sniper rifle or something, cause canadians are arguably good with them... might offer her some cover.


this is all based on the assumption that there was more for kang to say of course, which i asked him/her to go ahead and cough up or proceed to suck.

if he/she had not, then i would agree with you, foreigners (and americans too)who voice their opinion so bluntly and callously without backing it up somehow, are no better than your garden variety garden trolls or underbridge sludge goblins. At that point i would have been insulted as an informed politico... that others would come in here and drop their droppings without explaining how its going to turn into fertalizer.

[Kelly]

In all honesty Zen, we have quite a few around here who are not American citizens, who do speak down to posters, pretty much in all posts.....so if some seem sensitive to that, its probably because it happens quite often on these threads.........

So with the history that is here, there isn't a lot of patience with this type of thing....

We have some that are very intelligent, but tend to put opinions out there that could very well work in their own country, but are kind of ignorant of how they would work in the US....

We have some that are simply put...."Haters of the United States" and their posts are very clear in their motive.....

But for someone to come along and say....in words that pretty much are saying..."I don't see how Americans can be so stupid....." is not an opinion to me.......its ignorance.

[Marx]

Al Gore won the popular vote. The electoral college is the only thing which determines the winner of the election. Hence, Bush won by a technicality.

I'm aware he only won the popular vote. I was making the argument that the majority of people in this country DID NOT vote for Bush.

[Zen]

In all honesty Zen, we have quite a few around here who are not American citizens, who do speak down to posters, pretty much in all posts.....so if some seem sensitive to that, its probably because it happens quite often on these threads.........

So with the history that is here, there isn't a lot of patience with this type of thing....

We have some that are very intelligent, but tend to put opinions out there that could very well work in their own country, but are kind of ignorant of how they would work in the US....

We have some that are simply put...."Haters of the United States" and their posts are very clear in their motive.....

But for someone to come along and say....in words that pretty much are saying..."I don't see how Americans can be so stupid....." is not an opinion to me.......its ignorance.

Well you've put forth some good arguments to engage those posters on, but to go ahead and blanket foreign posters like that because people are running out of patience is indicative of what i think is wrong with some of our foreign policy.

honestly, there are plenty of americans who call each other stupid. i am not going to specifically garner more frustration with a foreigner than an american simply because people are being thoughtless or petty... All humans are capable of this equally, not just foreigners. as we are all capable of discussion and fleshing out the different views that have brought us here.

[kang604]

Key word is maturity. I discuss American politics all the time with my "sister" from France. Do you know what the difference between our discussions and kang's post was? She doesn't speak like Americans are children who need to be lectured and scolded for being "stupid enough" to elect someone. Do you honestly not see how that is insulting?

i dont know where you're getting this idea that i am scolding or calling out americans for being "stupid enough" to vote for john mccain.

what i said was i cannot UNDERSTAND why you would vote for him. i cannot UNDERSTAND why you would vote for a candidate that promises more of the same for the next 4-8 years?

and jmanspice, i dont know if hillary or obama will lead america in the right direction. no one knows, no one can predict the future. but they have spoken against the war, and have made it a backbone of both their campaigns that they wish to begin withdrawal of troops from Iraq almost immediately. Now, no-one knows if this will actually happen. Maybe Obama and Clinton are taking us all on a wild goose chase and they have no intention of doing what they claim. But I would like to think that this will not be the case.

With John McCain, you KNOW what you are going to get over the next 4-8 years. More war, more death, and more money spent on funding the military overseas that could be used to help rebuild America's infrastructure.

No candidate is perfect. Democrat or Republican. But given the choices, and given the current state of the USA and the 8 years of ******** you have suffered with George Bush...

like i said, i cannot UNDERSTAND why John McCain should be the next president of the US.

i am not some arrogant foreigner with my nose to the sky. I live here too, and the decisions this country makes affect everyone around the globe, especially my home country (canada). and while i do not have the right to vote (nor do i think i should), i do have the right to an opinion.

[Tron5000]

I'm aware he only won the popular vote. I was making the argument that the majority of people in this country DID NOT vote for Bush.

No, but he did get a majority in 2004, something that Bill Clinton was never able to accomplish. In fact, there has not been a Democrat with a majority of the popular vote since Carter in '76, yet 3 Republicans can claim that in that time span. And it appears that the trend will continue for the Dems this year.

[Tron5000]

Edit:Whoops. DP.

[Kelly]

Well you've put forth some good arguments to engage those posters on, but to go ahead and blanket foreign posters like that because people are running out of patience is indicative of what i think is wrong with some of our foreign policy.

honestly, there are plenty of americans who call each other stupid. i am not going to specifically garner more frustration with a foreigner than an american simply because people are being thoughtless or petty... All humans are capable of this equally, not just foreigners. as we are all capable of discussion and fleshing out the different views that have brought us here.

I take every poster individually......we have posters from all over the world, we have mods from all over the world. So board wide we have an enormous amount of awesome posters from all walks of life, and all backgrounds.

It does seem that in this particular forum, we have a number of posters from other countries that do enjoy slamming the US when they get a chance......now trying to figure out motives is a tricky thing.......so I look at the history of the poster and make a call from that...........the scenarios I put above tend to be overwhelmingly in this forum, not all over the board.....but in this forum more specifically. So, its not surprising that an American on this forum will not take kindly to a generalization w/o solid backing being thrown out there...........

I have no problem with an opinion being put out there.......but I tend to strike a little stronger at a generalization without substance from a poster. :yay: Citizen of this country or not.....

[Excel]

Cant we all just get along??

[Matt]

Well you've put forth some good arguments to engage those posters on, but to go ahead and blanket foreign posters like that because people are running out of patience is indicative of what i think is wrong with some of our foreign policy.

honestly, there are plenty of americans who call each other stupid. i am not going to specifically garner more frustration with a foreigner than an american simply because people are being thoughtless or petty... All humans are capable of this equally, not just foreigners. as we are all capable of discussion and fleshing out the different views that have brought us here.

It is like you're family Zen. You can call your own mother a *****, but if someone from outside of the family does it, those are fighting words. :cwink:

[Marx]

Cant we all just get along??

Doesn't it require more of an effort to get along than to just continue fighting? :cwink:

[Matt]

i dont know where you're getting this idea that i am scolding or calling out americans for being "stupid enough" to vote for john mccain.

what i said was i cannot UNDERSTAND why you would vote for him. i cannot UNDERSTAND why you would vote for a candidate that promises more of the same for the next 4-8 years?

and jmanspice, i dont know if hillary or obama will lead america in the right direction. no one knows, no one can predict the future. but they have spoken against the war, and have made it a backbone of both their campaigns that they wish to begin withdrawal of troops from Iraq almost immediately. Now, no-one knows if this will actually happen. Maybe Obama and Clinton are taking us all on a wild goose chase and they have no intention of doing what they claim. But I would like to think that this will not be the case.

With John McCain, you KNOW what you are going to get over the next 4-8 years. More war, more death, and more money spent on funding the military overseas that could be used to help rebuild America's infrastructure.

No candidate is perfect. Democrat or Republican. But given the choices, and given the current state of the USA and the 8 years of ******** you have suffered with George Bush...

like i said, i cannot UNDERSTAND why John McCain should be the next president of the US.

i am not some arrogant foreigner with my nose to the sky. I live here too, and the decisions this country makes affect everyone around the globe, especially my home country (canada). and while i do not have the right to vote (nor do i think i should), i do have the right to an opinion.

Because John McCain is not George W. Bush. Because John McCain is an individual. Or based on my reasoning for my likely vote for him...because Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both all flash and no substance who ran respectively on their skin color and gender.

Because I would rather endure 4 more years of a Republican who can be easily defeated in 2012, than the 20 years worth of damage Clinton or Obama will do ala Jimmy Carter.

To come in here and say "I don't understand how you can do this or that" is insulting. It is the equivilant to looking down upon someone and telling them "You're opinion is wrong and you are stupid for it."

Again, how would Canadians like it if I went to a Canadian politics message board and said "Hey, you guys are dumbasses for allowing your country to become a welfare state!"?

[Kelly]

speaking as a canadian living part time in the US

i cannot for the life of me understand why you guys would vote john mccain into the white house. it just astounds me.


i dont know where you're getting this idea that i am scolding or calling out americans for being "stupid enough" to vote for john mccain.

what i said was i cannot UNDERSTAND why you would vote for him. i cannot UNDERSTAND why you would vote for a candidate that promises more of the same for the next 4-8 years?

and jmanspice, i dont know if hillary or obama will lead america in the right direction. no one knows, no one can predict the future. but they have spoken against the war, and have made it a backbone of both their campaigns that they wish to begin withdrawal of troops from Iraq almost immediately. Now, no-one knows if this will actually happen. Maybe Obama and Clinton are taking us all on a wild goose chase and they have no intention of doing what they claim. But I would like to think that this will not be the case.

With John McCain, you KNOW what you are going to get over the next 4-8 years. More war, more death, and more money spent on funding the military overseas that could be used to help rebuild America's infrastructure.

No candidate is perfect. Democrat or Republican. But given the choices, and given the current state of the USA and the 8 years of ******** you have suffered with George Bush...

like i said, i cannot UNDERSTAND why John McCain should be the next president of the US.

i am not some arrogant foreigner with my nose to the sky. I live here too, and the decisions this country makes affect everyone around the globe, especially my home country (canada). and while i do not have the right to vote (nor do i think i should), i do have the right to an opinion.



first of all

i am not neccessarily an "outsider". i have lived part-time in NYC for the past 5 years and lived in phoenix when i was younger for about 4 years. i am 22 years old so i have spent a good chunk of my life, especially my adult life, in the USA.

secondly, the American public has elected a president with one of the worst approval ratings in recent memory. Not once, but twice. Bush is scorned in the media, and ridiculed as one of the worst presidents the US has elected. Even the American people that voted him in hate Bush.

