All things Hillary Clinton

[pennington]

democrats are starting to attack hillary for being the great equivocator (the 1st video on this page was produced by edwards' people, don't know where the 2nd came from) during the debates. i'm very interested to see how big an issue this becomes.

Both of those videos are very effective. I'm not sure if they'll help any of the other Democrats that much, but they'll be useful to the Republicans in the general election.

And having her campaign attack a newsman, Russert, not very smart. It's like a Mafia guy killing a cop, they'll all turn on her.

[ChrisTheCop]

Great videos. You can get stuff like that on any politician, of course, but some are just better at it than others. She will never beat her hubby in "slickness".

And for those of you who want to clean up the white house, and bring respect back to the office; think back, thats why we were all happy to have gwb in there originally. To clean up the damage to the office left by Bill Clinton.

[TheMojoPin]

think back, thats why we were all happy to have gwb in there originally. To clean up the damage to the office left by Bill Clinton.

No, he was the only other option. It was either him or Gore, the successor to the Clinton White House. That's hardly any kind of ringing endorsement for Dubya to "clean it up."

[ChrisTheCop]

wel, i distinctly recall being disgusted by how Clinton left the office, and his whole perjury/obstruction deal, and the media generally saying that "the country" needed a stable presence in the white house who could bring respect back to the office.

I continue to be amazed at how people forget how embarrassing slick willy was.

I'm not saying gwb turned out to be any better, just in different ways, but to think that going back to the days of bill would be terrific, it just scares me at how short term our memories are.

[A.J.]

To clean up the damage to the office left by Bill Clinton.

I think the White House janitorial staff scrubbed the place good.

[TheMojoPin]

wel, i distinctly recall being disgusted by how Clinton left the office, and his whole perjury/obstruction deal, and the media generally saying that "the country" needed a stable presence in the white house who could bring respect back to the office.

I continue to be amazed at how people forget how embarrassing slick willy was.

I'm not saying gwb turned out to be any better, just in different ways, but to think that going back to the days of bill would be terrific, it just scares me at how short term our memories are.

I'm no fan of Clinton, but Bush got the job because he played dirtier than the other Republicans and because of his last name, not any sense that he was going to "restore dignity" to the White House. Even without knowing what was to come, his track record hardly implied he'd do anything of the sort. If the country was so "disgusted" by the Clintons, Gore wouldn't have lost the elction by the slimmest of margins.

[TooLowBrow]

I think the White House janitorial staff scrubbed the place good.

remember the rumor that the outgoing clinton staff removed the 'w' keys from all the computers?

[A.J.]

remember the rumor that the outgoing clinton staff removed the 'w' keys from all the computers?

It wasn't a rumor -- see pp.44-49 of this GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf).

[ChrisTheCop]

see what i'm saying? people forget.

remember the rumor that instead of dealing with national crises, bill was getting blow jobs from interns, and pressuring other women for sex?

Remember the rumor that there was more than one victim of his sexual harassment?

remember the rumor that he obstructed justice by using semantics? "depends on what your definition of the word "is" is."

Again, not saying GWB is anywhere near perfect, but Bill Clinton, like the majority of ex presidents, has the forgetfulness of Americans on his side. Please dont let that same forgetfulness help Hillary.

[TheMojoPin]

see what i'm saying? people forget.

remember the rumor that instead of dealing with national crises, bill was getting blow jobs from interns, and pressuring other women for sex?

Remember the rumor that there was more than one victim of his sexual harassment?

remember the rumor that he obstructed justice by using semantics? "depends on what your definition of the word "is" is."

Again, not saying GWB is anywhere near perfect, but Bill Clinton, like the majority of ex presidents, has the forgetfulness of Americans on his side. Please dont let that same forgetfulness help Hillary.

If this is your theory, why would you expect anything new this time around? Nobody "remebered" the debacles of the first Bush or the screwups of much of Reagan's administration when Dubya opted to bring them back to the White House.

[Yerdaddy]

Great videos. You can get stuff like that on any politician, of course, but some are just better at it than others. She will never beat her hubby in "slickness".

And for those of you who want to clean up the white house, and bring respect back to the office; think back, thats why we were all happy to have gwb in there originally. To clean up the damage to the office left by Bill Clinton.

