I like Al Gore 2.0, but I'm not sure we would have had a 2.0 if it hadn't been for the 2000 debacle. That said, even Gore 1.0 couldn't possibly have been any worse than the Shrub/Cheney junta.
YES, YES, BILL AND HILLARY ARE EVIL!! EVIL I TELL YOU!! THEY HAVE LUNCH WITH DARTH VADER AND HAVE SUMMIT MEETINGS WITH MEPHISTOPHELES!!! EVIL I TELL YOU! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
who is talking about the whole "Borat-Gate" Kazakh mining deal that profited untold millions for the Clinton foundation on the backs of an anti-democratic human-rights abusing president who owns (through the state) the rich uranium mines?
will this be a crack in their system, or a huge crevasse that threatens to envelope the clintons in an all-consuming display of hubris?
Man, I gotta get this past mightyl's mudslinging by association, since the response has been deadly quiet in a thread supporting Hillary (I've already responded to him in the Obama thread).
My belief now is that Hillary and Barack should join forces (yea, yea, I know it's probably not gonna happen) after a victor is decided and run as a ticket. Instead of mudslinging and innuendo, let's look at how their states regarded them: they both left their Congressional seat to run for President with approval ratings in the 70's; are you going to tell me that's not an unbeatable ticket against either McCain or Romney? The power of the two of them together is stronger than even the Republicans could handle - particularly if she reins in Bill. (Ok, now stand by and watch the Clinton hatred pour in...it's like clockwork, really.)
LiG, you're right, not actually left their seats yet.
No, it shouldn't impact Hillary unless she was involved, just like Vick's wife was not part of the indictment against him - I don't believe in guilt by association, end of sentence.
Dont you think she should be aware of people doing dirty things around her? She tried saying she didnt know Bush was going to go to war, she didnt know Bill was sticking cigars in the intern, she didnt know about the mining company, she didnt know about the S&Ls behind whitewater, or the cattle futures trader she their accountant was involved with - I guess she doesnt really know shit after all!
cuz' if i'm out taking sketchy mini financiers on trips to meet sketchy dictators to get sweetheart deals hooked up all around so that i can get a bunch of $$$ to "help" my "foundation" all behind my wife's back, you better believe i'm in trouble.
of course she's involved. don't be coy vamure, it's unbecoming.
First of all, I love that they are calling it "Boratgate".
Second of all, I am offended on Hillary's behalf that Ann Coulter is backing her over McCain. I mean, right? I don't care how many (twisted, screwed up) people get a kick out of her, Ann Coulter is toxic, and her support for anyone with a D behind their name is unwelcome, I'd say.
Ok, evilp, I'll only address the intern one, because that was the only thing that Bill was brought to task for - and he wasn't impeached anyway (but if you wanna start dragging out anything even remotely like dirty laundry, then let's look at everyone's closet in Washington, then we'll be here all night).
Let me ask you something, if you're sticking cigars in someone, or if your husband is the one doing the sticking (don't want to assume I know you, mightyl will get mad) then it's the person being cheated on's fault? It's the spouse's fault that you can't control yourself and he/she doesn't somehow know about it? Great marriage you must have. And even if Hillary did know, that was never something that should have been part of a $39 million fishing expedition (I always wondered if the sexual lives of the people doing the investigating had been also looked into, what interesting things would have turned up for them).
And Mightyl, I don't really care what you think Hillary knows or did: for all you know he reamed Bill out for dragging the foundation down after she read about it in the papers, or maybe she's a little too involved in her own work and campaign to really be able to keep tabs on every g.d. thing he does (shit, he's flying off to somewhere almost every week).
vamure, don't even try arguing with the obama supporters. it's utterly hopeless. i started reading these threads because i wanted some insight into the candidates. i was fairly open at the time. after "debating" with the obama supporters, i became a locked in hillary supporter. there's too much passion here from both sides to get anything out of these threads.
"there's too much passion here from both sides to get anything out of these threads."
agree...
I mean, I don't think these threads are going to do much to change the course of the campaign, in the grand scheme of things: I just enjoy a good political conversation (or even argument, if you will). But I think it's peculiar that some Obama supporters have to build him up by berating Clinton; isn't that the very politics-of-destruction that he's trying to get past? To me "vote for Obama because Clinton sucks" is not a very convincing argument: I'd rather talk about why Obama deserves the job apart from who his opponent is or will be.