Now you have the chance, after 8 years of a downward economic spiral and 4,000+ casualties in a war that did not need to be fought, to move in a different direction, whether it be Hillary or Obama. To move in a direction that would involve repairing your economy and ending a war that has cost so many lives and heartache for people all across the globe.

Now you guys have the chance, and I cant vote because I am not a US citizen, but YOU guys have the chance to make a difference, but I fear that if John McCain becomes the next president of the United States, we will see more of the same. The war will not end, and more and more lives will be senselessly lost.

That is my elaboration. And I am not "talking down" to Americans, I love this country too and I wouldn't live here if I didn't.


Well Kang, the difference between your first post, and the 2 following was substance..........had you put forth your well thought out opinion with your generalization in your first post.........then I think most would have been ..............................cool................ ........some might even agree.

As far as the President's approval rating, as of right now, the approval rating of Congress which has a Democrat majority is even lower.......as of right now...........................Politics sucks in the US...........and it is looking like right now, that there is not ANY candidate out there that will change that.


This is my opinion.........and I stay pretty non-partisan through all of this....makes it easier to mod this baby..................but in the end. I have a feeling that the President will be the man or woman that the American people feel they can "trust".

We will see if I'm right.....:cwink:

[Zen]

It is like you're family Zen. You can call your own mother a *****, but if someone from outside of the family does it, those are fighting words. :cwink:

well when you go and put it like that... its definately easier to agree with you

:)



someday, when we get serious about space travel... meet other species of life perhaps, our family will be a little more inclusive.

[Marx]

well when you go and put it like that... its definately easier to agree with you

:)



someday, when we get serious about space travel... meet other species of life perhaps, our family will be a little more inclusive.

It's best to start here then, don't you think?

[kang604]

To come in here and say "I don't understand how you can do this or that" is insulting. It is the equivilant to looking down upon someone and telling them "You're opinion is wrong and you are stupid for it."

i do not see how these two things equate each other.

[Kelly]

i do not see how these two things equate each other.


It's called perception kang..........and a person's perception is their truth.

What we mean when we type a post, may not necessarily be the way someone perceives it......BUT in the end, their perception is their truth.

And when its on a message board.....there is not the luxury of "tone of voice", "eye contact" etc.........

[StorminNorman]

Al Gore won the popular vote. The electoral college is the only thing which determines the winner of the election. Hence, Bush won by a technicality.

If Bush won the Electoral College and the Electoral College is what matters than Bush did not win by a mere technicality. He simply won.

[kang604]

It's called perception kang..........and a person's perception is their truth.

What we mean when we type a post, may not necessarily be the way someone perceives it......BUT in the end, their perception is their truth.

And when its on a message board.....there is not the luxury of "tone of voice", "eye contact" etc.........

i know i know.

i just dont think its fair to label me as an arrogant canadian talking down to the american people because im not, like i said, ive made the US my home and i love this country too.

however i do think the american people will be making a mistake if they vote john mccain into the white house in november.

[Excel]

Doesn't it require more of an effort to get along than to just continue fighting? :cwink:

No, typing out all them fighting words takes more effort* than typing nothing :cwink:

[Kelly]

i know i know.

i just dont think its fair to label me as an arrogant canadian talking down to the american people because im not, like i said, ive made the US my home and i love this country too.

however i do think the american people will be making a mistake if they vote john mccain into the white house in november.

Yep, labeling sucks....

[Marx]

No, typing out all them fighting words takes more efforting than typing nothing :cwink:

I guess that's true Ex :funny:

[Rated-X]

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (http://www.politico.com/candidates2008/demcandidates/hillary_clinton_candidate.html) cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/NEWS/80213011), an Iowa office cleaner (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080209/NEWS/802090323) and a New York caterer (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23owe.html?scp=1&sq=Clinton+AND+campaign+AND+court&st=nyt), highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton’s inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors. But Clinton spokesman Jay Carson pointed on Saturday to an earlier statement the campaign issued to Politico, asserting: "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills."

Just like with other businesses, it’s common for campaigns to carry unpaid bills from month to month, but in Clinton’s case, it also could serve a strategic purpose.

The New York senator’s presidential campaign ended February with $33 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $16 million (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M3/C00431569.html) of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.
The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M3/C00431569/D_DEBTS_C00431569.html) and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, she would have been nearly $3 million in the red at the end of February.

By contrast, if you subtract Obama’s $625,000 in debts (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M3/C00431445/D_DEBTS_C00431445.html) and his general-election-only money from his total cash on hand (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M3/C00431445.html) at the end of last month, he’d still be left with $31 million.

The presidential campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Arizona Sen. John McCain reported $4.3 million in debt (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M3/C00430470.html) at the end of February, but only $1.3 million of that was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors. The rest was a bank loan, which the campaign says it paid off last week (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9152.html).
It’s not just the size of Clinton’s debts that’s noteworthy. It’s also that her unpaid bills extend beyond the realm of high-priced consultants who typically let bills slide as part of the cost of doing business with powerful clientele whose success is linked to their own.

Some of Clinton’s biggest debts are to pollster and chief strategist Mark Penn, who’s owed $2.5 million; direct mail company MSHC Partners, which is owed $807,000; phone-banking firm Spoken Hub, which is waiting for $771,000; and ad maker Mandy Grunwald, who’s owed $467,000.

Clinton also reported debts more than one month old to a slew of apolitical businesses and organizations, large and small, in the states through which this historically expensive Democratic primary campaign has raged.

She owed Iowa’s Sioux City Art Center Board of Trustees $3,500 for catering and venue costs, New Hampshire’s Winnacunnet Cooperative School District $4,400 in event costs, Qwest $24,000 for phone service, various branches of the Iowa-based supermarket chain Hy-Vee $15,000 for food, beverages and catering, and $7,700 to Ohio and Massachusetts branches of the theatrical stage employees’ union, for equipment costs.

In fact, about a third of the nearly 700 individual debts Clinton reported at the end of February were for various types of “event expenses,” including $319,000 for catering and venue costs, $420,000 for equipment, $11,000 for photography and $9,000 for security.

Event production is important to big-time presidential campaigns. It shapes how candidates look and sound, not just to the thousands of people who turn out to campaign speeches and rallies but also to the millions who catch snippets of them on television.

And word is getting around that Clinton’s campaign does not promptly pay those who labor to make her events look good, said an employee of the event production company Forty Two (http://www.fortytwoinc.com/) of Youngstown, Ohio.

“I feel insulted by the way that the campaign treated this company and treated us personally,” said the employee, who did not want to be named talking about a client.

The Clinton campaign paid the company $16,500 to set up a stage, press riser, sound system and backdrops at a Youngstown high school last month for a raucous union rally (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clinton_backer_Yes_we_can_Give_me_a_break.html), where an aggressive Clinton stump speech drew thunderous applause. But the Clinton campaign has yet to pay Forty Two for two other February events, and the employee said the campaign has stopped returning phone calls, e-mails and didn’t respond to a certified letter.

“We worked very hard to put together these events on a moment’s notice and do absolutely everything to a ‘t’ to make it look perfect on television for her and for her campaign,” said the employee. “Sen. Clinton talks about helping working families, people in unions and small businesses. But when it comes down to actually doing something that shows that she can back up her words with action, she fails.”

Forty Two also has done events for Obama’s campaign, which has paid its bills promptly, according to the employee. FEC records show Obama’s campaign paid the company $18,500.

Show Tyme Exhibits, another Youngstown event production company, has produced political events for years and had never had problems getting paid before Clinton, according to owner Jim Phillips.

He said he’s still waiting for a payment for setting up the sound system and stage for Clinton’s February tour of a General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio.

“It was only $607, but I’m a small guy; I could use that,” said Phillips, adding, “Everyone I can tell, I do tell about it. You tell somebody something bad about somebody, they tell 10 other people.”

Both Phillips and the Forty Two employee said they voted for Clinton in Ohio’s March 4 primary, which she won handily, but regret their votes and are reluctant to work for her campaign again.

Their sentiments aren’t universal in the event production world, though.

At the end of January, Clinton owed $38,000 to ACS Sound and Lighting (http://www.acsweb.com/) of Columbia, S.C. But the company was paid in full last month and is planning to do events for Clinton in other states, according to manager Troy Gwin.

“We don’t have any problem with them,” he said. “I’d continue to do business after the primaries if she is the nominee. I would love to.”

And Tony Galarza, director of the Missoula, Mont., branch of a national event production company, remained committed to staging an April 6 Clinton fundraising brunch at a local hotel even after a colleague in his company e-mailed a list of Clinton’s campaign debts.

Galarza said he’s confident Clinton will pay his company but admitted he was surprised to see so many event production companies among the campaign’s creditors.

“Once I looked at those numbers, I realized how important to our economy nationally these elections are,” he said. “Just the sheer numbers listed there were immense.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html

[hippie_hunter]

well when you go and put it like that... its definately easier to agree with you

:)



someday, when we get serious about space travel... meet other species of life perhaps, our family will be a little more inclusive.

It's best to start here then, don't you think?