You can only be speaking to and about Republicans. The number one reason Republicans gave for voting Bush was "values". Not national security, economy, health or education or any number of other real issues. And that's what Bush largely ran on - as in the debates where he gave much less substantial answers to what he would specifically do in office if elected - as well as a superb negative campaign. But he really had no choice to campaign on "no more oral sex in the White House" because there wasn't widespread disapproval of Clinton's work on the economy, (traditionally the number one issue for Presidential voters), welfare, or social issues like gay marriage or abortion, as he either did nothing or hedged as with "don't ask/don't tell". He proved himself in substance to be very much a moderate and an effective pragmatist and all Republicans had was the blowjob they spent some $40 million to uncover, (the other allegations were just rumors and you can't blame the victim or rumors more than the source of them, now can you?) Even on national security, (where Democrats have the everpresent disadvantage of being less aggressive - which should be an advantage this year with the obvious demonstration of the failures of aggression), because he did keep Saddam Hussein contained, won a war without a single US casualty, initiated the neoliberal (pro-corporate/pro-capitalist) strategy of molifying the threat of China by integrating it into the international economic system and getting it's leaders hooked on money rather than the blustering isolationism and threats of North Korea, and he avoided "liberal" interventions in places like Rwanda because Republicans beat him up so badly on Somalia. In short, if you look at the substance of what he did in office, the Republican leadership were clearly threatened by him because he was a better Republican than most of them.

And it's accepted wisdom among both Democratic and Republican campaign strategists that Gore made a huge mistake in distancing himself from Clinton.

So I don't see any reason for Democrats to be worried about Hillary being too much like Bill, assuming they're happy with hiring someone who's good at running the executive branch of government but has personal flaws that will be exploited by political enemies. I'm certainly cool with that. Just as I wouldn't ask someone I was considering hiring to run my company how many rumors there were about them; I'd ask them their qualifications for running my company well.

[Yerdaddy]

Today's WP illustrates my points about the difference in the public's dissatisfaction with ephermal shit like the "dignity" of the White House and it's current dissatisfaction with the real issues that people face today.

Poll Finds Americans Pessimistic, Want Change (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301306_pf.html)War, Economy, Politics Sour Views of Nation's Direction

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 4, 2007; A01

One year out from the 2008 election, Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Concern about the economy, the war in Iraq and growing dissatisfaction with the political environment in Washington all contribute to the lowest public assessment of the direction of the country in more than a decade. Just 24 percent think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a course that is different than that pursued by Bush.

Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans.

Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq remains a primary drag on public opinion, and Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy. More than six in 10 called the war not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds gave the national economy negative marks. The outlook going forward is also bleak: About seven in 10 see a recession as likely over the next year.


Thirty-nine percent of Americans said they now have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, lower than at any point since December 1998, when Republicans were in the midst of impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton.

Keep that in mind about Monicagate: Republicans' were very unpopular at the time as well, because most Americans were opposed to Republicans impeaching Clinton over the Lewinski affair but they did it anyway.

Only 23 percent of those surveyed said they want to keep going "in the direction Bush has been taking us," and the appetite for change is as high as it was in the summer of 1992, in the lead-up to Bill Clinton's defeat of President George H.W. Bush. It is significantly higher than it was in the summer of 2000 or the fall of 1988.

The Democratic Party holds double-digit leads over the GOP as the party most trusted to handle the three most frequently cited issues for 2008: Iraq, health care and the economy. The Democratic advantages on immigration and taxes are narrower, and the parties are at rough parity on terrorism, once a major Republican strong point.

[A.J.]

Just as I wouldn't ask someone I was considering hiring to run my company how many rumors there were about them; I'd ask them their qualifications for running my company well.

That's nice of you - because Larry Craig may be looking for a job soon.

[topless_mike]

if you are serious about keeping this country safe, hillary is the last one you would vote into office.

[Crispy123]

if you are serious about keeping this country safe, hillary is the last one you would vote into office.

What a compelling and insightful argument, you have totally changed my mind about Hillary!!!!
:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

[TheMojoPin]

if you are serious about keeping this country safe, hillary is the last one you would vote into office.

Why?

[Ritalin]

if you are serious about keeping this country safe, hillary is the last one you would vote into office.

...and that's just the kind of gassy nonsense you hear about Hillary. Again, I'm neither for nor against her.

But people have this visceral hatred for her that I don't understand.

[Yerdaddy]

if you are serious about keeping this country safe, hillary is the last one you would vote into office.

Just going for a ride on the Quotin the Crazy Bandwagon!

[Yerdaddy]

That's nice of you - because Larry Craig may be looking for a job soon.

Isn't that what got him in trouble in the first place?

[topless_mike]

ha!
i knew this was coming.

lets see.
between the secrets being sold to the chinese, the justice dept being in the clintons back pocket, sandy berger destroying classified documents illegally and walking away from it, to the illegal campaign donations, to her open door policy on illegals getting amnesty, etc.

she does not have my vote.


in addition (has nothing to do with any of the above), i dont think this country is ready for a woman president yet.

[Yerdaddy]

ha!
i knew this was coming.

lets see.
between the secrets being sold to the chinese, the justice dept being in the clintons back pocket, sandy berger destroying classified documents illegally and walking away from it, to the illegal campaign donations, to her open door policy on illegals getting amnesty, etc.

she does not have my vote.


in addition (has nothing to do with any of the above), i dont think this country is ready for a woman president yet.

