Oh Hillary, Lying Again?

[bKangy]

Drudge has it:


Photo surfaces of smiling Clintons with Tony Rezko... MORE... Clinton injected the indicted developer's name this week in heated debate with Obama: 'I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago'... Clinton tells NBC 'TODAY' show on Friday: 'I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door'...


http://www.drudgereport.com/rez.jpg

The biggest lying mouth continues on, the mind of the Ultimate Politician Bot splitting itself into two superficial personalities to fool and manipulate the electorate. They thought it was beaten in Iowa, but the circuitry regenerated in time for New Hampshire. It will not be stopped!

[Grifter]

First let me say that Hillary makes my skin crawl, I can't stand the woman BUT I wouldn't call not remembering taking a picture with some douche lying. She honestly probably has done hundreds of thousands of photo ops starting when her husband decided to run for President. There could be more to this but if what I read above is the extent of it this is just retarded.

[Orz]

I'm no fan of anyone in the Presidential race, but come on. She's right on this. I've had my photo taken with Bush Sr. when I was in junior high against a not too dissimilar backdrop.

[bKangy]

Her point was that Obama met him in this kind of situation though, doing some of his community related work and happening to cross paths with him. And then this surfaces. But you know, she meets thousands of people, so it's fine.

[captainstrombosis]

This seems weak. I can't even remember all of my relatives names (or my immediate families middle names.) Yet you expect her to remember everyone she has ever had a photo with?

[roboninja]

Her point was that Obama met him in this kind of situation though, doing some of his community related work and happening to cross paths with him. And then this surfaces. But you know, she meets thousands of people, so it's fine.

Ahh, now I see what you are saying. She attacked Obama for the very same thing she did. That makes sense, and makes her more douchey.
EDIT: Should not have said "very same thing", more like something similar.

[bKangy]

This seems weak. I can't even remember all of my relatives names (or my immediate families middle names.) Yet you expect her to remember everyone she has ever had a photo with?

When using them as a political dig, yes.

[captainstrombosis]

When using them as a political dig, yes.

Just read your post above mine and it makes more sense.

[Devilturnip]

I was about to type up a long post detailing how both the OP and Hillary's attack on Obama are bullshit, but fuck it, I can't be bothered. This is just politicians being politicians. Nothing to see here, moving on.

[rein]

This seems weak. I can't even remember all of my relatives names (or my immediate families middle names.) Yet you expect her to remember everyone she has ever had a photo with?
Wait! Obama seeking help from Rezko on a property deal and basically partnering with his wife in a property deal is the same situation as Hillary having a photo taken with a guy? Something she has done with hundreds of thousands other people?

The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."

On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.


While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house.

[Johan]

Picture? No picture? Who cares...

The one thing I know about the Clintons, however, is that if their ambition could be anthropomorphically realized, it would swallow the universe as an appetizer. :D

[antoniogaud]

I'm no fan of anyone in the Presidential race, but come on. She's right on this. I've had my photo taken with Bush Sr. when I was in junior high against a not too dissimilar backdrop.

First, its MONUMENTAL HYPOCRISY on the part of the Clintons (nothing new).

Second, Rezko didn't accidentally walk into that photograph. You and I cant just walk into the White House and say 'cheese' next to the President. They were asked to pose with him for a reason, and it seems that Hillary doesn't (or refuses to) remember why.

Its no wonder that all the exit polls show that the uneducated are the majority of Clinton's supporters in the states that have so far voted.

[Beelzebud]

Drudge?

LOL Nice try.

[antoniogaud]

Drudge?

LOL Nice try.

It originated on NBC's Today Show this morning, so nice try to you.

I have no idea if the image is legitimate or what it means if it is, but dismissing a news items because of its source is not always a good way to digest the news...

[Schnoogs]

Picture? No picture? Who cares...

The one thing I know about the Clintons, however, is that if their ambition could be anthropomorphically realized, it would swallow the universe as an appetizer. :D

Kind of like Unicron in the Transformers movie? :p

[51|RandoM]

I don't see the issue here. I guess I've been blinded by the combined Clinton charisma, but not by the Obama puppet.

[Beelzebud]

It originated on NBC's Today Show this morning, so nice try to you.

I have no idea if the image is legitimate or what it means if it is, but dismissing a news items because of its source is not always a good way to digest the news...

It's a great idea when the source is Drudge.

[Schnoogs]

I don't see the issue here. I guess I've been blinded by the combined Clinton charisma, but not by the Obama puppet.

It definitely says a lot about the state of politics when people are completely unphased when the candidates lies are exposed.

Are we really that desensitized?

[Beelzebud]

It definitely says a lot about the state of politics when people are completely unphased when the candidates lies are exposed.

Are we really that desensitized?

I'd say yes. We invaded a country over a mountain of lies, and there was no political price paid for it. I'd say desensitized is the right word.

[51|RandoM]

It definitely says a lot about the state of politics when people are completely unphased when the candidates lies are exposed.

Are we really that desensitized?

I don't see the lie.

The only proof presented in this thread that the Clintons know Rezko is a "whoopee! I was at the White House" picture. You know how many of those there are? Do you really think the Clintons know everybody in every one of those pictures?

Instead of the amusement park picture, show us a picture of them having dinner and drinks while discussing opportunities in the Chicago housing market.

[Schnoogs]

I'd say yes. We invaded a country over a mountain of lies, and there was no political price paid for it. I'd say desensitized is the right word.