I find it distressing, and I am going to say flat out that this isn't my fight at all, that Hillary in public forums (debates) refers to her biggest competition by his first name. This dispite being referred to her earned title "senator" - it just seems disrespectful. My $0.02
Breaking News: Pro-Clinton push poll erupts in California
Ed Coghlan was just starting to prepare his dinner in the northern San Fernando Valley the other night when the phone rang. The caller was very friendly. He identified himself as a pollster who wanted to ask registered independents like Coghlan a few questions about the presidential race and all the candidates for Super Tuesday's California primary.
Ed, who's a former news director for a local TV station, was curious. He said, "Sure, go ahead."
But a few minutes into the conversation Ed says he noticed a strange pattern developing to the questions. First of all, the "pollster" was only asking about four candidates, three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, who was still in the race at the time -- and one Republican -- John McCain.
Also, every question about Clinton was curiously positive, Coghlan recalls. The caller said things like, if you knew that Sen. Clinton believed the country had a serious home mortgage problem and had made proposals to....
freeze mortgage rates and save families from foreclosure, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for her?
Ed said, of course, more likely.
Every question about the other candidates was negative. If Ed knew, for instance, that as a state senator Obama had voted "present" 43 times instead of taking a yes or no stand "for what he believed," would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?
"That's when I caught on," said Coghlan. He realized then that he was being push-polled. That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.
It could become an issue in the closing hours of the campaign.
Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties' national conventions next summer.
Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute "poll."
"The guy was very slick, very personable," Coghlan told the Ticket. "He never fell out of character as a pollster the entire time. He seemed interested in my answers and just kept going through his list of questions as if he was noting my answers. He was very good, very smooth."
For instance, the caller inquired, had Ed watched a recent Democratic debate? Ed said yes. And who did Ed think had won the debate? the pollster inquired.
Coghlan replied, honestly, that he thought Edwards had won because he was calmer and more reasoned didn't get involved in all the petty arguing and finger-pointing like the other two. Now, the pollster said, if Ed knew that most people believed John Edwards could not get elected in a general election, would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?
Ed said, oh, well then, less, of course. And the caller appeared to make a note of that.
"He was not pushy at all," Coghlan said. "And at the end he thanked me for giving him my opinions."
Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received.
eb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Democrat Hillary Clinton has raised more money from lobbyists than any other presidential candidate while Republican John McCain has more of them assisting his campaign.
ADVERTISEMENT
Clinton took in $823,087 from registered lobbyists and members of their firms in 2007 and the second-biggest recipient was McCain, who took in $416,321, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group which tracks political giving. Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, doesn't take money from registered lobbyists, although he received $86,282 from employees of firms that lobby, according to the center.
McCain has 26 registered lobbyists as campaign advisers or fundraisers compared with 11 for Clinton and none for Obama, according to review of records compiled by Public Citizen, a Washington-based group that favors stronger disclosure laws for lobbyists.
off topic but i always felt saddam probably did destroy all of his wmd but needed to keep the image of it up to frighten his neighbors. i never understood why this didn't occur to the pentagon.
Well you guys keep digging up these moldy videos and making your absolute statements about Clinton (e.g. "she has absolutely no intergrity": meanwhile, people are talking with their votes, and it looks like not everyone's buying what you're selling.
And although it would be a close race, it's no stone-cold-lock that McCain would deafeat Clinton. Everyone is so sure of these platitudes - yea, just like the Patriots were going to beat the Giants, there was no question...
well, if they ignored it they should of at least had the decency to sneak some into the country. i can't believe that even george bush is a big enough idiot to blow his reputation and the reputation of the entire nation by making a claim they knew wasn't true. my feeling is it was all wishful thinking. no one wanted to believe the truth.
Yes, Elim, those are five good reasons, but don't count anybody out, not yet. McCain was dead in the water a few months ago: there was no chance, NO CHANCE, that he could resurrect his campaing, the pundits said...ha and then ha.
Well, the statement that Hillary is too polluted by Bill and that independents will not vote for her is always stated as written in stone, can't be debated. Well, that and a 2 dollars will get you a cup of coffee: nobody is sure of anything. As I have stated in another post here or on the Obama thread, the tactics of political-destruction against Clinton can also end up backfiring on the attackers, as the country finally becomes fed up with this shit.