Conservative talking points swallowed whole. Super.

What secrets were sold to the Chinese? Give me good sources, and if you use the Cox Report you better include the major portions that have been proved wrong.

I would love to go manno-a-manno on Clinton's influence over his Justice Dpt and Bush's. But the bulk of that talking point is going to be conservative rhetoric as well with little evidence of him specifically interfering with the independence of Justice.

According to the FBI Berger took only copies and was charged with a misdemeaner. And Bubba had nothing to do wtih it.

Hillary doesn't have an open door policy on immigrants.

I'd feel perfectly safe with Billary back in the White House.

[topless_mike]

Conservative talking points swallowed whole. Super.

What secrets were sold to the Chinese? Give me good sources, and if you use the Cox Report you better include the major portions that have been proved wrong.

I would love to go manno-a-manno on Clinton's influence over his Justice Dpt and Bush's. But the bulk of that talking point is going to be conservative rhetoric as well with little evidence of him specifically interfering with the independence of Justice.

According to the FBI Berger took only copies and was charged with a misdemeaner. And Bubba had nothing to do wtih it.

Hillary doesn't have an open door policy on immigrants.

I'd feel perfectly safe with Billary back in the White House.

fortunatly, i dont align myself with any parties. i think political parties are one of the biggest crocks of shit.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/21/181251.shtml
http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_foreign.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071004/NATION/110040043/1001
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/10/hillary_clinton_promises_amnes.php?comments=show

the above are all starting points. just keep digging around, and you'll find a ton of info on all the clinton corruption. but you'll never see it on Clinton News Network.
when bill was in office, the economy was good, gas was cheap, everyone was happy.
W took office, war started, economy took a dump, and shit got expensive.

[epo]

ha!

in addition (has nothing to do with any of the above), i dont think this country is ready for a woman president yet.

So you aren't ready?

[topless_mike]

well, if you have faith, give her you vote and a fair chance.
when the country goes to hell faster than it already is, it wont be on my conscience (sp)

c-ya

[ChrisTheCop]

Well, thank you Yerdaddy for at least remembering that Bush's strongest selling point was his values as compared to Bill Clinton. Some people here just wanna forget that Clinton had a lot to do with why the "evil" Bush is even in there.

and what exactly makes Hillary a qualified presidential candidate?
Because she knows the floor plan of the White House already?
Because she failed in her promises toward national health care?
Because she moved from her "beloved" Arkansas to steal a seat in her now "beloved" NY?

Or because she's the most popular democrat running right now, and we better throw our support behind her so the dems win, no matter what that means?

I respect Yeropinionsdaddy, but seriously, I think there are better qualified candidates running on each ticket than Hillary, just as Rick Lazio was better qualified to represent NY.

[Snacks]

Originally Posted by topless_mike - fortunatly, i dont align myself with any parties. i think political parties are one of the biggest crocks of shit.

who are you kidding? almost every political post by you shows you are a red stater. You may live in NJ but your views seem very Red state texas.

Well, thank you Yerdaddy for at least remembering that Bush's strongest selling point was his values as compared to Bill Clinton. Some people here just wanna forget that Clinton had a lot to do with why the "evil" Bush is even in there.


Bush ran on values and won because so many stupid red staters cared more about Clinton getting a blow job then they should. It just proves how fucked up the south and middle of this country is. I dont care if a politician cheats on his wife, is gay, or has threesomes with his cabinet members, its their personal lives. EVERYONE make mistakes and its none of our businesses to judge, especially when those who are judging do worse. As long as they arent doing anything illegal then I dont care. And please dont bring up the lying under oath. He shouldnt have put in that position in the first place. Republicans make me laugh, the bitch about the dems and taxing but they love to spend our money on bullshit like this.

[ChrisTheCop]

if you dont care about the president of your united states lying under OATH (very few people who have to testify under oath actually WANT to), then you deserve the president you get. And you cant complain about Bush Lying to us about his possible other motives for going into Iraq, because you have said that a president lying to his people is a-ok.

Go Hillary!!!

[Ritalin]

Alright, this is good, from the Edwards campaign:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qggO5yY7RAo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qggO5yY7RAo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[led37zep]

who are you kidding? almost every political post by you shows you are a red stater. You may live in NJ but your views seem very Red state texas.



Bush ran on values and won because so many stupid red staters cared more about Clinton getting a blow job then they should. It just proves how fucked up the south and middle of this country is. I dont care if a politician cheats on his wife, is gay, or has threesomes with his cabinet members, its their personal lives. EVERYONE make mistakes and its none of our businesses to judge, especially when those who are judging do worse. As long as they arent doing anything illegal then I dont care. And please dont bring up the lying under oath. He shouldnt have put in that position in the first place. Republicans make me laugh, the bitch about the dems and taxing but they love to spend our money on bullshit like this.