Huggsies :woot:

i know i know.

i just dont think its fair to label me as an arrogant canadian talking down to the american people because im not, like i said, ive made the US my home and i love this country too.

however i do think the american people will be making a mistake if they vote john mccain into the white house in november.

No huggsies for you :meanie:

[The Chairman]

however i do think the american people will be making a mistake if they vote john mccain into the white house in november.

He's really no worse or better than the Democratic candidates. At this stage of the game, as I said in the other thread, all three have proved to be thus far, in some way or another, completely ineffectual in the long run. I don't see any great alteration occuring that will rectify the last eight years. I used to be a fervent Obama supporter, but the issues with his pastor have left me without a candidate.

[The Senator]

^
Campaigns do that all the time. As the first paragraph states, it allows them to free up funds for additional, critical moments in the campaign. It happens at the state and local level, in addition to the national level. When all is said and done, she'll have millions left over from her primary warchest, and will be able to pay them back as necessary.

[The Senator]

If Bush won the Electoral College and the Electoral College is what matters than Bush did not win by a mere technicality. He simply won.

Technically speaking, of course :hehe:

[Lightning Strykez!]

I have noted a number of myths amongst the comments here as to why Hillary should stay in the race. Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths, with the debunking they sorely need.


Myth: This race is tied.

No, actually, it's not. Obama has the lead in number of states won, in pledged delegates and in overall delegates. Nothing will happen in the remaining primaries to substantially change that. As to the one thing Hillary does lead in, superdelegates, her quickly shrinking margin is among DNC personnel only. When you look at the elected superdelegates, Congressman, Senators and Governors (i.e. people who actually work with both Obama and Clinton) Obama leads there, too.

Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.

There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.

Myth: Fine, but what if we count electoral votes? NOW Hillary is ahead!

Not so much. The proportions of electoral votes to population versus delegates to population are pretty comparable. So if you allocated electors proportionally in the same manner that you allocate delegates, Obama is still ahead. If you allocate them on a winner-take-all basis, then that would be the same as allocating the delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so why bring electors into it?

Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.

This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win.

Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, THEN Hillary would be winning!

Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.

Myth: Ah HA! So Dean is keeping them out just to help Obama! And Obama is keeping them out.

That's two myths, but I'll treat it like one. The only people who can come up with a solution to this problem are the states themselves, to be presented to the Rules and Regulations Committee of the DNC for ratification. It was Rules and Regs, not Howard Dean, who ruled that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules when they presented their original primary plans. If the two states cannot come up with a plan to reselect delegates, they can try to seat whatever delegates were chosen in the discounted primaries by appealing to the Democratic Convention's Credentialing Committee, which includes many members from Rules and Bylaws.

Myth: If they don't get seated until the convention but a nominee is selected before these poor people get counted then these states are disenfranchised.

There are two ways to debunk this myth: semantically and practically. The first is based on the word "disenfranchised:" these people have not been deprived of their right to vote. Through the actions of their states, their votes don't impact the outcome. Now, you may say that that is specious semantics (Myth: I do say that!) but practically speaking, this is the usual effect of the nominating process, anyway. All of the Republican primaries since McCain clinched the nomination have been meaningless, but those voters are not disenfranchised.

Florida and Michigan tried to become more relevant in the process by breaking the rules. They risked becoming irrelevant instead.

Myth: Well, I say they are disenfranchised, and Hillary Clinton is their champion.

Only when it suits her. Last fall, when the decision was first made to flush 100% of Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton firmly ratified it. That was because the typical punishment of only 50% representation also kept the candidates from raising money in those states. Figuring that she would wrap up the nomination handily anyway, the clear front-runner agreed with all the other candidates - including Obama - to completely "disenfranchise" those two states.

Myth: Well, never mind 2007. She's doing more now to bring them in.

Not really. Recent stories in the St. Petersburg Times political blog said that 1) the Obama camp has reached out to the Florida Democratic party about a compromise and that 2) the Clinton camp will discuss nothing else but re-votes, which are legally, practically and politically dead.

Myth: Whatever! Hillary can still win! I know she can! She and her 37% positive rating will sweep through the remaining primaries and Michigan and Florida, winning 70% of everything and superdelegates will flock to her banner and Barack Obama will personally nominate her at the Convention and John McCain will give up and George Bush will even quit early so she can take over and... and... and... can I have a glass of water?

Yes, and you should lie down, too.

:lmao:

[Malice]

PEOPLE LIKE HER!
MYTH! .... She is evil and should retire and new be seen on the planet again.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Um. Yay? :dry:

[Matt]

MYTH: Hillary Clinton eats babies.

Erm...actually, that's kinda true. :csad:

[SuperFerret]

MYTH: Hillary Clinton eats babies.

Erm...actually, that's kinda true. :csad:

I hear she actually lets them grow into toddlers first. More filling that way.

[Matt]

I hear she actually lets them grow into toddlers first. More filling that way.

:wow: I've heard that version too. Only in the version I heard she deprives them of light and doesn't let them move their muscles to make it soft. She calls it "Human veal."

[Excel]

What makes that post more than simply hilarious is that it's 110% true. The only people who will say its not are clintonites.

[The Senator]

Eight Myths Regarding Obama's Chances This Election Season

MYTH 1: He Wins States Traditionally Won by Republicans

Actually, this may be the biggest myth of the entire contest. While Hillary is having trouble besting McCain in states such as Oregon and Washington, she has a fifteen point lead in Arkansas and a six point lead in Ohio, according to polling from the Cook Political Report. Meanwhile, Obama not only loses Ohio and Missouri significantly to McCain, he fails to win Pennsylvania and Michigan. Sure, he wins one electoral vote in Nebraska, because the state splits its electoral votes by Congressional districts, but he fares worse when it comes to the electoral map than Clinton does. Now, I know what you're thinking: What about those states with significant African American populations? Well, Clinton and Obama are both trounced by McCain by a margin of twenty points or better in Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi. Sure, McCain only defeats Obama by 27 points, whereas Clinton is defeated by 29 in Alabama... but hey, who really pays attention after three or four points?

If the election were held today, McCain would have 328 electoral votes against Obama, whereas he would have 298 against Clinton. Both of them fail to win against him.

MYTH 2: Obama's Pastor Will Have No Effect on Him

Absolute lie. While only 39% of voters say that Wright will have an effect on their decision come this November, 35% percent of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio say that the Wright situation will have affect their decision come this November. Considering that doesn't account for the Republicans and independents, Obama may have a bit of a problem convincing people in those states that Wright was totally justified in saying what he said.

MYTH 3: There Doesn't Need to be a Re-vote in Michigan and Florida-- After all, Rules are Rules!

Again, not so. DNC rules say that states can hold re-votes if the results of their primary/ caucus are voided. Because Michigan and Florida's votes did not count when they first voted, both states have the ability to hold primaries before the convention in August. Each state would be perfectly justified to hold re-votes, assuming the state legislatures agree.

MYTH 4: Obama is Not Disenfranchising Voters in Michigan and Florida

Wrongaroo. Considering Michigan is considered a reliably Democratic state, it must be a shock to learn that 10% of Democratic voters will vote for McCain in the general election if their voices aren't heard. Again, that doesn't take into account the independents or Republican converts. Additionally, the amount of calls certain posters receive at their political-based jobs in which Florida and Michigan voters say they will vote for McCain if their votes aren't counted speaks volumes.

MYTH 5: Well, at Least Obama Isn't Dividing the Democratic Party as much as Hillary! If She Wins at the Convention, She'll Divide the Democrats!

Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...

MYTH 6: Hmmm. If that's the Case, then Obama should Pick Clinton as his Running Mate

Not a smart move. While there are no Obama/Clinton or Clinton/ Obama polls released, it can be reasonably assumed that the ticket would do no better against McCain than if either one them ran separately. This can be taken into account by looking at polls on a state-by-state basis. They each gain as many states as they take away from themselves, effectively canceling those states out and putting them in the same position as they would be in if they ran separately.

MYTH 7: Well, then Obama Should Be the Nominee. After all, He is Winning the Democratic Primary

That's not true-- He's Leading in the Democratic Primary. There are six states left, and if Hillary can at least make the gap narrow and prevent him from taking the 2025 delegates needed to become the Democratic nominee, she will have just as great a chance as Obama has when they go into the convention.

MYTH 8: Fine then! Obama can run as an Independent and beat both of them!

Not on your life. If Obama runs as an independent against Clinton and McCain, you'll effectively hand John McCain the election. In fact, that may murder the Democrats, giving McCain a 532-3 victory in the electoral college (DC won't go for McCain, so one of them will carry the city. A full 3 electoral votes, eh? Mondale did better than that...)

[Gilpesh]

MYTH 8: Fine then! Obama can run as an Independent and beat both of them!

Not on your life. If Obama runs as an independent against Clinton and McCain, you'll effectively hand John McCain the election. In fact, that may murder the Democrats, giving McCain a 532-3 victory in the electoral college (DC won't go for McCain, so one of them will carry the city. A full 3 electoral votes, eh? Mondale did better than that...)

Sorry, but running as an independent after not getting the democratic nomination is more of a Hillary move.

[Excel]

jman...good effort ;)

Oh man...some Clinton supporters just acting too much like their candidate; aint living in reality.

[The Senator]

Sorry, but running as an independent after not getting the democratic nomination is more of a Hillary move.

Which is exactly why the Democrats are trying to court her to run for Governor of New York in 2010. She'll have an option open if she loses to go somewhere Obama never went, so on the off chance she runs in 2012, she can point to her management skills as additional 'experience.'