Take the tin foil off long enough to realize that lying and politics has gone hand in hand since the Greeks.

But hey...who am I to convince you that Bush wasn't the first politician to do so.

[LongStepMantis]

Kind of like Unicron in the Transformers movie? :p

It fits.
This would be a reasonably close dramatization of what her inauguration speech would be like:

TG4GaPcLgOs
Just replace "Galvatron" with "Bill", Unicron is Hillary, and replace "Cybertron" with "Earth".

ALL HAIL CLIN-TON!

[Schnoogs]

I don't see the lie.

I think you answered my question then about being desensitized! :p

So in other words lying goes with the turf....it's the significance of the lie that counts.

[Beelzebud]

Take the tin foil off long enough to realize that lying and politics has gone hand in hand since the Greeks.

But hey...who am I to convince you that Bush wasn't the first politician to do so.

You're the one that acted so shocked about politicians lying...

[Telefrog]

Second, Rezko didn't accidentally walk into that photograph. You and I cant just walk into the White House and say 'cheese' next to the President. They were asked to pose with him for a reason, and it seems that Hillary doesn't (or refuses to) remember why.

Its no wonder that all the exit polls show that the uneducated are the majority of Clinton's supporters in the states that have so far voted.

Do you have any idea how many photo ops are scheduled for the President in the White House throughout a year? Do you know how much prep time the President gets to each one?

A lot of photo ops besides the Boy Scouts, or WWI Widows, or Presidential Fitness Awards are given to generous campaign contributors. Technically, you or I can get a photo op with a President if we gave enough money to his or her election camapaign and made it through the security check.

[CoachCrazyMcScot]

You have to admit, Hilary's smile is infectious....much like when the second set of jaws come out in anyone's closeup of "Alien".

[antoniogaud]

It definitely says a lot about the state of politics when people are completely unphased when the candidates lies are exposed.

Are we really that desensitized?

I think people make up their minds and thats that. If something comes out bad about "your" candidate, you simply ignore it and try to find more negative info to attack the other candidates.

That being said, anyone who isn't disgusted by what the Clintons are doing simply hasn't been following the events of this campaign. I am a Republican but I admit that Obama's latest ad is right, "Hillary will say anything to get elected."

I would also add 'do anything' as well.

You have to admire Barack Obama for doing so well against the Clinton Juggernaut (so far).

[Schnoogs]

You're the one that acted so shocked about politicians lying...

Wrong...I was pointing out how casual everyone is about it.

[antoniogaud]

Do you have any idea how many photo ops are scheduled for the President in the White House throughout a year? Do you know how much prep time the President gets to each one?

A lot of photo ops besides the Boy Scouts, or WWI Widows, or Presidential Fitness Awards are given to generous campaign contributors. Technically, you or I can get a photo op with a President if we gave enough money to his or her election camapaign and made it through the security check.

Rezco is there for a reason, usually something that benefits the Clintons enough for them to 'justify' the photo opp. That is the way politics work.

For Hillary to call out Obama on Rezco is astonishing beyond belief considering her VERY CLOSE affiliation with Hsu.

[Beelzebud]

Wrong...I was pointing out how casual everyone is about it.

As you casually brushed aside current lies, to bury them with somethign about the Greeks lying.

I bring up Bush's massive lies to Iraq, because it's current, people are living through it, and it's the main reason for much of this voter apathy we see currently.

[Schnoogs]

As you casually brushed aside current lies, to bury them with somethign about the Greeks lying..

What in gods name are you even talking about?

Do you even know what brushed aside means? If I'm concerned about peope being casual when it comes to lying how can you then accuse me of brushing those lies aside???? :confused:

Contradictory logic for the win. :confused:

[51|RandoM]

I think you answered my question then about being desensitized! :p

So in other words lying goes with the turf....it's the significance of the lie that counts.

No, I didn't.

From what I've seen presented in this thread you are lying more than the Clintons are. Maybe I am desensitized to that.

Where is the proof that either of them know Rezko more than they have admitted to? Wherever it is, I can tell you where it isn't: In this thread.

What I am desensitized to is people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, people with an agenda trying to make out other people to be liars. If that is the best you can do, you hurt your cause more than the one you are trying to dethrone.

[Schnoogs]

No, I didn't.

From what I've seen presented in this thread you are lying more than the Clintons are. Maybe I am desensitized to that.

Where is the proof that either of them know Rezko more than they have admitted to? Wherever it is, I can tell you where it isn't: In this thread.

What I am desensitized to is people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, people with an agenda trying to make out other people to be liars. If that is the best you can do, you hurt your cause more than the one you are trying to dethrone.

So you think that Greek politicians didn't lie? That's about the only fact I offered up.

Otherwise I was commenting on those in this thread who accepted her statement as a lie but didn't care about it.

[Beelzebud]

What in gods name are you even talking about?

Do you even know what brushed aside means? If I'm concerned about peope being casual when it comes to lying how can you then accuse me of brushing those lies aside???? :confused:

Contradictory logic for the win. :confused:

Regardless, we both agree that 2001 is a great movie, so get in there and school those ADD morons on how great it is. :D

[bKangy]

Just the way Clinton is going about this disgusts me. Using Bill to turn this into a race issue instead of a matter of politics is horrendous, and has sealed her victory if it carries on. The perception is going to alienate white voters nationwide, and the Clinton campaign knows that. It's divisive and it's disgusting, and I hope the Republicans destroy her nationally if she wins.