I really hate when people make comments like this, if anything it shows your own ignorance and lack of understanding of how people outside your zip code might live.

These people may have a different morality than you, different needs, different ways of thinking. Is there anything wrong with someone wanting the leader of their country to maintain a moral standard? Some people don't just look to a president just to govern but also someone to lead, I totally understand how someone could vote along these lines (no, I'm not saying Bush is some moral standard). Just because you don't understand what drives people living in a different part of the country doesn't mean you can write them off as "stupid" or "hayseeds" all the time, it just makes you look ignorant and takes away from whatever point you're trying to make.

[epo]

Clinton News Network.


Are there any other cliches you'd like to drag out?

[Midkiff]

fuck the hayseeds

fuck the reds

fuck the republicans

fuck the right-wingers

fuck the IRS

fuck Iraq

fuck Bush

fuck privatized medicine

did I already say fuck Bush

fuck bible-thumpers

fuck radical religions of all types

fuck them all right in their fuck-holes

[led37zep]

This ones for Midkiff

http://www.mepsnbarry.com/adventures-pix/democat.jpg

[Midkiff]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Yerdaddy]

fortunatly, i dont align myself with any parties. i think political parties are one of the biggest crocks of shit.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/21/181251.shtml
http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_foreign.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071004/NATION/110040043/1001
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/10/hillary_clinton_promises_amnes.php?comments=show

the above are all starting points. just keep digging around, and you'll find a ton of info on all the clinton corruption. but you'll never see it on Clinton News Network.
when bill was in office, the economy was good, gas was cheap, everyone was happy.
W took office, war started, economy took a dump, and shit got expensive.

Why would you link to a bunch of conservative websites to defend your arguments here. Everyone knows that there are extreme conservatives who hate the Clintons with all their hearts and repeat every conspiracy theory about them that's ever been thought up regardless of the evidence. But when right-wingers are the only sources you can find on a supposed issue then you know that only other far right-wingers are going to believe them. That's because if there was corroborating evidence that the misdeads were actually committed by the Clintons then they'd be carried by mainstream media, academia and political forums. So why would you think that these conspiracy theories - that aren't even topics on Wikipedia (an open-forum site) - would convince me or anyone else that they actually happened? All you've proved is that extreme conservatives believe them, which means nothing to even the majority of conservatives on this board who are moderate and rational and discriminating in who and what they are willing to believe on political issues. They actually care about the truth of what a president did or did not do in office - and what a future president may do or may not do in office. Notice that they don't ever link to sites like Newsmax or "Rigtwingnews.com" and I think it's literally been at least a year since anyone's linked to the Washington Times, which is the most legitimate of your sources. Neither has any of the liberals linked to Bushisacocksmoker.org to debate the war or Bush's tax cuts. What would be the point?

Take a look at old threads in this forum and the links that are and are not posted here. When such obviously biased sources are used all they do is divert a discussion into a debate on sources themseleves and they never end up serving the case that they're intended to make. And, while there's still a debate about what constitute a biased source and how they should be used, it's a general consensus here that this is the way it should be with sources like yours. This is generally a responsible and mature political forum - one of a very few on the internet. It's a blessing. And what that means is that the sources you linked to probably didn't carry any weight even with conservatives on the board. They were a complete waste of your time because all they amount to is: far right-wingers believe every negative thing about the Clintons they hear. Which is like saying Creed sucks, but with hyperlinks.

So, sorry, but I reject your sources.

[Yerdaddy]

Well, thank you Yerdaddy for at least remembering that Bush's strongest selling point was his values as compared to Bill Clinton. Some people here just wanna forget that Clinton had a lot to do with why the "evil" Bush is even in there.

But I also think that when people list "values" as a reason for voting for someone it usually means they don't have any substantive reason for voting for that candidate. I just assume they're voting thier partisan or ideological loyalties and haven't objectively considered the issues, otherwise you'd have something more tangible to say, no? I apply that to both sides.

I also think you could say that any incumbent has a lot to do with the election of an opposition candidate. I especially think it's not saying much about Bubba's actual performance as president when even Republican strategists say Gore should not have tried to distance himself from Bill. I do think that nobody would have predicted Bill's incredible jump in popularity during the first years of Bush's in the White House. I think the media's obsession with Monicagate all the way up to Election Day 2000 precluded the public and the media from asking what people thought of how he ran the country. Once the election was over and the stain of Monica was allowed to fade people thought more about how the country fared under Clinton. And Bush being such an incredible fuck-up on real issues like the economy and his failures in responding to 9-11 only made Clinton more popular than Jesus. (By the same token, Bush II's presidency is the best thing that ever happened to Bush I's legacy.)