[Excel]

Hillary is coming to my city at 11am today

Sucks

:p

[Gilpesh]

Which is exactly why the Democrats are trying to court her to run for Governor of New York in 2010. She'll have an option open if she loses to go somewhere Obama never went, so on the off chance she runs in 2012, she can point to her management skills as additional 'experience.'

Which is exactly why she is hurting the democratic party more than Obama.

Does anyone really think Obama will go independent if he lost?

Cause I have air to sell to you.

[bored]

Eight Myths Regarding Obama's Chances This Election Season

MYTH 1: He Wins States Traditionally Won by Republicans

Actually, this may be the biggest myth of the entire contest. While Hillary is having trouble besting McCain in states such as Oregon and Washington, she has a fifteen point lead in Arkansas and a six point lead in Ohio, according to polling from the Cook Political Report. Meanwhile, Obama not only loses Ohio and Missouri significantly to McCain, he fails to win Pennsylvania and Michigan. Sure, he wins one electoral vote in Nebraska, because the state splits its electoral votes by Congressional districts, but he fares worse when it comes to the electoral map than Clinton does. Now, I know what you're thinking: What about those states with significant African American populations? Well, Clinton and Obama are both trounced by McCain by a margin of twenty points or better in Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi. Sure, McCain only defeats Obama by 27 points, whereas Clinton is defeated by 29 in Alabama... but hey, who really pays attention after three or four points?

If the election were held today, McCain would have 328 electoral votes against Obama, whereas he would have 298 against Clinton. Both of them fail to win against him.

MYTH 2: Obama's Pastor Will Have No Effect on Him

Absolute lie. While only 39% of voters say that Wright will have an effect on their decision come this November, 35% percent of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio say that the Wright situation will have affect their decision come this November. Considering that doesn't account for the Republicans and independents, Obama may have a bit of a problem convincing people in those states that Wright was totally justified in saying what he said.

MYTH 3: There Doesn't Need to be a Re-vote in Michigan and Florida-- After all, Rules are Rules!

Again, not so. DNC rules say that states can hold re-votes if the results of their primary/ caucus are voided. Because Michigan and Florida's votes did not count when they first voted, both states have the ability to hold primaries before the convention in August. Each state would be perfectly justified to hold re-votes, assuming the state legislatures agree.

MYTH 4: Obama is Not Disenfranchising Voters in Michigan and Florida

Wrongaroo. Considering Michigan is considered a reliably Democratic state, it must be a shock to learn that 10% of Democratic voters will vote for McCain in the general election if their voices aren't heard. Again, that doesn't take into account the independents or Republican converts. Additionally, the amount of calls certain posters receive at their political-based jobs in which Florida and Michigan voters say they will vote for McCain if their votes aren't counted speaks volumes.

MYTH 5: Well, at Least Obama Isn't Dividing the Democratic Party as much as Hillary! If She Wins at the Convention, She'll Divide the Democrats!

Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...

MYTH 6: Hmmm. If that's the Case, then Obama should Pick Clinton as his Running Mate

Not a smart move. While there are no Obama/Clinton or Clinton/ Obama polls released, it can be reasonably assumed that the ticket would do no better against McCain than if either one them ran separately. This can be taken into account by looking at polls on a state-by-state basis. They each gain as many states as they take away from themselves, effectively canceling those states out and putting them in the same position as they would be in if they ran separately.

MYTH 7: Well, then Obama Should Be the Nominee. After all, He is Winning the Democratic Primary

That's not true-- He's Leading in the Democratic Primary. There are six states left, and if Hillary can at least make the gap narrow and prevent him from taking the 2025 delegates needed to become the Democratic nominee, she will have just as great a chance as Obama has when they go into the convention.

MYTH 8: Fine then! Obama can run as an Independent and beat both of them!

Not on your life. If Obama runs as an independent against Clinton and McCain, you'll effectively hand John McCain the election. In fact, that may murder the Democrats, giving McCain a 532-3 victory in the electoral college (DC won't go for McCain, so one of them will carry the city. A full 3 electoral votes, eh? Mondale did better than that...)


Fail.

[The Senator]

Fail.

How about instead of typing four letters, you actually take the effort to come up with a response?

[Excel]

How about instead of typing four letters, you actually take the effort to come up with a response?

1st post in thread ;)

Face it Jman, Obamas winning and its very unlikely thats changing.

[The Senator]

Which is exactly why she is hurting the democratic party more than Obama.

Does anyone really think Obama will go independent if he lost?

Cause I have air to sell to you.

Statistics don't lie. More Clinton supporters flat out refuse to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, than if it was the other way around. Granted, stats can exaggerate, but even still... as it stands now, Obama hurts the Democratic Party more than Hillary does.

[The Senator]

1st post in thread ;)

Face it Jman, Obamas winning and its very unlikely thats changing.

What am I supposed to face? Obama hasn't won yet. He's leading the Democratic Primary. He still loses the general, if we're going by polling data which is what everyone else seems to be basing their opinions off of. And if the Democratic Party doesn't want to lose this November, they'll be wise to kick both their asses to the curb and bring in Gore to take on the nomination. Or simply forfeit this contest, let McCain win, and get their act together in four years so they can run the election they should have run from the very beginning.

[Superman4ever]

Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.

There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.


I thought Obama lead the popular vote by 7%? :huh:

[Excel]

Statistics don't lie. More Clinton supporters flat out refuse to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, than if it was the other way around. Granted, stats can exaggerate, but even still... as it stands now, Obama hurts the Democratic Party more than Hillary does.

:pal:

Your telling me that Hillarys people being too stubburn and ignorant to admit their candidate lost is Obamas fault?? Thats what is is, no way around it, dont try to argue it, it wont work. The 2 are 995 the same on issues, anyone who really wanted the dem's to win would accept either one and thats what WILL happen come November.

What that actually shows is Clintons supporters hurt us. Obamas supporters have loyalty to the PARTY, something Hillary and her peeps dunno **** about. :up:

[Excel]

What am I supposed to face? Obama hasn't won yet. He's leading the Democratic Primary. He still loses the general, if we're going by polling data which is what everyone else seems to be basing their opinions off of. And if the Democratic Party doesn't want to lose this November, they'll be wise to kick both their asses to the curb and bring in Gore to take on the nomination. Or simply forfeit this contest, let McCain win, and get their act together in four years so they can run the election they should have run from the very beginning.

Obama lead McCain is every poll until Huckabee left. Whenever Hillary gets her ass outta the campaign, Obama will go back over him. Same goes for her if he gets out, really. Right now everybodys bitter; if the polls obama vs. mccain than Hillary voters vote for McCain to make it seem as though Obamas weaker, ect. The biggest problem noone takes into a count is while Hillarys voters will rally around Obama, Obamas wont rally around her. They just wont vote period. All these young folks and black people who have never voted before will keep it that way fi he aint the nominee; cant say the same about Hillarys people and the DNC knows that.

Come November, whever it is thats running for the democrat will win barring some major turn of events. A Obama-McCain or Clinton-McCain debate would be ajoke; either democrat would make a mockery of the stuff that comes outta that guys mouth. He really is Bush 2.0 except hes saying the stupid stuff BEFORE he's won. Just wait till Obama ot Hillary taunt the "100 year war" quote against him; he'll get booed off the stage and his own people know it.

[Gilpesh]

Statistics don't lie. More Clinton supporters flat out refuse to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, than if it was the other way around. Granted, stats can exaggerate, but even still... as it stands now, Obama hurts the Democratic Party more than Hillary does.

Do you not understand what I just said... Hillary is willing to forsake 'her party' if through the whole process that her party set up and she lost... doesn't GIVE her the nomination. Then on top of that, she's going to run independent and make that stat of 28% come true just cause she wants to be president and not have Obama be president... even though everyone likes to point out... they are practically the same on the issues.

I think that does more damage than Obama losing and a few people 'protesting'.

Heck, I haven't even brought up Hillary's endorsement of McCain over 'her own party's' probable nominee Obama.

[The Senator]

:pal:

Your telling me that Hillarys people being too stubburn and ignorant to admit their candidate lost is Obamas fault?? Thats what is is, no way around it, dont try to argue it, it wont work. The 2 are 995 the same on issues, anyone who really wanted the dem's to win would accept either one and thats what WILL happen come November.

What that actually shows is Clintons supporters hurt us. Obamas supporters have loyalty to the PARTY, something Hillary and her peeps dunno **** about. :up:

How is are Hillary supporters being ignorant? Stubborn, maybe. Ignorant? I don't think so.

Obama supporters are being ignorant if they think they're going to ride into victory this November. Obama supporters are ignorant if they can't take a step back and realize their candidate has some serious judgment issues voters are starting to take a closer look at.

If you want to say these voters aren't loyal to the party, then so be it. That isn't going to change their minds at all. Remember when Democrats left the party to vote for Nixon and Reagan? That same exact thing will be happening with this election. The Democrats ought to get their friggin act together and nominate a capable, moderate leader with very little baggage. The fact of the matter is, with each election passing, the Dems are becoming more and more of a minority party with national elections, because they can't run scandal-free nominees.

Hell, let's change topics for a second. Let's say Obama wins all of Kerry's states, plus Ohio this fall. His chances of winning re-election are incredibly slim.

We have a huge problem on our hands in 2012. Redistricting takes place in 2010, and as it stands, we will lose about 14-18 electoral votes in the North. And where do all those votes go? To states like South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Texas and Arizona-- Republican bastions we need to start winning in if we hope to win the Presidency in the future. None of our two candidates secure these for us.