[Telefrog]

Rezco is there for a reason, usually something that benefits the Clintons enough for them to 'justify' the photo opp. That is the way politics work.

Yeah... That's exactly what I said. He likely gave money. Thanks for agreeing. I was commenting on your disbelief that Hillary couldn't remember having that picture taken. I, for one, can easily believe someone not recollecting a 15 minute photo-op (that's the average time scheduled for one, btw) done a few years ago.

For Hillary to call out Obama on Rezco is astonishing beyond belief considering her VERY CLOSE affiliation with Hsu.

Well, I didn't say anything about that. I honestly don't know enough about Obama's relationship with Rezco. To be honest, it sounds like there was a bit more to the Rezco/Obama relationship than just a photo op.

[antoniogaud]

I was enjoying the Democratic campaign until Hillary's 'cry' moment. I admit that I disliked her from the start. Her dirty campaign methods should be illegal. I CANNOT stand that woman and everything she and Bill represent in politics.

Obama's popular message is now completely off track by him having to answer to literal lies made up by the Clintons. This was Hillary's tactic the entire time.

Disclaimer: I voted for Bill Clinton before I became Republican. His 'I did not have sex with that woman" quote was the end of it. I voted for him when I was young and naive...

[Oxonian]

I bring up Bush's massive lies to Iraq, because it's current, people are living through it, and it's the main reason for much of this voter apathy we see currently.
So if we had never invaded Iraq, people would be fired with passion and deeply engaged in the democratic process?

Also, last time I checked, voter apathy was actually at historical lows right now. Nearly 60% (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm) of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2004 election, better than in any Presidential election since at least 1992 (by some measures, better than any election since 1968). Turnout in the second-term midterm elections of 2006 was 41% (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2006.htm), slightly higher than 1998.

This information was all easily found through a simple Google search. So it was easily available to you. Since you misrepresented these facts anyway, I can only assume you deliberately lied for nefarious purposes. Your malevolence has consequently filled me with a general ennui.

[Schnoogs]

So if we had never invaded Iraq, people would be fired with passion and deeply engaged in the democratic process?

Also, last time I checked, voter apathy was actually at historical lows right now. Nearly 60% (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm) of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2004 election, better than in any Presidential election since at least 1992 (by some measures, better than any election since 1968). Turnout in the second-term midterm elections of 2006 was 41% (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2006.htm), slightly higher than 1998.

This information was all easily found through a simple Google search. So it was easily available to you. Since you misrepresented these facts anyway, I can only assume you deliberately lied for nefarious purposes. Your malevolence has consequently filled me with a general ennui.

God I love Ox sometimes!

[Telefrog]

God I love Ox sometimes!

If there was a way to make him a red, I'd support the move.

I imagine Ox would decline because he's got more important shit to do like righting wrongs, destroying communism, and pure justice! :D

[Devilturnip]

Ox is right. 2000 was the first time I was eligible to vote, and I did so from a feeling of responsibility. After watching what I believe is an inexcusable mismanagement of the country, I pay far more attention to politics and am far more active. Whether or not you support Bush, I think it's fair to say that his administration has had a polarizing effect on the country that has resulted in far greater participation in the political process. There is still room for improvement, but I think the country is more motivated in the political sphere than at any other point in my lifetime.

[51|RandoM]

God I love Ox sometimes!

I suspect those times are closely related to whenever he says something that could be construed as supportive of your argument.

[Rafer]

For Hillary to call out Obama on Rezco is astonishing beyond belief considering her VERY CLOSE affiliation with Hsu.

I've always been bothered by the Clinton association with Marc Rich (Clinton campaign donor who fled to Europe on tax evasion and dealing with Iran, gets a presidential pardon from Bill Clinton on his last day in office).

People are so positive about the Clinton administration but I remember the second term as being filled with scandal after scandal and nothing getting done. I really don't think she's the best candidate to put forward.

[Telefrog]

I suspect those times are closely related to whenever he says something that could be construed as supportive of your argument.

I don't know about Schnoogs, but I've disagreed with Ox on a number of points. He still kicks ass with a boot made out of 100% freedom.

[51|RandoM]

I don't know about Schnoogs, but I've disagreed with Ox on a number of points. He still kicks ass with a boot made out of 100% freedom.

...I wasn't saying anything about Oxonian. :)

[NationalKato]

Also, last time I checked, voter apathy was actually at historical lows right now.

You act like there's no Rock The Vote campaign with P Diddy. Give credit where credit is due, sir. :)

[IrishWhiskey]

For a topic about Hillary lying, I'm not sure what the lie is supposed to be. She said in the debate that Obama worked for the guy, not that she had never met him.

And although voter apathy may be bad, people's happiness with their choices is at an all time high. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/103846/Voters-Clamoring-ThirdParty-Candidacy-Year.aspx)

[Zanzibar]

Disclaimer: I voted for Bill Clinton before I became Republican. His 'I did not have sex with that woman" quote was the end of it. I voted for him when I was young and naive...

So...lies make you unhappy with your President?

How ya feeling about ol' W?

[Disgustipated]

If there was a way to make him a red, I'd support the move.

I imagine Ox would decline because he's got more important shit to do like righting wrongs, destroying communism, and pure justice! :D

What would making Ox a red accomplish? It's not like he needs to fight others with forum-admin powers, he seems to do just fine as it is...