No, but you chose the URL. This "Run, Hillary, Run" thread should be renamed "Let's Dump on Hillary", because that's what it basically is. But as I said before, you all knock yourselves out, you got lots of company and we'll see if it's enough company.
I think I'm going to lay off of this thread for a while, but I'll leave with this: if Clinton does get elected, the Clinton haters will just have to lump it, just like many of us had to lump it for Bush, twice. But here's something I WOULD lay big money on, at the drop of a hat: if she gets elected, she and her administration will be miles, light years, EONS better than what we've had the past 7 years and one more yet to come.
Run Hillary Run
Al Gore would have been a disaster
I agree. I don't think Al Gore was a great choice. But what we have has been far worse.
Got to disagree with you on that one.
it depends which version of al gore we're talking about - al gore 1.0 or al gore 2.0
I like Al Gore 2.0, but I'm not sure we would have had a 2.0 if it hadn't been for the 2000 debacle. That said, even Gore 1.0 couldn't possibly have been any worse than the Shrub/Cheney junta.
YES, YES, BILL AND HILLARY ARE EVIL!! EVIL I TELL YOU!! THEY HAVE LUNCH WITH DARTH VADER AND HAVE SUMMIT MEETINGS WITH MEPHISTOPHELES!!! EVIL I TELL YOU! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
You guys really crack me up.
(sorry, that was a response to the bottom of the previous page)
who is talking about the whole "Borat-Gate" Kazakh mining deal that profited untold millions for the Clinton foundation on the backs of an anti-democratic human-rights abusing president who owns (through the state) the rich uranium mines?
will this be a crack in their system, or a huge crevasse that threatens to envelope the clintons in an all-consuming display of hubris?
See it Here. NYTimes article.
Man, I gotta get this past mightyl's mudslinging by association, since the response has been deadly quiet in a thread supporting Hillary (I've already responded to him in the Obama thread).
My belief now is that Hillary and Barack should join forces (yea, yea, I know it's probably not gonna happen) after a victor is decided and run as a ticket. Instead of mudslinging and innuendo, let's look at how their states regarded them: they both left their Congressional seat to run for President with approval ratings in the 70's; are you going to tell me that's not an unbeatable ticket against either McCain or Romney? The power of the two of them together is stronger than even the Republicans could handle - particularly if she reins in Bill. (Ok, now stand by and watch the Clinton hatred pour in...it's like clockwork, really.)
Neither of them left their Senate seats to run in this election.
vamure you're nuts. this isn't mudslinging. this is a pretty egregious incident of bill's peddling his influence for PERSONAL and POLITICAL gain.
mudslinging would be swift-boating, or gary hart-ing, or some other such hypermagnification of an otherwise innocuous piece of information.
do you really think that bill's actions in this kazakhistani mining deal shouldn't impact on hillary?
would you let michael vick's wife watch your golden retriever for the weekend?
hmmm...maybe not.
LiG, you're right, not actually left their seats yet.
No, it shouldn't impact Hillary unless she was involved, just like Vick's wife was not part of the indictment against him - I don't believe in guilt by association, end of sentence.
Dont you think she should be aware of people doing dirty things around her? She tried saying she didnt know Bush was going to go to war, she didnt know Bill was sticking cigars in the intern, she didnt know about the mining company, she didnt know about the S&Ls behind whitewater, or the cattle futures trader she their accountant was involved with - I guess she doesnt really know shit after all!
vamure - you're not married then i take it?
cuz' if i'm out taking sketchy mini financiers on trips to meet sketchy dictators to get sweetheart deals hooked up all around so that i can get a bunch of $$$ to "help" my "foundation" all behind my wife's back, you better believe i'm in trouble.
of course she's involved. don't be coy vamure, it's unbecoming.
(that's MINE financiers, not MINI. mini-financiers are like little sugar cookies...)
First of all, I love that they are calling it "Boratgate".
Second of all, I am offended on Hillary's behalf that Ann Coulter is backing her over McCain. I mean, right? I don't care how many (twisted, screwed up) people get a kick out of her, Ann Coulter is toxic, and her support for anyone with a D behind their name is unwelcome, I'd say.