I say we forfeit the election now, find someone from one of those aforementioned states, and start them on the path to the Presidency on January 21. That's our best bet if we hope to ever win the White House again. Neither Clinton or Obama have what it takes to keep this for us. They're both total wastes.

[redfirebird2008]

Myth: this thread is a good one.

[Excel]

Obama supporters are being ignorant if they think they're going to ride into victory this November. Obama supporters are ignorant if they can't take a step back and realize their candidate has some serious judgment issues voters are starting to take a closer look at.

Serious judgement issues? Your using the judgement argument aginst Obama and for Clinton? Wow. Voting to go to war in Iraq shows far worse judgement on Hillarys side than being friends with Wright does for Obama :o

If you want to say these voters aren't loyal to the party, then so be it. That isn't going to change their minds at all. Remember when Democrats left the party to vote for Nixon and Reagan? That same exact thing will be happening with this election.

:pal:

A few will, like Matt, but for the most part...nope

The Democrats ought to get their friggin act together and nominate a capable, moderate leader with very little baggage.

:meanie:

Hillary isn't "capable" of telling the truth, Jman, and thats what voters are taking notice upon hence her 37% approval rating, not Obama bad judgemebnt as you wish .

As for "baggage"...you've gotta be kidding me if you think Obama has more baggage than Hillary.

I say we forfeit the election now, find someone from one of those aforementioned states, and start them on the path to the Presidency on January 21. That's our best bet if we hope to ever win the White House again. Neither Clinton or Obama have what it takes to keep this for us. They're both total wastes.


Obama will eat McCain alive in a national election. He is actually leading McCain in current GE polls, and thats with Hillary still int he race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Whenever the hell she gets out, it'll be all over.

[Gilpesh]

Myth: this thread is a good one.


Myth: This thread hasn't been done before. :up:

[redfirebird2008]

Myth: This thread hasn't been done before. :up:

Myth: that wasn't funny. :cwink::woot:

[Matt]

Serious judgement issues? Your using the judgement argument aginst Obama and for Clinton? Wow. Voting to go to war in Iraq shows far worse judgement on Hillarys side than being friends with Wright does for Obama :o


The fact is, speech or none, Obama cannot comment on the Iraq War. He was not in Congress and did not have the same reports and intelligence. He is simply playing monday morning quarterback.


:pal:

A few will, like Matt, but for the most part...nope


A ripple in the water can quickly turn into a wave.

Firstly, 28 % of Democrats at this point in the election saying that they will not vote for Obama if he gets the nomination is REMARKABLY high. Granted, it will drop some, but it is still very high for this point. 10-15 % of Clinton supporters could very well carry out on that promise.

Second, key states are what matters. If Democrats in Florida and Michigan defect because Obama would not sign off on the re-vote, the Democrats are screwed. Even if it is a small number, it will be enough to tip the scales, especially in a state like Florida. Flordia is shaping up to be a crucial swing state once again and Michigan is a neccessity for any Democrat president. Losing either of those states in the general is a deadly blow to the Democratic candidate.



Hillary isn't "capable" of telling the truth, Jman, and thats what voters are taking notice upon hence her 37% approval rating, not Obama bad judgemebnt as you wish .

Based on his comments on Wright (constant flip flopping "I did know, I didn't. I did, I didn't. It was wrong, but I wouldn't leave the church over it, unless he retires"), his relationship with Rezko, and his claim to not take oil company money while doing so, simply from "private" donors who are high-up oil executives shows that he is at the very least just as dishonest. People will catch on sooner or later.


As for "baggage"...you've gotta be kidding me if you think Obama has more baggage than Hillary.

But there's the catch 22, Hillary hasn't put herself on a huge pedestal. When you're that high up, the only place to go is down.


Obama will eat McCain alive in a national election. He is actually leading McCain in current GE polls, and thats with Hillary still int he race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Whenever the hell she gets out, it'll be all over.

National polls mean jack **** in politics. All that matters is who wins what states and McCain is beating both of them in electoral votes in basically every poll. Furthermore, the link you gave has them in a virtual tie. They are seperated by .2%. Hardly eating anyone alive.

Seriously Excel, do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say things like that? You make outlandish claims that you clearly cannot back up nor do you even seem to understand the basic concepts of the systems you speak of. Be it primary processes or the national election system. Most of the claims you make are simply flat out wrong. You come off as a child who overhears his parents saying something so he runs and says it to sound smart and show off.

If you're going to debate, do so objectively. Obama cannot walk on water. He is not "eating anyone alive" when he is leading by .2% and losing in electoral college votes.

[The Senator]

Serious judgement issues? Your using the judgement argument aginst Obama and for Clinton? Wow. Voting to go to war in Iraq shows far worse judgement on Hillarys side than being friends with Wright does for Obama :o

Don't even start with the war in Iraq. Obama has voted just as many times as Clinton has to continue funding the war in Iraq. If he has been against the war from the beginning as he claimed he has been, then why did he vote to continue funding the war? Why did he vote against the first bill presented in 2006 by John Kerry to withdraw troops from Iraq by April 2007? Hillary may have voted to authorize the war, but Obama has voted consistently with her and other Senators to keep funding it and to keep troops there.


:pal:

A few will, like Matt, but for the most part...nope

Well, you obviously don't work on Capitol Hill. I've received calls every single day from people who say they aren't voting for Obama if he becomes the nominee. For the most part, these constituents say they're voting for McCain over Obama. So Matt is not the only person saying this.


:meanie:

Hillary isn't "capable" of telling the truth, Jman, and thats what voters are taking notice upon hence her 37% approval rating, not Obama bad judgemebnt as you wish .

As for "baggage"...you've gotta be kidding me if you think Obama has more baggage than Hillary.

Who said she has more baggage? Obama has more unexposed baggage. People have started to question his judgment on Wright and there are a few Obama supporters who have renounced their support for him over this pastor situation. Whether you're able to admit it or not, there are plenty of folks who cannot buy into the whole "yeah, I sat there for twenty years... so what?" argument he's been giving. And reports surface by the day, it seems, over more outlandish statements from the filthy mouth of Jeremiah Wright. Reporters are analyzing and dissecting Obama's motives, questioning why he hired this man in the first place. If you don't think that's resonated with voters you're obviously living in your own plastic bubble.

They both have problems. Hillary can't keep her stories straight and Obama can't account for his own actions. Hillary keeps positioning herself on issues while Obama keeps making excuses for himself. You know who hasn't had to do that? John McCain. While most voters hate the war in Iraq, you can bet your ass that he isn't going to switch positions between now and November. Yeah, that'll piss a lot of liberal voters off... but if people are looking for honesty in a candidate, they need not look further than McCain.

Election results from 2004 said that voters did not pay attention to the issues whatsoever. They looked at who they thought was the best leader. Bush trumped Kerry, 54-45%. And if you look at the election results, that didn't really deviate much from the final totals.

McCain is starting to look like a leader. He's traveling the world meeting with foreign dignitaries and visiting places such as Israel and Baghdad. Meanwhile, Obama and Hillary are stuck visiting such exotic locales as Pittsburgh and Indianapolis. McCain is talking foreign policy and diplomacy, while Obama and Hillary are debating who lied about their pastor or who lied about their trip to Bosnia. When we have a nominee, McCain will be able to say he took charge before they could get their act together.

Right now, McCain has a huge advantage, and that will be hard to crush by either candidate.


Obama will eat McCain alive in a national election. He is actually leading McCain in current GE polls, and thats with Hillary still int he race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Whenever the hell she gets out, it'll be all over.

Actually, McCain leads Obama by five points in a Rasmussen poll released Monday.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

And if you're telling me Obama is going to crush McCain because the spread has him 0.2 points ahead of him, I don't know if I can take you seriously. The trend shows McCain is gaining more steam against Obama by the week. Not to mention Obama still trails in crucial states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey. I don't see how you can say he'll crush McCain in the general election when he fails to win electorally-- which is the only thing that matters in Presidential elections, as 2000 told us.

Whenever the two of them both get out, invent a time machine and go back to October 2006 to convince Mark Warner and Evan Bayh to stay in the race, then the Dems can cruise into victory. But until then, I wouldn't hold your breath on a "crushing" defeat by Obama against McCain.

[souvlaki]

MYTH 5: Well, at Least Obama Isn't Dividing the Democratic Party as much as Hillary! If She Wins at the Convention, She'll Divide the Democrats!

Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...

You do realize that right now Obama has a 10 point lead nationally, right? I don't feel like doing the math, but I doubt it's an 8% difference once you factor in that 28% of Clinton's support does not equal 28% of Obama's support. Also you have to take into account that that poll was taken after arguably Obama's worst week ever. Either way, the number is exaggerated on both sides. You said yourself a couple months back that most Democrats are inevitably going to support whoever wins the primary after they get past the fact that their candidate lost.

[The Senator]

You do realize that right now Obama has a 10 point lead nationally, right? I don't feel like doing the math, but I doubt it's an 8% difference once you factor in that 28% of Clinton's support does not equal 28% of Obama's support. Also you have to take into account that that poll was taken after arguably Obama's worst week ever. Either way, the number is exaggerated on both sides.

You also realize that the polls which are released now only feature Democratic voters in the remaining states? That doesn't take into account voters in Ohio, New York, Tennessee, and all the other states which have voted already. Or at least, they aren't suppose to. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You said yourself a couple months back that most Democrats are inevitably going to support whoever wins the primary after they get past the fact that their candidate lost.