[Zanzibar]

For a topic about Hillary lying, I'm not sure what the lie is supposed to be. She said in the debate that Obama worked for the guy, not that she had never met him.

Oh, Irish, let's not bring facts into this.

After all, it is Hillary, have they EVER needed facts to despise her?

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/wp-content/colbert.jpg
"Take your FACT-BASED AGENDAS and go find another thread!"

[Lima Beans]

She isn't that bad.....

[Slack3r78]

Oh, Irish, let's not bring facts into this.

After all, it is Hillary, have they EVER needed facts to despise her?

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/wp-content/colbert.jpg
"Take your FACT-BASED AGENDAS and go find another thread!"

A friend of mine has been frothing for the past week or so about the Clinton campaign continually twisting just about anything Obama says in a pretty dirty manner. Something he said about Reagan in particular had my friend pretty annoyed.

I think it's less this particular incident than it is the fact that the Clinton campaign has gotten progressively dirtier that's got people annoyed.

[Oxonian]

A friend of mine has been frothing for the past week or so about the Clinton campaign continually twisting just about anything Obama says in a pretty dirty manner. Something he said about Reagan in particular had my friend pretty annoyed.
Did you see E.J. Dionne's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402801.html?sub=AR) article on this?

[bKangy]

A friend of mine has been frothing for the past week or so about the Clinton campaign continually twisting just about anything Obama says in a pretty dirty manner. Something he said about Reagan in particular had my friend pretty annoyed.


How dare you say something positive about the opposition party why I oughta

[Slack3r78]

Did you see E.J. Dionne's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402801.html?sub=AR) article on this?

No, I hadn't, I have to thank you for pointing me its way if for no other reason than this line:

Honestly: If Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander.

That made my day, right there. Good piece either way, though.

[IrishWhiskey]

I think it's less this particular incident than it is the fact that the Clinton campaign has gotten progressively dirtier that's got people annoyed.So have Obama and Edwards, although in Obama's case its like going from calling someone a "meanie" to calling them "a big meanie". Expect to see more of this on all sides, especially after Super Tuesday, when the race will get tighter.

[ZeroOmegaZX]

PICS or it didn't happen! ...oh wait....

[Slack3r78]

So have Obama and Edwards, although in Obama's case its like going from calling someone a "meanie" to calling them "a big meanie". Expect to see more of this on all sides, especially after Super Tuesday, when the race will get tighter.

Well, and this is from someone that's been a mostly casual observer, most of the attacks I've seen from Obama and Edwards have been largely based on policy, whereas the attacks I'm increasingly seeing out of the Clinton campaign seem to be more of the willful distortion variety. I also know that the commentators I've heard on NPR recently have definitely singled out the Clintons re: the vicious tone their campaign has been taking on.

[baggle]

I've been waiting for this Rezko thing to become an issue since Obama first became a serious contender in the race, much the way I am still waiting for Huckabee's sermons to become an issue. This information has been out there the whole time, it was just a matter of choice for when the Clintons (not singular, since I haven't gotten the impression that it is a singular person who is running for office under the Clinton banner) chose to bring it up and make it an issue.

The deal does sound shady to me, but until I hear some facts, or at least some theories that hold water, about how exactly this deal influenced Obama's behavior towards Rezko inappropriately, I'm going to take it with a grain of salt. The Clintons have countless scandals to their name, and as long as I am deciding who not to vote for based on scandals, it surely won't be not voting for Obama when I can choose to not vote for the Clintons instead.

That whole Reagan thing really irked me, too. Thanks for the link, Ox, as Bill seems to have praised Reagan much more than Obama did. From what I remember of what Obama said, it was more along the lines of, "Reagan got people excited and hopeful," and less of "Wow, Reagan was so great at doing A, B, and C," like how Bill put it. But hey, facts be damned, that's how the Clintons roll.

[IrishWhiskey]

Well, and this is from someone that's been a mostly casual observer, most of the attacks I've seen from Obama and Edwards have been largely based on policy, whereas the attacks I'm increasingly seeing out of the Clinton campaign seem to be more of the willful distortion variety. I also know that the commentators I've heard on NPR recently have definitely singled out the Clintons re: the vicious tone their campaign has been taking on.Thats partly true, but also partly based on the fact that people further to the right or left (in other words pundits) tend to be more anti-Hillary. Criticizing her in the media gets more hits and positive feedback than Edwards or Obama. And I don't consider her "You love Reagan therefore you are conservative" attack any worse than his "You said LBJ mattered, therefore you hate Martin Luther King!".

Yes, I think shes a bit more negative, but I also have to be a bit skeptical about those sorts of stories, both because of other people's biases against her, and my own.

[baggle]

And I don't consider her "You love Reagan therefore you are conservative" attack any worse than his "You said LBJ mattered, therefore you hate Martin Luther King!".

Bit of apples and oranges here, isn't it, though?

The Reagan thing came directly from the mouth of a Clinton whereas the LBJ thing never came from Obama's mouth directly, and I'm not even sure if they came from the mouth of a direct Obama adviser or more from the mouths of pundits.

[Slack3r78]

Thats partly true, but also partly based on the fact that people further to the right or left (in other words pundits) tend to be more anti-Hillary. Criticizing her in the media gets more hits and positive feedback than Edwards or Obama. And I don't consider her "You love Reagan therefore you are conservative" attack any worse than his "You said LBJ mattered, therefore you hate Martin Luther King!".