So, no, I don't think the election of Bush and talk of "values" is evidence that Clinton was a bad president. I'd much rather define that question by the issues.

and what exactly makes Hillary a qualified presidential candidate?
Because she knows the floor plan of the White House already?
Because she failed in her promises toward national health care?
Because she moved from her "beloved" Arkansas to steal a seat in her now "beloved" NY?

Or because she's the most popular democrat running right now, and we better throw our support behind her so the dems win, no matter what that means?

I covered all of these questions in my much less frequent epic post above.

I respect Yeropinionsdaddy, but seriously, I think there are better qualified candidates running on each ticket than Hillary, just as Rick Lazio was better qualified to represent NY.

I agree there are better qualified people. There always is. For example I think McCain is better qualified, but, for reasons no conservative has been able to explain to me, you guys don't like him. I think Kerry was better qualified to be President. Maybe Gore is, maybe Bill Richardson. But she's certainly more qualified than Giuliani, Romney and Thompson. I would say she is as qualifed as most people who have been President in the 20th Century. I can tell by your posts that you disagree with that. But what I can't tell from your posts is that you've actually looked at the question: what are her qualifications? She's got a Wikipiedia page with all the basics, but you still mischaracterize my previous arguments for her as me just wanting someone who can win. And the carpetbagger thing should have been put to rest by the fact that she won election and certainly when she crushed in her re-election. I know you don't like her, but where's the substance? Where's the beef? Where's the money Lebowski? Dude, where's my car?

[Yerdaddy]

I really hate when people make comments like this, if anything it shows your own ignorance and lack of understanding of how people outside your zip code might live.

These people may have a different morality than you, different needs, different ways of thinking. Is there anything wrong with someone wanting the leader of their country to maintain a moral standard? Some people don't just look to a president just to govern but also someone to lead, I totally understand how someone could vote along these lines (no, I'm not saying Bush is some moral standard). Just because you don't understand what drives people living in a different part of the country doesn't mean you can write them off as "stupid" or "hayseeds" all the time, it just makes you look ignorant and takes away from whatever point you're trying to make.

While I wouldn't have phrased the statement the same as Snacks there is a real political-cultural difference between the middle of the country and the coasts that makes the electoral map look like a red ocean with blue shores. When I drove across the country I stayed every night in small or medium-sized towns and had breakfast in a diner every morning with one or two of the local papers. Of the dozen or so newspapers I read there wasn't a trace of liberalism in any of their Op-Ed pages but every single day there was an Op-Ed by either Bill O-Reily or Ann Coulter, with a healthy dose of Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity and other far right-wingers. I'd say that proportionally the Op-Ed pages of these papers were about 20% moderate conservative and 80% extreme conservative. Their selection of hard national and international news from the agencies (AP, Reuters, Washington Times, etc.) demonstrated an obvious bias towards conservative perspective as well. And yet I read almost daily in those papers lamentations about the "liberal media" and giggled uncomfortably (and quietly so as to not raise suspicions from the locals).

That kind of political homogeneity just begs to be led astray. It inevitably leads to dogmatic and paranoid world views, the same as I see happening in the Middle East and the government controlled medias in these authoritarian SE Asian nations. It's a long-understood condition of human nature that if you're not exposed to a diversity of ideas your own ideas will lose perspective and will become insane. It was probably best put on paper by John Stewart Mill, who in turn was a big influence on our Founding Fathers who discussed these principles in the Federalist Papers and in debate over the form of the Bill of Rights, obviously especially over the First Ammendment.

So while there are obviously exceptions to the rule of "red states" = blind conservatives, the idology so dominates the mediums of public discussion that the irrationality it produces is painfully obvious to many Americans, and I would definitely say a majority of Europeans.

The middle of America has it's own political culture and it is an unhealthy one by any objective measure of political cultures. And if they didn't have the counter-ballance of the (pragmatically weaker) liberalism of the coasts, they would do some scary shit with this country.

[led37zep]

While I wouldn't have phrased the statement the same as Snacks there is a real political-cultural difference between the middle of the country and the coasts that makes the electoral map look like a red ocean with blue shores. When I drove across the country I stayed every night in small or medium-sized towns and had breakfast in a diner every morning with one or two of the local papers. Of the dozen or so newspapers I read there wasn't a trace of liberalism in any of their Op-Ed pages but every single day there was an Op-Ed by either Bill O-Reily or Ann Coulter, with a healthy dose of Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity and other far right-wingers. I'd say that proportionally the Op-Ed pages of these papers were about 20% moderate conservative and 80% extreme conservative. Their selection of hard national and international news from the agencies (AP, Reuters, Washington Times, etc.) demonstrated an obvious bias towards conservative perspective as well. And yet I read almost daily in those papers lamentations about the "liberal media" and giggled uncomfortably (and quietly so as to not raise suspicions from the locals).