Yes, and that was before this thing blew itself out of the water. At this stage in the game, I really don't care who will be the nominee. They've both pissed me off to a point where I would have to shower six or seven times after pulling the lever for them in November. Considering I'll be a registered New York voter and my vote won't count for jack, I'm casting my ballot for Nader. I was thinking about McCain, but I can't vote for a war fiend such as himself. But Nader lets me say "hey, I didn't vote for any of those guys, so there!"

Both sides have some serious issues, and both sides are going to lose a fairly significant chunk of support. Voters in Michigan who won't vote for the Democratic nominee because they won't get their votes counted are also a huge problem. There are so many significant problems with the Democratic base and the independents that every single statistic which said we have this in the bag has been proved irrelevant.

[souvlaki]

^Not to mention that poll only accounts for voters that will vote for McCain. It doesn't take into account people that just wont vote... which I'd suspect are people probably supporting Obama.

[souvlaki]

You also realize that the polls which are released now only feature Democratic voters in the remaining states? That doesn't take into account voters in Ohio, New York, Tennessee, and all the other states which have voted already. Or at least, they aren't suppose to. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Wait... which poll? The one you are talking about, or the one where Obama has a 10 point lead? Because I'm almost 100% positive that that poll was nationwide. For some reason I was thinking the poll regarding which voters would vote for McCain if their candidate lost was actually only in regards to Pennsylvania voters. If that poll is representative of the remaining states, that makes sense, as a lot of the upcoming states favor Clinton anyhow.

Yes, and that was before this thing blew itself out of the water. At this stage in the game, I really don't care who will be the nominee. They've both pissed me off to a point where I would have to shower six or seven times after pulling the lever for them in November. Considering I'll be a registered New York voter and my vote won't count for jack, I'm casting my ballot for Nader. I was thinking about McCain, but I can't vote for a war fiend such as himself. But Nader lets me say "hey, I didn't vote for any of those guys, so there!"

Both sides have some serious issues, and both sides are going to lose a fairly significant chunk of support. Voters in Michigan who won't vote for the Democratic nominee because they won't get their votes counted are also a huge problem. There are so many significant problems with the Democratic base and the independents that every single statistic which said we have this in the bag has been proved irrelevant.

I'm personally not sure how this will go. But honestly, I think you and Matt will end up being the exception to the rule. I doubt very much the people that traditionally vote Democrat on a consistent basis will switch sides if their candidate loses (for the most part). The independents voting for Obama (and most likely, the youth vote as well) probably were never going to vote for Clinton anyhow, and the Republicans voting for Clinton in recent states are probably not going to vote for Obama (hell, I'm not even convinced they will vote for Hillary).

And in regards to people being pissed about Michigan/Florida, there was a proposal made today in regards to the Michigan vote that I personally think is a great compromise. They would keep the vote as is, giving the uncommited votes to Obama. Those votes would only account for 50% of the total delegates given. The other 50% would be based on the popular vote nationally. I don't know if it will fly, but it's a lot better than just counting the votes as is, privately financing a new election, or completely ignoring the state altogether in my opinion. Nonetheless, I think some sort of compromise in regards to those two states will happen at/before the convention. It's not to anyones benefit to ignore the states altogether.

[demento]

Christopher Hitchens says her lies regarding her visit to Bosnia are just the tip of the iceberg. Granted, he's kind of a neo-con prick, but still:

http://www.slate.com/id/2187780

[Darthphere]

Yeah, I feel dumber for reading that, thanks.

[Excel]

Jman theres no use arguing with you. Your a Clinton supporter, so obviously your not gonna agree with me. I know whats up, so I see noreason to continue the debate.

If you're going to debate, do so objectively. Obama cannot walk on water. He is not "eating anyone alive" when he is leading by .2% and losing in electoral college votes.


:rolleyes:

Obama will eat McCain alive in a national election.

Matt, I know you can read, why not do it? Don't call me childish when you cant even interpret what I say correctly. I never said Obamas eating McCain alive. I said he WILL in a general election. What claims do I make that a flat out wrong? Tell me Matt. They arent wrong, you just disagree with them.

Obama is winning, will take Cali and NY in a GE, and will make McCain look like a fool in a debate, anybody could. How does he talk about the economy or the war or healthcare against Hillary or Obama.

[The Senator]

Jman theres no use arguing with you. Your a Clinton supporter, so obviously your not gonna agree with me. I know whats up, so I see noreason to continue the debate.

This isn't a matter of you simply disagreeing with me. It's a matter of you using bogus statistics to justify your answer. 0.2% is not eating McCain alive. Both sides can use that statistic to their advantage because it is within a margin of error. Trends matter more than spreads. And the trend says that McCain has been gaining on Obama in the past week, and if this trend continues, Obama will hardly "eat McCain alive" in the general.




Matt, I know you can read, why not do it? Don't call me childish when you cant even interpret what I say correctly. I never said Obamas eating McCain alive. I said he WILL in a general election. What claims do I make that a flat out wrong? Tell me Matt. They arent wrong, you just disagree with them.

Obama is winning, will take Cali and NY in a GE, and will make McCain look like a fool in a debate, anybody could. How does he talk about the economy or the war or healthcare against Hillary or Obama.

This quote proves you know nothing about Presidential politics. Seriously. California and New York have been won by the Democratic candidate every year since 1992, by significant margins. California and New York haven't even been close since 1988, when California went to Bush and New York went to Dukakis by only a few points.

On the other hand...he needs Ohio and Pennsylvania, at the very least, to win. He needs to reach the magic number of 270 electoral votes. Kerry had 251 electoral votes in 2004 without winning Ohio. With Ohio, Obama would have 271 electoral votes... enough to win. However, if he loses Pennsylvania, he's right back where Kerry was. That certainly isn't a victory because, as I recall correctly, Kerry lost when he had that number.

Not to mention he's being trounced by McCain in both states. So your claim that Obama WILL win is an absolute fallacy at this point. As of now, McCain stands a better chance than he does in the general.

[The Senator]

Wait... which poll? The one you are talking about, or the one where Obama has a 10 point lead? Because I'm almost 100% positive that that poll was nationwide. For some reason I was thinking the poll regarding which voters would vote for McCain if their candidate lost was actually only in regards to Pennsylvania voters. If that poll is representative of the remaining states, that makes sense, as a lot of the upcoming states favor Clinton anyhow.

Most national polls reflect the remaining contests, or at least they're suppose to. It doesn't make sense to me to include people who have already voted in the primary in a poll which asks "Who are you voting for in the Democratic Primary?" So that's the poll where Obama was leading by ten points.

As for those who would vote for McCain over Obama... there was one conducted statewide in Pennsylvania, where the number of wayward supporters were roughly the same (around 20% for both candidates). The one where 28% of Hillary supporters say they'll vote for McCain was done at the national level.


I'm personally not sure how this will go. But honestly, I think you and Matt will end up being the exception to the rule. I doubt very much the people that traditionally vote Democrat on a consistent basis will switch sides if their candidate loses (for the most part). The independents voting for Obama (and most likely, the youth vote as well) probably were never going to vote for Clinton anyhow, and the Republicans voting for Clinton in recent states are probably not going to vote for Obama (hell, I'm not even convinced they will vote for Hillary).

I'm not so sure about that. I know a lot of people who are Hillary supporters who have said they will not vote for Obama in 2008. One of my friends worked on the Edwards campaign last fall... her brother was a communications manager on his campaign... and they both are voting for McCain in November. I even know people in the gay community willing to vote for McCain over Obama if Hillary isn't the nominee. I'd imagine this mood exists all over the country. I mean, I get calls in at work every day from people saying they'll vote for McCain over Obama, so it is a widespread phenomenon.


And in regards to people being pissed about Michigan/Florida, there was a proposal made today in regards to the Michigan vote that I personally think is a great compromise. They would keep the vote as is, giving the uncommited votes to Obama. Those votes would only account for 50% of the total delegates given. The other 50% would be based on the popular vote nationally. I don't know if it will fly, but it's a lot better than just counting the votes as is, privately financing a new election, or completely ignoring the state altogether in my opinion. Nonetheless, I think some sort of compromise in regards to those two states will happen at/before the convention. It's not to anyones benefit to ignore the states altogether.

I don't really like that idea at all. Some people who went uncommitted voted for Edwards. They didn't all vote for Obama. And on top of that, this would skew the results by making 50% of the uncommitted vote based on the popular vote. A state primary isn't suppose to reflect the popular vote-- it's suppose to reflect the will of the people in that state. Obama may agree to do it that way, but only because it favors him.

If they're going to count Michigan and Florida, they should do a complete re-vote. That's the only fair way to go about it.

[Tron5000]

Now, I don't want Hillary to drop out, because I'm honestly enjoying this little circus, but she probably should do so now, and in a dignified and respectable manner, instead of dragging this out and letting people get to know the "real" Hillary. Her pattern of deceit and fabrication is becoming damning for her campaign. Here's a little article detailing just a bit of what I'm talking about:

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

March 31, 2008

Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior


As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

[Mr Sparkle]

Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...
:huh:

[Matt]

And in regards to people being pissed about Michigan/Florida, there was a proposal made today in regards to the Michigan vote that I personally think is a great compromise. They would keep the vote as is, giving the uncommited votes to Obama. Those votes would only account for 50% of the total delegates given. The other 50% would be based on the popular vote nationally. I don't know if it will fly, but it's a lot better than just counting the votes as is, privately financing a new election, or completely ignoring the state altogether in my opinion. Nonetheless, I think some sort of compromise in regards to those two states will happen at/before the convention. It's not to anyones benefit to ignore the states altogether.