Yes, I think shes a bit more negative, but I also have to be a bit skeptical about those sorts of stories, both because of other people's biases against her, and my own.

Hey, I'll agree the Obama campaign was out of line there and that I think they took a well-deserved lumping over it from the media I saw. That said, I think it's more than just personal bias when you've got big name Democrats more or less telling Bill to shut up (http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385), it seems indicative of a larger problem, to me.

[IrishWhiskey]

Bit of apples and oranges here, isn't it, though?

The Reagan thing came directly from the mouth of a Clinton whereas the LBJ thing never came from Obama's mouth directly, and I'm not even sure if they came from the mouth of a direct Obama adviser or more from the mouths of pundits.Maybe. Most of the attacks Hillary has been blamed for came from the mouths of supporters or advisers as well. But its certainly possible Obama himself didn't intend to make that attack.

[Slack3r78]

Maybe. Most of the attacks Hillary has been blamed for came from the mouths of supporters or advisers as well. But its certainly possible Obama didn't intend to make that attack.

One of the big criticisms I keep seeing repeated, as I noted above, is that a lot of the controversial attacks are coming from Bill.

[baggle]

Of course, just in case it wasn't clear, I think that whole LBJ hubbub on Hillary was ridiculous.

She only mentioned LBJ because she didn't want the conversations to be able to veer towards JFK, who Obama has been (fairly or not) likened to. Brilliant maneuvering on her part, I think.

[Oxonian]

Of course, just in case it wasn't clear, I think that whole LBJ hubbub on Hillary was ridiculous.

She only mentioned LBJ because she didn't want the conversations to be able to veer towards JFK, who Obama has been (fairly or not) likened to. Brilliant maneuvering on her part, I think.
That's kind of an odd interpretation, given that her own supporter mentioned (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights/) JFK earlier, denigrating his importance to the passage of civil rights legislation because he was assassinated. I recall thinking, "I don't like Obama or Kennedy, and I think even I'm offended."

[IrishWhiskey]

That's kind of an odd interpretation, given that her own supporter mentioned (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights/) JFK earlier, denigrating his importance to the passage of civil rights legislation because he was assassinated. I recall thinking, "I don't like Obama or Kennedy, and I think even I'm offended."As much as I think she has a point, in that LBJ did more for civil rights then Kennedy and did it through his skills as one of the most masterful Congressional legislators in history, an expert at manipulation and compromise, the way she put it is pretty funny.

"President Kennedy was in Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed. He was beaten. He was jailed. And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed, because the dream couldn’t be realized until finally it was legally permissible for people of all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens."

AKA

"Those fuckers are dead, I'm still alive. So vote for those of us smart enough to stay alive, because we can still get shit done. And after all, everyone knows that if Obama gets close to the White House, he's getting wacked."

[Slack3r78]

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5492

All the major candidates made an agreement with the DNC not to participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries after those states violated DNC scheduling rules. Edwards and Obama had their names removed from the ballots, Hillary did not, making her the defacto 'winner'. Now she's pressing to have those delegates seated at the convention.

Fuck her. Between this and the Nevada caucus casino site thing, it's clear she's not interested in the democratic process and the will of the people, but only in her own chances of winning. If she ends up the nominee, I won't be voting for her when the general election rolls around.

[KingGorilla]

Originally Posted by IrishWhiskey
Thats partly true, but also partly based on the fact that people further to the right or left (in other words pundits) tend to be more anti-Hillary. Criticizing her in the media gets more hits and positive feedback than Edwards or Obama.
You don't actually think that most pundits and commentators believe some of that bullshit that they expectorate, do you? I said it somewhere else, but it is an act. Just like Steven Colbert. Except with the MSNBC, CNN, Fox News viewer base, no one is getting the joke.

[baggle]

You don't actually think that most pundits and commentators believe some of that bullshit that they expectorate, do you? I said it somewhere else, but it is an act. Just like Steven Colbert. Except with the MSNBC, CNN, Fox News viewer base, no one is getting the joke.

My favorite is Michael 'Savage', the far-right, minority/gay-hating, war-loving, mean-ol-sunuvabitch aka Michael Alan Weiner, the Jewish, San Francisco-residing, Berkeley-attending, 'herbal medicine PhD' specializing hippie.

I don't know how people can take this guy seriously, as it's all so obviously a big act. But hey, I guess when 75% of your audience is bat shit insane, they'll eat pretty much whatever you feed them. I imagine that Mr. Weiner, I mean Mr. Savage, is laughing all the way to the bank.

[Slack3r78]

SC Primary:

Obama 53%
Hillary 27%

Where's your Machiavellian campaign style getting you now?

[Magnanimous Gnome]

It definitely says a lot about the state of politics when people are completely unphased when the candidates lies are exposed.

Are we really that desensitized?


All of the frontrunners have lied, told half-truths, and flipped around on the issues as it suits them, their campaigns, and whoever they happen to be speaking to/in front of at the moment.

I'm not defending Hillary - she's just as bad as the rest of them. However, it seems silly to call her out in particular for lying when everyone she is running again, in both parties, do the exact same thing. They are all liars.