That kind of political homogeneity just begs to be led astray. It inevitably leads to dogmatic and paranoid world views, the same as I see happening in the Middle East and the government controlled medias in these authoritarian SE Asian nations. It's a long-understood condition of human nature that if you're not exposed to a diversity of ideas your own ideas will lose perspective and will become insane. It was probably best put on paper by John Stewart Mill, who in turn was a big influence on our Founding Fathers who discussed these principles in the Federalist Papers and in debate over the form of the Bill of Rights, obviously especially over the First Ammendment.

So while there are obviously exceptions to the rule of "red states" = blind conservatives, the idology so dominates the mediums of public discussion that the irrationality it produces is painfully obvious to many Americans, and I would definitely say a majority of Europeans.

The middle of America has it's own political culture and it is an unhealthy one by any objective measure of political cultures. And if they didn't have the counter-ballance of the (pragmatically weaker) liberalism of the coasts, they would do some scary shit with this country.


I love the political diversity America has to offer and I agree its key keep the two extremes in check. What I can't stand (and I'm getting pretty sick of) is when people writing off entire sections of the country as stupid for a different political belief...mainly a republican one. People trying to turn "red state" into an insult and similar tactics is not only childish but counterproductive to any open political discussion. Then again somehow politics always resorts to name calling or flat out fights.


I never intended this thread to turn into republican vs democrat discussion but I guess it says a lot about the politics of Hillary. Aside from "Bill Part 2" nobody has been able to explain her appeal but instead resorted to irrational generalizations and name calling. I'd still love an answer if anyone has one. Till then I'll search out more politically motivated cat pics.

[Yerdaddy]

I love the political diversity America has to offer and I agree its key keep the two extremes in check. What I can't stand (and I'm getting pretty sick of) is when people writing off entire sections of the country as stupid for a different political belief...mainly a republican one. People trying to turn "red state" into an insult and similar tactics is not only childish but counterproductive to any open political discussion. Then again somehow politics always resorts to name calling or flat out fights.


I never intended this thread to turn into republican vs democrat discussion but I guess it says a lot about the politics of Hillary. Aside from "Bill Part 2" nobody has been able to explain her appeal but instead resorted to irrational generalizations and name calling. I'd still love an answer if anyone has one. Till then I'll search out more politically motivated cat pics.

You know it's one thing to have my points and posts ignored, but don't fucking say they don't exist!

The most important issue to me in this election is Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and restoring America's credibility and honor in the world. Because of that my first choice is John McCain. He's got the brains and experience to know what the effects of the various options on Iraq would mean, (even if none of them are good options at this point), and the political courage to impliment policies that would give us the best chance at salvaging something positive in Iraq and without getting soldiers killed for his political gain. I think he's the guy most likely to do what's necessary in Iraq even when the public just wants us to abandon the place. He's also the only Republican candidate that isn't stupid or hateful enough to attack Iran when we don't even have the military capacity to win in Iraq. But because conservatives prefer one of the Bush clones he appears unelectable.

My second choice is Hillary. In part that's because she's the only electable Democrat simply because she's the only one with the testicles to defend herself against the inevitable Republican smear campaign. The other D candidates are all set to lose a general election for the same reasons Gore and Kerry did, (both of whom had infinitely better resumes to be the most powerful man in the universe than the retarded chimp they lost to), which was to appear weak and wishy-washy in the face of Republican attacks and to treat a moron in a national debate like he wasn't a moron. Hillary is the most likely candidate to call that shit what it is and finally prevent it from being a successful presidential campaing strategy - in which case we all win.

While I don't like the way she's played politics with Iraq I do think the fact that she's played both hawk and dove, and in the context of wanting to become President, I think she would be in a position to make the hard decision of staying in Iraq and doing what we can despite the public call to abandon it and Republicans shifting as much of the blame for the current situation in Iraq onto her. Granted, that last point would depend on how she and Bubba have learned how not to get pushed around by Republicans like Bubba did. It would also require her to inform the public why she's making the hard decisions in the face of conservative attacks which Bill had the ability to do but chose not to spend the political capital on issues like Rwanda and Iraq. But, unlike the other Democratic candidates I think she's at least capable of it. I also think she's most likely to listen to the uniformed military rather than fire them for not agreeing with her.

Other than that I like that she's a moderate, she's smart, she's learned quite a bit from failures like her failed health care campaign as First Lady, she's gone to bat for New York after 9-11 and for returning soldiers' care when Bush has neglected them, she's worked modify the Patriot Act to protect civil liberties rather than to simply oppose it or blindly support it, I think she (and Bubba) are the best people to properly call the right-wing propaganda what it really is and begin the necessary process of reducing its legitimacy and helping to lure conservatism back from its current extremism. I think she'll bring smart, qualified professionals to head the federal agencies and not unqualified cronies and campaign contributers or corporate opponents of those agencies devoted to destroying them. She doesn't make up her own words.