That sounds like a horribly unfair solution. Firstly, why the hell should the national popular vote be taken into account in a state wide primary? Isn't that simply robbing Michigan of their delegates and creating an almost "National primary?"

Second, why should the uncommitted go to Obama when Edwards and a couple other delegates were in the race at the time? At least some of the Edwards supporters would go Clinton. You can't hand Obama votes simply because he is left. If you are going to divide "uncommited" votes without a second election, the only fair way to do it is to split them evenly.

This sounds to me like a cheap half-assed plan thrown together by an Obama operative within the Michigan state legislature in order to create the illusion that Obama is trying to have Michigan's voice heard, when in reality, he will only settle for a plan that is ridiculously biased towards him (as the one mentioned above is).

[comicgirl]

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

For the second time in two weeks, Chelsea Clinton has been asked a question about the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Campaigning for her mother at North Carolina State University yesterday, a student brought up the scandal that lead to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The student said Chelsea should have answered the question because it happened while her father was president of the United States.


http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/04/01/art.chelsea.dc.a.gi.jpgBTW - Chelsea is 30. Your thoughts?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/01/chelsea-says-lewinsky-scandal-is-off-limits-is-she-right/

[Malice]

whatever....her fathers indisgressions in the white house paint a not very pretty picture of your mother...get over it...tell us the morbid details

[Excel]

I dunno, I dont see how this matters. Her Dad isnt running for President (or is he...)

[Matt]

No, she's not. If she were living the life of a private citizen and people were showing up at her apartment to ask questions, then I would agree. The fact is, she has made the choice to go out and campaign for her mother. Therefore any questions are fair game. She does not have to answer them, mind you...but the reporters have a right to ask.

[Gilpesh]

I dunno, I dont see how this matters. Her Dad isnt running for President (or is he...)

It actually shows something about Hillary as much as it is about Bill.

[Matt]

It actually shows something about Hillary as much as it is about Bill.

Just as Obama attending a church that preached racism for 20 years says something about him :o

[redfirebird2008]

Asking a child about her parents' sex life has a really high "eww" factor and it's just plain tacky and disrespectful.

[Gilpesh]

Just as Obama attending a church that preached racism for 20 years says something about him :o

Yes. Because we were talking about Obama in this thread. :whatever:

[The Senator]

Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...
:huh:

People, especially on this forum, have been complaining that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, more people in the Democratic Party will not vote for her than if Obama was the nominee. Those polls indicate that more of Clinton's supporters will flat-out refuse to vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. Which means Obama is at least as much of or more of a divisive figure than Clinton.

[The Senator]

Yes. Because we were talking about Obama in this thread. :whatever:

Hypocrisy isn't confined to one thread, my friend.

[The Senator]

Chelsea Clinton does not have to answer any questions if she does not want to. While I think it's a bit tactless for reporters to ask her about this, they have a right to ask it.

[Tron5000]

Chelsea Clinton does not have to answer any questions if she does not want to. While I think it's a bit tactless for reporters to ask her about this, they have a right to ask it.

Of course they do. Both of her parents called the White House home for 8 years and seek to do so again. Asking her about things that her parents did in the White House when they occupied it is absolutely fair game.

[The Senator]

Now, I don't want Hillary to drop out, because I'm honestly enjoying this little circus, but she probably should do so now, and in a dignified and respectable manner, instead of dragging this out and letting people get to know the "real" Hillary. Her pattern of deceit and fabrication is becoming damning for her campaign. Here's a little article detailing just a bit of what I'm talking about:

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

Well, then that settles it then.

Nader 08!

[SuBe]

Dan
Calabrese


Read Dan's bio and previous columns here (http://www.northstarwriters.com/dancalabrese.htm)

March 31, 2008
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here (http://www.northstarwritersforum.com/) to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here (dan@northstarwriters.com?subject=Feedback on Dan Calabrese). If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DC163. Request permission to publish here. (http://www.northstarwriters.com/request.htm)

[Tron5000]

I posted this article in the "Should Hillary Drop Out" thread. Good stuff there. I'd contact my newspaper and ask them to carry Calabrese's column, but there's no way in Hell the Atlanta Journal-Constitution would ever go for that.

[Marx]

As I've said in other threads, Bill Clinton's extracurriculars have no place in this election.

[Marx]

Of course they do. Both of her parents called the White House home for 8 years and seek to do so again. Asking her about things that her parents did in the White House when they occupied it is absolutely fair game.

Then ASK her parents.

[Tron5000]

Then ASK her parents.

Hey, if she's out there campaigning for her mom, she is acting as a surrogate of sorts. If she's expected to field questions about her parents' activities when Bill was president, then I fail to see how her family's sexual indiscretions are not fair game.

[xisaacx]

Um is public info, nothing is off limits

[Kelly]

Thread with merged thread already started on this subject....

[Kelly]

Myth: I give a crap about myths........











*snicker*

[SentinelMind]

While I agree it is a tasteless and tactless question to ask, I don't think its an unfair or unreasonable question to ask. The questions addresses Hillary's character and leadership ability in times of personal weaknesses and how these personal weaknesses may impact the public domain. While Monica was a 10-year old affair for bill, it demonstrated a personal weakness in Bill Clinton that tainted his presidency forever, it's unlikely as time progresses he'll ever be ranked in top half best presidents considering his impeachment. First, he had a personal problem (or "addiction") he could not control that allowed him to violate his marriage vows (which he's been doing for years as governor). His personal problems allowed him to sexually take advantage of several employees of the government, creating several conflicts of interests and inappropriate relationships that can taint the confidence in public policy decisions he's made. Because of his problems, he had to lie about it and coerced others to lie which became a public distraction. He put others including Monica in legal jeapordy. He further undermined the confidence and trust the American people had in his words.

Think of it this way. Is the fact that someone is privately a compulsive gambler the business of a boss at work? If it impacts the work the gambler does, then yes. Clinton's affair impacted his work in the White House and lead to a public distraction that cost the American people millions of dollars.

I understand this is about Hillary and not about Bill, but Hillary's response to spouse's infedlities does suggest things about her character. She knew her husband was lying adulterer..her decision to paint herself and her husband as victims of some conspiracy when they're actually lying about something that he actually commited shows you have to question everything she says or does and that her character may lead to scenarios that can easily create a distraction in the White House.

[Tron5000]

Not only did she know "her husband was a lying adulterer," but she is also harboring a rapist. Does the name Juanita Broaddrick ring any bells?

[Marx]

While I agree it is a tasteless and tactless question to ask, I don't think its an unfair or unreasonable question to ask. The questions addresses Hillary's character and leadership ability in times of personal weaknesses and how these personal weaknesses may impact the public domain. While Monica was a 10-year old affair for bill, it demonstrated a personal weakness in Bill Clinton that tainted his presidency forever, it's unlikely as time progresses he'll ever be ranked in top half best presidents considering his impeachment. First, he had a personal problem (or "addiction") he could not control that allowed him to violate his marriage vows (which he's been doing for years as governor). His personal problems allowed him to sexually take advantage of several employees of the government, creating several conflicts of interests and inappropriate relationships that can taint the confidence in public policy decisions he's made. Because of his problems, he had to lie about it and coerced others to lie which became a public distraction. He put others including Monica in legal jeapordy. He further undermined the confidence and trust the American people had in his words.

Think of it this way. Is the fact that someone is privately a compulsive gambler the business of a boss at work? If it impacts the work the gambler does, then yes. Clinton's affair impacted his work in the White House and lead to a public distraction that cost the American people millions of dollars.

I understand this is about Hillary and not about Bill, but Hillary's response to spouse's infedlities does suggest things about her character. She knew her husband was lying adulterer..her decision to paint herself and her husband as victims of some conspiracy when they're actually lying about something that he actually commited shows you have to question everything she says or does and that her character may lead to scenarios that can easily create a distraction in the White House.

After wading through all of the "he did this, he did that," it was nice to see you finally mention that this is about Hillary and not Bill. I'm not entirely sure you believe that to be the case though. The fact that a woman decides to stand by her husband, for only reasons that she knows, has no bearing on this campaign.

I fail to see your argument that the Lewinsky scandal somehow questions Hillary Clinton's credibility and leadership skills. Whether or not you want to admit it, Bill Clinton was the target of a republican headhunt. Should he have lied under oath about his extracurriculars? No.

But I have grown tired of people trying to throw that woman into this campaign. (With all due respect to you Sent.)

[SentinelMind]

After wading through all of the "he did this, he did that," it was nice to see you finally mention that this is about Hillary and not Bill. I'm not entirely sure you believe that to be the case though. The fact that a woman decides to stand by her husband, for only reasons that she knows, has no bearing on this campaign.

I fail to see your argument that the Lewinsky scandal somehow questions Hillary Clinton's credibility and leadership skills. Whether or not you want to admit it, Bill Clinton was the target of a republican headhunt. Should he have lied under oath about his extracurriculars? No.

But I have grown tired of people trying to throw that woman into this campaign. (With all due respect to you Sent.)