Edit - One thing. This whole "issue" about her taking a picture with a guy seems to be very minor, at best. Is this really the best thing that people can come up with to point out how "awful and terrible" Hillary is? If so, then I'd say she's doing pretty good. :p

This whole back and forth between her and Obama is getting old. I'd love to hear them talk more about the problems America is facing. They may be doing just that, but all I ever see on the news is "Clinton attacks Obama..." or the reverse.

[bKangy]

29% margin of victory and growing. Unfortunately, every time you damage the machine it keeps on regenerating. Obama needs to kill it Terminator 2 style on Super Tuesday.

Meanwhile:
"A President like My Father" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) by Kennedy's daughter.

[Kelegacy]

So...lies make you unhappy with your President?

How ya feeling about ol' W?

Sssssssssssssnap!

Lying about having sex relations with someone is trivial by comparison. Lies are lies, but there are definite degrees of them. But you know America: we love our gossip and sex taboos. Bill should have just came out and said, "Yeah, I got my jimmy whacked, so what?"

Unless you're fucking kids, I don't give a shit what you do with your sex life.

[Wonda Mic]

More Clinton lying. Lots of that happening is our lifetime.

[IrishWhiskey]

SC Primary:

Obama 53%
Hillary 27%

Where's your Machiavellian campaign style getting you now?Aren't you forgetting someone?

Edwards 19%
(also Obama ended up with 54%)

Okay, so its not that impressive a showing, but he's definately not stupid. Speaking of Machiavellian, in an interview (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120122491195115541.html?mod=blog) his campaign manager recently admitted that the main reasons Edwards is in the race are to affect the issues discussed, and to play Kingmaker, most likely to Obama

“I think 200 delegates on Feb. 6 is our over-under,” Mr. Trippi said. Although he continues to insist that Mr. Edwards has a chance at securing the nomination, Mr. Trippi concedes it is a long shot. More probable: arriving at the convention with enough delegates to tip the scales in favor of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. “Edwards is the primary force keeping Clinton under 50%,” Mr. Trippi said. “Worst case? We go to the convention as the peacemaker, kingmaker, whatever you want to call it.”

As Mr. Trippi figures it, if Mr. Edwards gets more than 200 delegates through the Feb. 5 contests — just more than 10% of the total 1,700 delegates at stake that day — he has a long-shot chance of playing kingmaker. If he gets 350, Mr. Trippi said Mr. Edwards is almost assured of playing that role.

Each state Edwards gets at least 15% in gives him a cut of the delegates, which hurts Hillary and gives him leverage at the convention. And seeing as Edwards was actually the first choice of old white men, whereas Obama won every single other category of age, race and gender, he could definately balance the ticket.

Also once again turnout broke all previous records as Democratic voters actually managed to outnumber Republican ones in a heavily Red state. Republican turnout was down from the 2000 primary by 100,000 voters, whereas Democratic turnout doubled from 2000 and was up 200,000 from 2004.


More Clinton lying. Lots of that happening is our lifetime.As has been said before, the thread is wrong in that she didn't lie in this case. There are plenty of times she has, but this is just Drudge and others being overzealous in their criticism of her. And its not like the Clintons have any sort of monopoly of politicians lying.

[Zanzibar]

I'm still pushing for a Clinton/Obama ticket. Pretty goddamned good way to get both candidates' supporters energized.

I like 'em both. Obama has a promising future, but how many goddamned times are we going to hear shit about 'The status quo in Washington' when the status quo will remain until campaign financing becomes legitimate?

Until that time, we need people who know the system to get the system to work. Until PACs and lobbyists are lined up against the wall and shot, we'll never change Washington.

[baggle]

So I guess this is evidence that Obama can carry the South, after all. At least the black south, of which he won 80% of in SC, from what I've read.

Does anybody know the demographics of other important southern states offhand? Are there as many blacks in the Democratic party in other southern states as there are in SC? Is SC an anomaly or is Obama going to carry the entire South if the SC numbers hold true? I suppose I could just look up it, but pontificating is so much more fun.

[GreenIce]

Lying about having sex relations with someone is trivial by comparison. Lies are lies, but there are definite degrees of them. But you know America: we love our gossip and sex taboos. Bill should have just came out and said, "Yeah, I got my jimmy whacked, so what?"

Unless you're fucking kids, I don't give a shit what you do with your sex life.

Certainly the Clinton name has never come up in honest to god shady dealings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_%28controversy%29)

[Slack3r78]

Apparently, current polling is showing California at essentially a dead-heat between Obama and Clinton, despite Clinton having had a double-digit lead in the state in recent weeks:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/03/poll-obama-makes-gains/

[EternalGamer]

This thread certainly has demonstrated some campaign tactics that might be qualified as "unfair." But to me, that has little to do with who I want to be president. I want the person to be president to be the one I think has the best policies and the best chance of getting them implimented. I'll throw the caveat in there (thanks to an earlier conversation with Ox) that I want to be able to trust them enough to think they are going to make legitimate attempts to implement those policies, but I don't really doubt that either Obama or Clinton are sincere in the fundemental policy changes they are campaigning on.

I like Obama alright, but I think Hillary has the better, more reasoned approach to Iraq withdrawal. And I think she has the better approach to health care reform. Obama's plan to me is like making education optional or paying taxes to support city fire or police departments "optional." There are certain things that the society needs to supply and I can't think of anything more fundemental than the ability to live healthy. Even more important than education or roads or anything else you would spend federal money on outside of national defense. There are a lot of irresponsible people who are not going to buy in to Obama's plan only to rack up costs in the emergency room and raise costs for all the rest of us, just like it is now. And Obama's approach is also going to lead to a constant whittling away at who is covered and to what degree. It seems to me you need a firm stance on healthcare reform and you need a more mutable one on Iraqi withdrawl. In both of these areas I agree more with Hillary.