Hi WonderK. Want some mini-financiers?
Ok, evilp, I'll only address the intern one, because that was the only thing that Bill was brought to task for - and he wasn't impeached anyway (but if you wanna start dragging out anything even remotely like dirty laundry, then let's look at everyone's closet in Washington, then we'll be here all night).
Let me ask you something, if you're sticking cigars in someone, or if your husband is the one doing the sticking (don't want to assume I know you, mightyl will get mad) then it's the person being cheated on's fault? It's the spouse's fault that you can't control yourself and he/she doesn't somehow know about it? Great marriage you must have. And even if Hillary did know, that was never something that should have been part of a $39 million fishing expedition (I always wondered if the sexual lives of the people doing the investigating had been also looked into, what interesting things would have turned up for them).
And Mightyl, I don't really care what you think Hillary knows or did: for all you know he reamed Bill out for dragging the foundation down after she read about it in the papers, or maybe she's a little too involved in her own work and campaign to really be able to keep tabs on every g.d. thing he does (shit, he's flying off to somewhere almost every week).
the Obama thread is out numbering the Run Hillary Run thread...by plenty. This will be a unique election to say the least...good luck democrats
no its not her fault - nothing is her fault, its just she didnt know
Well I think Coulter is being a rhetorical wench as usual, but it sure is nice to see the republicans shooting themselves in the leg for a change.
ahh ep - we agree on something at last!
of course she knew.
Hillary and Walmart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA
Elimelech, see my response to aking on the "other" thread.
"We live in a political world
Under the microscope,
You can travel anywhere and hang yourself there
You always got more than enough rope."
"Political World" - Bob Dylan
Wait, let me get my index cards off the bookshelf. Let's see here...flip, flip, flip, flip...here it is:
Response #4:
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
vamure, don't even try arguing with the obama supporters. it's utterly hopeless. i started reading these threads because i wanted some insight into the candidates. i was fairly open at the time. after "debating" with the obama supporters, i became a locked in hillary supporter. there's too much passion here from both sides to get anything out of these threads.
"there's too much passion here from both sides to get anything out of these threads."
agree...
I mean, I don't think these threads are going to do much to change the course of the campaign, in the grand scheme of things: I just enjoy a good political conversation (or even argument, if you will). But I think it's peculiar that some Obama supporters have to build him up by berating Clinton; isn't that the very politics-of-destruction that he's trying to get past? To me "vote for Obama because Clinton sucks" is not a very convincing argument: I'd rather talk about why Obama deserves the job apart from who his opponent is or will be.
vamure, jafidle, agree 100% with you guys, let's move on.
"there's too much passion here from both sides to get anything out of these threads."
guilty.
In fairness though, you came into these threads at a bad time, on the heels of some serious bullshit tactics coming out of her campaign.
c'est la vie.
I find it distressing, and I am going to say flat out that this isn't my fight at all, that Hillary in public forums (debates) refers to her biggest competition by his first name. This dispite being referred to her earned title "senator" - it just seems disrespectful. My $0.02
The thing I find troublesome about Clinton is that she will do anything to be in office. Here's the latest:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html
Breaking News: Pro-Clinton push poll erupts in California
Ed Coghlan was just starting to prepare his dinner in the northern San Fernando Valley the other night when the phone rang. The caller was very friendly. He identified himself as a pollster who wanted to ask registered independents like Coghlan a few questions about the presidential race and all the candidates for Super Tuesday's California primary.
Ed, who's a former news director for a local TV station, was curious. He said, "Sure, go ahead."
But a few minutes into the conversation Ed says he noticed a strange pattern developing to the questions. First of all, the "pollster" was only asking about four candidates, three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, who was still in the race at the time -- and one Republican -- John McCain.
Also, every question about Clinton was curiously positive, Coghlan recalls. The caller said things like, if you knew that Sen. Clinton believed the country had a serious home mortgage problem and had made proposals to....
freeze mortgage rates and save families from foreclosure, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for her?
Ed said, of course, more likely.
Every question about the other candidates was negative. If Ed knew, for instance, that as a state senator Obama had voted "present" 43 times instead of taking a yes or no stand "for what he believed," would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?
"That's when I caught on," said Coghlan. He realized then that he was being push-polled. That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.