Oh, I admit Bill Clinton had enemies that hated his guts. Politicians will always have enemies. The fact that he was the target of a Republican headhunt does not negate the fact that he allowed his habit of "extracurriculars" to complicate and convolute professional relationship with several employees that created unnecessary animosity, legal conflicts, and public distractions both in and outside of government. Subordinates have to lie about relationship, cover up for others,..some will feel intimidated to lie because they don't want to lose their job,...they'll have to lie about when and where they met, people who have nothing to do with the affair now have to create alibis to protect others. If Monica was the first time, maybe I could see your argument, but when someone has a habit of sleeping around with co-workers or abusing power with subordinates like Bill Clinton did, especially after some of them threatened to publicy humiliate him, it was bound to catch up with him. It was just a matter of time. His decision to lie under oath is his own fault, nobody else but his own.... He could have answered the question honestly. He could have avoided engaging in conspiracies.

I'm not questioning Hillary's decision to stand by her man personally. But she played a role in Bill Clinton's escapades and covered for him that had legal ramifications. It's fair game to question the character of someone who is willing to cover for other people's personal weaknesses and lies that have legal ramifications. If she's willing to do that for Bill as First Lady, what else would she cover for as President, since we all know Bill Clinton would play a very active role as an advisor for Hillary in the white ?House.

[Marx]

Oh, I admit Bill Clinton had enemies that hated his guts. Politicians will always have enemies. The fact that he was the target of a Republican headhunt does not negate the fact that he allowed his habit of "extracurriculars" to complicate and convolute professional relationship with several employees that created unnecessary animosity, legal conflicts, and public distractions both in and outside of government. Subordinates have to lie about relationship, cover up for others,..some will feel intimidated to lie because they don't want to lose their job,...they'll have to lie about when and where they met, people who have nothing to do with the affair now have to create alibis to protect others. If Monica was the first time, maybe I could see your argument, but when someone has a habit of sleeping around with co-workers or abusing power with subordinates like Bill Clinton did, especially after some of them threatened to publicy humiliate him, it was bound to catch up with him. It was just a matter of time. His decision to lie under oath is his own fault, nobody else but his own.... He could have answered the question honestly. He could have avoided engaging in conspiracies.

I'm not questioning Hillary's decision to stand by her man personally. But she played a role in Bill Clinton's escapades and covered for him that had legal ramifications. It's fair game to question the character of someone who is willing to cover for other people's personal weaknesses and lies that have legal ramifications. If she's willing to do that for Bill as First Lady, what else would she cover for as President, since we all know Bill Clinton would play a very active role as an advisor for Hillary in the white ?House.

I understand what you're saying Sent. But put yourself in her position - would you throw your own husband under the bus?

[SentinelMind]

^To be President of the United States, you have to rise to the occassion. Life's not fair, there's no easy do-over, you have to suffer consequences of your actions. Hillary chose to stick by her man and cover for her man, I'm not personally condemning that. Not saying most people would or should throw their spouse under the bus. But it clearly demonstrates that when there is a conflict between personal infidelities/mistakes and professonal conduct, she will succumb to covering/making excuses for the infidelities, personal problems (like the whole lying about Bosnia trip). If she bowed out of public domain after that....then it would be gravy. But she's running for President now...her decisions to cover for a spouse and play dumb or play the victim is fair game to be questioned because those same types conflicts and scenarios where a spouse's personal problems may jeapordize the operations of professional conduct may happen again if she were to become President. If she couldn't rise to the occassion then, how can we expect her to rise to the occassion now? How do we know she won't feel even more comfortable for covering for him in the future?

[Memphis Slim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxvi2EXc1Wc&NR=1


This is why the kid at Butler asked whether Hillary's credibility had been hurt by the Monica debacle. Hill comes out and blames the "right-wing":whatever:
...basically lying about what she knew to be the truth....

Many did think (and still do) that this has dogged her cred. If she wants our votes, she needs to answer our questions.

The kid didn't ask a "personal" question. He didn't ask if Hill slapped Bill or if she cussed him out.

He asked if the public had soured on her because of that problem.

[Zen]

People, especially on this forum, have been complaining that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, more people in the Democratic Party will not vote for her than if Obama was the nominee. Those polls indicate that more of Clinton's supporters will flat-out refuse to vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. Which means Obama is at least as much of or more of a divisive figure than Clinton.


all those combined people make me sad. i can only hope that the reality that will bear out from the convention to november will resonate more with those folks than the sibling rivalry that could scream in their head that their candidate would have done better... so they sabotage the party and their morals (not all of them, i remember your post Jman, but IMO most of them) in the wake of a seething democratic primary that caused everyone to personally feel attacked by the success of the other candidate back and forth to the convention

[Abaddon]

Maybe he should have made his question more clear if that was the case, because he didn't bring any of that up when he asked the question.

[ShadowBoxing]

It's really inappropriate to ask a child about her father's affair.

[Memphis Slim]

It's really inappropriate to ask a child about her father's affair.


He didn't ask about Monica. He asked about Hillary's credibility in light of that!

[Memphis Slim]

Maybe he should have made his question more clear if that was the case, because he didn't bring any of that up when he asked the question.


His question was very clear. Chelsea wasn't gonna answer regardless.

[Memphis Slim]

Maybe he should have made his question more clear if that was the case, because he didn't bring any of that up when he asked the question.


His question was very clear. Chelsea wasn't gonna answer regardless.

[Addendum]

Nor does she have to. The question was much better suited for Hillary, since she's running and it's about her credibility.

[Abaddon]

He didn't ask about Monica. He asked about Hillary's credibility in light of that!

Why is there even a need to mention Lewinsky name at all? I thought Bill was impeached because he lied about the affair, not because he had one. And how is Chelsea even supposed to answer that?:huh:

[Tron5000]

Why is there even a need to mention Lewinsky name at all? I thought Bill was impeached because he lied about the affair, not because he had one. And how is Chelsea even supposed to answer that?:huh:

If her parents have trusted her with a role in the campaign answering questions about her parents, then they have trusted her to field questions responsibly and truthfully. Perhaps they should've handed out "What Can Be Asked, What Is Off Limits" information to the media. Don't ask your kid to enter the dirty game of politics and expect her to emerge with no mud.

[Memphis Slim]

Why is there even a need to mention Lewinsky name at all? I thought Bill was impeached because he lied about the affair, not because he had one. And how is Chelsea even supposed to answer that?:huh:

The kid did not mention Monica.....the subject of his question was Hillary...not Monica.


Did you even watch the clip?

[Memphis Slim]

Nor does she have to. The question was much better suited for Hillary, since she's running and it's about her credibility.


If she is asking for their votes, she does.

[Memphis Slim]

If her parents have trusted her with a role in the campaign answering questions about her parents, then they have trusted her to field questions responsibly and truthfully. Perhaps they should've handed out "What Can Be Asked, What Is Off Limits" information to the media. Don't ask your kid to enter the dirty game of politics and expect her to emerge with no mud.

BINGO.....and she's not a child anymore....

[Tron5000]

BINGO.....and she's not a child anymore....

Hell no she's not. Chick's 30, and what the hell has she ever done in her life that would make me care the least bit about her opinion? Absolutely nothing.

Dude, we need to hang out some time. Find a reason to come down to GA and let's really piss some people off.

[Memphis Slim]

Hell no she's not. Chick's 30, and what the hell has she ever done in her life that would make me care the least bit about her opinion? Absolutely nothing.

Dude, we need to hang out some time. Find a reason to come down to GA and let's really piss some people off.
:hehe:

[Tron5000]

:hehe:

According to some around here, that would be an impossibility.

"A white dude from the South agreeing ideologically with a black man? Can't be!"

Everyone knows we're all just racist folk who kill animals in our spare time (Michael Vick included) and attend Klan rallies in between our gay-hating extremist church services.

[Abaddon]

Tron, I'm not saying that the question shouldn't be allowed. But aside from being socially inappropriate, how the hell is she supposed to answer that?:huh:

The kid did not mention Monica.....the subject of his question was Hillary...not Monica.


Did you even watch the clip?

You're talking about the first guy or the second? Because the first guy clearly referenced Lewinsky. Any clip i've seen of the second incident only showed her reaction to being asked pretty much the same question. And both have more to do with her father then any of the 3.

[Tron5000]

Tron, I'm not saying that the question shouldn't be allowed. But aside from being socially inappropriate, how the hell is she supposed to answer that?:huh:



You're talking about the first guy or the second? Because the first guy clearly referenced Lewinsky. Any clip i've seen of the second incident only showed her reaction to being asked pretty much the same question. And both have more to do with her father then any of the 3.

i don't know how she's supposed to handle it. But if her parents put her out there, they need a battle plan for every conceivable question that could be asked of her.

You can't get out there and act as a surrogate and say, "I will answer questions that fall into Category A, but Category B is off limits." Either you answer the questions or you don't allow yourself to be put in that position. It's like when Mark McGwire set himself up by agreeing to answer questions to Congress, then says, "I'm not here to talk about the past." Well, the events of the past have a connection to the events of the future. If Chelsea does not want to answer certain questions, if she only wants softballs instead of fastballs lobbed at her, she should not be involved in this campaign to the degree that she is.

[Abaddon]

Well she's not the one running for office either, so if some people feel those questions should be asked then they're looking at the wrong person.

[Tron5000]

Well she's not the one running for office either, so if some people feel those questions should be asked then they're looking at the wrong person.

No, if she is a spokesperson for the Hillary Rodham campaign, she should field the questions. Otherwise she should just stay home and not be involved.

This strikes me as a clever ploy by the Clinton family. They know that journalists (before the General Election) will not grill Hillary on this matter, so they send their precious little girl out there to take the questions and tell the big mean reporter man that he shouldn't ask for Chelsea's opinion on such personal matters. When in fact, the decisions that one makes in times of personal crisis have great bearing on the issue of where their moral compass will lie when it comes to matters of national security vs personal protection.