On general terms Clinton supporters consider her strong, responsible, and capable of leading on most issues. And probably as importantly I think we look at what Republicans have to offer and it scares the shit out of us: more unnecessary wars of aggression run by people who don't know what they're doing, more cronyism, corruption, and policies that benefit the richest classes of Americans - who have only been gaining larger and larger shares of America's wealth for the last 60 years.

And perhaps most of all, her election would piss off all the wanna-be facist cocksuckers who accused me of treason for opposing the Iraq war and have decided she's the antichrist, (even though my kitten is the real antichrist), without a shred of substantive evidence as to why they hate her other than their pundits told them to. That would put a smile on my face that would last at least through her first term.

I wrote this against my better judgement because I assumed, partially by the tone of your initial request for opinions on her, that what I said would be thrown back in my face completely distorted from what I had to say. But I wrote it and now I know my original impulse not to was the right one.

And don't pretend that "red staters" are the only people to get insulted when the right has whole radio, television and publishing industries devoted to insulting liberals and accusing them of the worst crimes imaginable. At least if you live in a red state you can open a newspaper and know the only thing you're going to see is your side's insulting of the other.

[topless_mike]

well, we know on the right side that the whole obama/hillary thing is nothing more than a goof card. when the dems put a real candidate out there, then they have a good chance to take the wh. the war is necessary, but americans are growing tired of it because its all we see on the news every nite, and money is being sucked right out of our wallets.
as for the repubs, it is also slim pickings for candidates. i like the way "senator fred' carries himself, but dont feel he's the right fit. that leaves it, imo, to mccain, romney, and rudy (if he's still in it).

[topless_mike]

So, sorry, but I reject your sources.

thats ok
wasnt looking for your approval anyways.

[led37zep]

You know it's one thing to have my points and posts ignored, but don't fucking say they don't exist!



I wrote this against my better judgement because I assumed, partially by the tone of your initial request for opinions on her, that what I said would be thrown back in my face completely distorted from what I had to say. But I wrote it and now I know my original impulse not to was the right one.

And don't pretend that "red staters" are the only people to get insulted when the right has whole radio, television and publishing industries devoted to insulting liberals and accusing them of the worst crimes imaginable. At least if you live in a red state you can open a newspaper and know the only thing you're going to see is your side's insulting of the other.

I was speaking in general terms, but you're right, I forgot to include your points. It wasn't on purpose. No need to get shit-pissed about it, honest mistake.

I am looking for honest opinions of Hillary because I don't totally understand her appeal. She doesn't seem genuine, she seems like exactly the type of politician people talk about moving away from. As you eluded to, perhaps people see her as the only electable one and hence all the support.
I wasn't posting as a set up to allow me to turn around and deconstruct peoples support of her in some cheap "Gotcha" move.

[topless_mike]

I was speaking in general terms, but you're right, I forgot to include your points. It wasn't on purpose. No need to get shit-pissed about it, honest mistake.

I am looking for honest opinions of Hillary because I don't totally understand her appeal. She doesn't seem genuine, she seems like exactly the type of politician people talk about moving away from. As you eluded to, perhaps people see her as the only electable one and hence all the support.
I wasn't posting as a set up to allow me to turn around and deconstruct peoples support of her in some cheap "Gotcha" move.

she's only appealing because
a) shes a woman
b) her husband was president and cheated on her. she stayed with him, showing her
"strength" and "loyalty".

[TheMojoPin]

she's only appealing because
a) shes a woman
b) her husband was president and cheated on her. she stayed with him, showing her
"strength" and "loyalty".

At this point, he really seems to be asking for people who do support her to explain what about her appeals to them, not spiteful rhetoric from people who clearly don't. You've explained why YOU don't like her, but please stop pulling this garbage out of nowhere to declare that you know why she has her support.

Personally, I can't answer the question. I'm as lefty as they come, but nothing about her appeals to me. I wasn't a fan of the Clinton White House, and I'm tired of this country basically having the same cast of mediocre to awful Republican characters running this country since Reagan took office...I really don't want to start the Democratic version of that with yet another Clinton.

[topless_mike]

At this point, he really seems to be asking for people who do support her to explain what about her appeals to them, not spiteful rhetoric from people who clearly don't. You've explained why YOU don't like her, but please stop pulling this garbage out of nowhere to declare that you know why she has her support.