Those two issues override any name calling, tongue lashing, or other silly political games. I don't particularly give a fuck if the "nice" person gets into the White House. If you give me a choice between the nicer person and the one that has better policy, I want the latter. Of course, in a perfect world, we'd have both. But until that world comes, I'll take Health care reform that works and Iraq withdrawl that is more reasonable.

In terms of electability, I think it is obvious that Obama doesn't have the baggage Clinton does. However, I can't see either of them losing to John McCain given his stances on things like Iraq and his comments on immigration. So, I'd be more than comfortable gambling with Hillary as the candidate.

[EternalGamer]

Apparently, current polling is showing California at essentially a dead-heat between Obama and Clinton, despite Clinton having had a double-digit lead in the state in recent weeks:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/03/poll-obama-makes-gains/

In my dream world, Clinton would become Obama's VP and he would adopt her health care plan. As someone who has almost gone broke spending over $4,000 in the last year and half on healthcare costs because I was teaching as an uninsured adjunct, this issue is important to me. I never did find out what was wrong with me, but thankfully the symptoms don't appare to be worsening and I can live with them. I can't imagine how awful the situition would be for someone that was in the same scenario and didn't have the money to run the expensive tests to find out they had cancer. I've seen personally how doctors and hospitals react to people that don't have insurance. They are going to be hesistant to press you for more testing. This is the exact reason why cancer is not discovered until the later stages for people who are uninsured or have bad insurance.

[Heretic Machine]

In my dream world, Clinton would become Obama's VP and he would adopt her health care plan.

...She doesn't have a real health care plan. Her plan is based around the assumption that everyone in America can afford health care, but chooses not to get it. The unemployed? They choose not to have health care. Students on a tight budget? They choose not to have health care. Parents in low paying jobs supporting a family? They choose not to have health care.

I wish I lived in her world. As it stands, her health care plan doesn't actually result in more people being covered, but all of us who aren't are in trouble (and what little care the hospital will provide for free will likely be stripped away; dirty uninsured law-breaking poor people don't need to be stabilized).

[Slack3r78]

Obama's plan to me is like making education optional or paying taxes to support local fire or police departments "optional." There are certain things that the society needs to supply and I can't think of anything more fundemental than the ability to LIVE.
Well, my problem with Hillary's health care plan is that it screams 'unfunded mandate' to me. It's very well and good to want and pursue universal coverage, but, at this point in time, it would be similar conceptually to mandating a bachelor's level education if the only higher learning centers available were expensive, private institutes. Oh, and you have to pay for it out of pocket.

My other major problem is that I feel like if you're going to mandate coverage, you need to just go ahead and make the coverage public. I just plain don't like the idea of legally requiring people to pay into an insurance system run by private insurance companies.

I don't think Obama's plan is ideal, but I'm more comfortable with it than what, to me, feels like a half-hearted push toward universal coverage that still leaves private companies in the middle that Hillary's plan represents to me.

Moreover, Obama has said that he's not necessarily opposed to mandating coverage, but rather that the focus should initially be working toward making healthcare affordable. I think it's a bit more upfront in confronting reality-vs-ideal than the Clinton plan, personally.

[Slack3r78]

...She doesn't have a real health care plan. Her plan is based around the assumption that everyone in America can afford health care, but chooses not to get it. The unemployed? They choose not to have health care. Students on a tight budget? They choose not to have health care. Parents in low paying jobs supporting a family? They choose not to have health care.

I wish I lived in her world. As it stands, her health care plan doesn't actually result in more people being covered, but all of us who aren't are in trouble (and what little care the hospital will provide for free will likely be stripped away; dirty uninsured law-breaking poor people don't need to be stabilized).

Bingo. Clinton's plan strikes me as treating the symptom rather than the illness.

[EternalGamer]

Well, my problem with Hillary's health care plan is that it screams 'unfunded mandate' to me. It's very well and good to want and pursue universal coverage, but, at this point in time, it would be similar conceptually to mandating a bachelor's level education if the only higher learning centers available were expensive, private institutes. Oh, and you have to pay for it out of pocket.

My other major problem is that I feel like if you're going to mandate coverage, you need to just go ahead and make the coverage public. I just plain don't like the idea of legally requiring people to pay into an insurance system run by private insurance companies.

I don't think Obama's plan is ideal, but I'm more comfortable with it than what, to me, feels like a half-hearted push toward universal coverage that still leaves private companies in the middle that Hillary's plan represents to me.

Moreover, Obama has said that he's not necessarily opposed to mandating coverage, but rather that the focus should initially be working toward making healthcare affordable. I think it's a bit more upfront in confronting reality-vs-ideal than the Clinton plan, personally.

I'm not really happy with the mishmash of public funding and private healthcare either, but it seems better than Obama's alternative. Mandated coverage is the only way to start reforming the problems. If universal health care is going to work to drive down costs of healthcare, then it needs to be universal. Otherwise the same problems will persist.