It could become an issue in the closing hours of the campaign.
Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties' national conventions next summer.
Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute "poll."
"The guy was very slick, very personable," Coghlan told the Ticket. "He never fell out of character as a pollster the entire time. He seemed interested in my answers and just kept going through his list of questions as if he was noting my answers. He was very good, very smooth."
For instance, the caller inquired, had Ed watched a recent Democratic debate? Ed said yes. And who did Ed think had won the debate? the pollster inquired.
Coghlan replied, honestly, that he thought Edwards had won because he was calmer and more reasoned didn't get involved in all the petty arguing and finger-pointing like the other two. Now, the pollster said, if Ed knew that most people believed John Edwards could not get elected in a general election, would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?
Ed said, oh, well then, less, of course. And the caller appeared to make a note of that.
"He was not pushy at all," Coghlan said. "And at the end he thanked me for giving him my opinions."
Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received.
--Andrew Malcolm
Hillary is the number one recipient of lobbyist money::
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080204/pl_bloomberg/apnpwl7xnjik
eb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Democrat Hillary Clinton has raised more money from lobbyists than any other presidential candidate while Republican John McCain has more of them assisting his campaign.
ADVERTISEMENT
Clinton took in $823,087 from registered lobbyists and members of their firms in 2007 and the second-biggest recipient was McCain, who took in $416,321, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group which tracks political giving. Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, doesn't take money from registered lobbyists, although he received $86,282 from employees of firms that lobby, according to the center.
McCain has 26 registered lobbyists as campaign advisers or fundraisers compared with 11 for Clinton and none for Obama, according to review of records compiled by Public Citizen, a Washington-based group that favors stronger disclosure laws for lobbyists.
"hil(l)ary" is spelled wrong on the intro woman's shirt!
off topic but i always felt saddam probably did destroy all of his wmd but needed to keep the image of it up to frighten his neighbors. i never understood why this didn't occur to the pentagon.
Well you guys keep digging up these moldy videos and making your absolute statements about Clinton (e.g. "she has absolutely no intergrity": meanwhile, people are talking with their votes, and it looks like not everyone's buying what you're selling.
And although it would be a close race, it's no stone-cold-lock that McCain would deafeat Clinton. Everyone is so sure of these platitudes - yea, just like the Patriots were going to beat the Giants, there was no question...
i'm sure it did occur to them, le b, but that scenario didn't really work into their plans as well so they ignored it.
Five reasons Hillary should be worried
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8363.html
well, if they ignored it they should of at least had the decency to sneak some into the country. i can't believe that even george bush is a big enough idiot to blow his reputation and the reputation of the entire nation by making a claim they knew wasn't true. my feeling is it was all wishful thinking. no one wanted to believe the truth.
Yes, Elim, those are five good reasons, but don't count anybody out, not yet. McCain was dead in the water a few months ago: there was no chance, NO CHANCE, that he could resurrect his campaing, the pundits said...ha and then ha.
Oh, and bossman, yes, he is a big enough idiot.
yes, except in this case McCain is Obama (they were going to inaugurate Hillary in the summer '07)
Well, the statement that Hillary is too polluted by Bill and that independents will not vote for her is always stated as written in stone, can't be debated. Well, that and a 2 dollars will get you a cup of coffee: nobody is sure of anything. As I have stated in another post here or on the Obama thread, the tactics of political-destruction against Clinton can also end up backfiring on the attackers, as the country finally becomes fed up with this shit.
Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clinton_loaned_her_campaign_5_million.html
Hmm...you just ignored my post and piled more shit...just proves my point.
dude it is just the news, i didnt write anything.
"the truth has a well established (anti-Hillary) bias"
No, but you chose the URL. This "Run, Hillary, Run" thread should be renamed "Let's Dump on Hillary", because that's what it basically is. But as I said before, you all knock yourselves out, you got lots of company and we'll see if it's enough company.
I think I'm going to lay off of this thread for a while, but I'll leave with this: if Clinton does get elected, the Clinton haters will just have to lump it, just like many of us had to lump it for Bush, twice. But here's something I WOULD lay big money on, at the drop of a hat: if she gets elected, she and her administration will be miles, light years, EONS better than what we've had the past 7 years and one more yet to come.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.