[Slack3r78]

I'm not really happy with the mishmash of public funding and private healthcare either, but it seems better than Obama's alternative. Mandated coverage is the only way to start reforming the problems. If universal health care is going to work to drive down costs of healthcare, then it needs to be universal. Otherwise the same problems will persist.

Well, the big question there, then, is the one Obama's asked Hillary several times at the debates -- how do you intend to punish those that continue to go without health insurance because it's still unaffordable to them? Fine them money they apparently can't afford anyway? It's why Hillary's plan strikes me as cart-before-the-horse.

[EternalGamer]

...She doesn't have a real health care plan. Her plan is based around the assumption that everyone in America can afford health care, but chooses not to get it. The unemployed? They choose not to have health care. Students on a tight budget? They choose not to have health care. Parents in low paying jobs supporting a family? They choose not to have health care.

I wish I lived in her world. As it stands, her health care plan doesn't actually result in more people being covered, but all of us who aren't are in trouble (and what little care the hospital will provide for free will likely be stripped away; dirty uninsured law-breaking poor people don't need to be stabilized).

Hillary's plan is subsidized based on income.

[EternalGamer]

Well, the big question there, then, is the one Obama's asked Hillary several times at the debates -- how do you intend to punish those that continue to go without health insurance because it's still unaffordable to them? Fine them money they apparently can't afford anyway? It's why Hillary's plan strikes me as cart-before-the-horse.

I don't know her answer, but I would say you put them on a default plan that is directly garnished from their income like Social Security. There is no need to "punish them," you just want to put them on a plan when you find out they don't currently have one.

[Slack3r78]

I don't know her answer, but I would say you put them on a default plan that is directly garnished from their income like Social Security.
And does that money flow into a public plan or is it funneled through a private company? If the former, why not take that extra step and cut out the overhead involved with private companies which are legally obligated to maximize profits for everyone? If the former, how do you select the private entity that gets to handle what I'm sure would be a rather lucrative government contract?

[EternalGamer]

No, I hear you. As I said, I don't like the mishmash of public and private. But nobody that is a viable candidate and still in this race is offering a better (read: public) solution. There is probably a good reason for it too. Better to have a faulty plan that can actually succeed rather than an ideal one that can't. In my mind, Clinton's is the less faulty of the two.

[Deadend]

I don't know her answer, but I would say you put them on a default plan that is directly garnished from their income like Social Security. There is no need to "punish them," you just want to put them on a plan when you find out they don't currently have one.

So the govenment can take out money from my pitiful income to pay for crap insurance that covers almost nothing? I've had the health coverage that being poor gets you. Not worth it at all.

It's a cute idea, but unless someone is going to try and cut into the profit margins of drg companies and equipment makers, it's always going to be too much money. Remeber, marketing has a larger budget than finding the cure.

[EternalGamer]

But when coverage is mandated, the government has a huge bargaining chip. And costs will also be lowered due to preemptive care. I have a friend that worked at a hospital for 30 years and he could tell you that the same people come into the emergency room again and again for problems that, if they had a regular doctor, they wouldn't need to be there and the hospital ends up footing a very expensive bill. These people are still not going to buy insurance under Obama's plan. They are still going to drive up costs. But if health insurance is mandatory, there is at least a greater hope they will actually go to a doctor once in a while rather than running to the emergency room after the problem becomes a lot bigger and more expensive to deal with.

My other response would be that even if the coverage wasn't that great (and that is always something that, again, could be worked on and negotiated), it is a hell of a lot better than nothing. Some preventative care is better than none at all, which is what most people uninsured now get.

[Deadend]

I just get the feeling that the insurance that would be availible would be the same thing people have before. No negoitating with drug companies for price cuts, almost no prevenitive care. Diabeties is not covered on the crap insurance, if I recall correctly.

Alot of those people also goto the emergency room and give false information so they can get their coverage and not pay. No it's not fair to the hospital, but is it fair to say "tough shit?" And why is everything so expensive? It's not the doctors, as I know they make a good living, but nowhere near a good of living as the prices would indicate, they have tons of costs. Medical Reforms in the US need to happen.

And it's not like a good health care system is impossible. I don't think any candidate can fix it.

The big question is which one will make my life less miserable.

[Slack3r78]

Here's an article that kind of demonstrates why I find Hillary's healthcare plan worrisome:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/?page=full

[Heretic Machine]

But when coverage is mandated, the government has a huge bargaining chip. And costs will also be lowered due to preemptive care. I have a friend that worked at a hospital for 30 years and he could tell you that the same people come into the emergency room again and again for problems that, if they had a regular doctor, they wouldn't need to be there and the hospital ends up footing a very expensive bill. These people are still not going to buy insurance under Obama's plan. They are still going to drive up costs. But if health insurance is mandatory, there is at least a greater hope they will actually go to a doctor once in a while rather than running to the emergency room after the problem becomes a lot bigger and more expensive to deal with.

My other response would be that even if the coverage wasn't that great (and that is always something that, again, could be worked on and negotiated), it is a hell of a lot better than nothing. Some preventative care is better than none at all, which is what most people uninsured now get.

I don't understand your line of thinking at all; what bargaining chip? Bargaining with who, exactly; the insurance companies? Yeah, forcing millions of people to buy worthless insurance plans will really put the hurt on those guys.

[Schnoogs]

Here's an article that kind of demonstrates why I find Hillary's healthcare plan worrisome:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/?page=full

The fact that her name was attached to it wasn't worrisome enough?