Personally, I can't answer the question. I'm as lefty as they come, but nothing about her appeals to me. I wasn't a fan of the Clinton White House, and I'm tired of this country basically having the same cast of mediocre to awful Republican characters running this country since Reagan took office...I really don't want to start the Democratic version of that with yet another Clinton.

she's a woman and she stayed with her husband even after he admitted to cheating on her. um, i would see that more as obvious fact rather than garbage. if you dont think she's a woman, check between her legs.

and i have to agree with you. W and W sr are both jokes as president. clinton wasnt much better, although we did have more money in our pockets, but that could be for other reasons. we had 8 years with bill, and if hillary wins, that could potentially be another 8 years of clinton rule.

[TheMojoPin]

she's a woman and she stayed with her husband even after he admitted to cheating on her. um, i would see that more as obvious fact rather than garbage. if you dont think she's a woman, check between her legs.

But you declaring that these are the only reasons people support her doesn't make it so. He's asking the question of people who do actually plan on voting for her, not people who can't stand her already and are deciding for others why they might support her. Your statement presented both of those points is if they're the only possible reasons people might vote for her.

[led37zep]

At this point, he really seems to be asking for people who do support her to explain what about her appeals to them, not spiteful rhetoric from people who clearly don't.

Exactly!

[epo]

well, we know on the right side that the whole obama/hillary thing is nothing more than a goof card. when the dems put a real candidate out there, then they have a good chance to take the wh. the war is necessary, but americans are growing tired of it because its all we see on the news every nite, and money is being sucked right out of our wallets.
as for the repubs, it is also slim pickings for candidates. i like the way "senator fred' carries himself, but dont feel he's the right fit. that leaves it, imo, to mccain, romney, and rudy (if he's still in it).

This might be the most painful post you've made:

1. "we know on the right side that the whole obama/hillary thing is nothing more than a goof card": Seriously, Mitt & Fred are real candidates? Just stop it.

2. "the war is necessary": If by Iraq War you mean "necessary" as "Optional"...then yes many of us agree.

3. "americans are growing tired of it because its all we see on the news every nite, and money is being sucked right out of our wallets." That fiscal discipline that Bush & 6 years of total right-wing control of the federal budget sure paid off, didn't it?

4. "i like the way "senator fred' carries himself": So do I. Please nominate him. I beg you.

5. "that leaves it, imo, to mccain, romney, and rudy (if he's still in it)": Well, you folks on the right proved in 2000 you are willing to shit on your best candidate (McCain), so bring on whoever...it really doesn't matter. Hell, I'll give you the fucking playbook:

Republican Nominee = Bush
Democratic Nominee = Doesn't

We win.

[Zorro]

It's not like any of this matters. The country is controlled by multi-nationals and beholden to foreign investors who hold most of our debt. The idea that any President can now stop the inevitable decline of the American Empire is seriously flawed. The US is financially bankrupt and we've ceded our future to free trade policies that deplete the country of jobs and control of our destiny.

[Ritalin]

It's not like any of this matters. The country is controlled by multi-nationals and beholden to foreign investors who hold most of our debt. The idea that any President can now stop the inevitable decline of the American Empire is seriously flawed. The US is financially bankrupt and we've ceded our future to free trade policies that deplete the country of jobs and control of our destiny.

Isn't there supposed to be something about the Illuminati and Skull and Bones in this post?

My grade: Incomplete.

[Zorro]

Isn't there supposed to be something about the Illuminati and Skull and Bones in this post?

My grade: Incomplete.

No...they may be something you have fantasies of, but I was referring to the reality that our manufacturing base has been moved off shore, the jobs that go with it and our debt service is so high that we do no longer control our own destiny.

[scottinnj]

You know it's one thing to have my points and posts ignored, but don't fucking say they don't exist!




I can't. Your posts task me. They task me and I shall have them!

http://services.tos.net/pics/st2/st2-khan.gif



http://users.rcn.com/nkwoodward/ephemera/diary/startrek2.jpg




YERDADDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[A.J.]

Bump

[A.J.]

Jack Nicholson ad for Hillary.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6mOa3sXjqE4&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6mOa3sXjqE4&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

Jack just got a demerit from me. Not from the endorsement, but from the production value of that cheesy ad.

[epo]

So she definitely can't predict the future:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/saBU6ux0hsQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/saBU6ux0hsQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

"It'll be over by February 5th"


BWAHAHAHAHA! Over for your campaign!

Damn, You've been

http://controllercode.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/pwned.jpg

[lleeder]

I don't like her but I still don't see it as over.

[scottinnj]

You are right about that, I won't consider her out of the race until I see "Obama for President" commercials being paid for by the DNC.

[stan's son]

she was pulling a marie osmond!!!!

[pennington]

I heard on a news report today Hillary isn't on her campaign plane. Her staff isn't saying where she is but she's rumored to make an appearance on Saturday Night Live.

Yay, I guess...

[scottinnj]

I heard on a news report today Hillary isn't on her campaign plane. Her staff isn't saying where she is but she's rumored to make an appearance on Saturday Night Live.

Yay, I guess...

If that's true it makes sense. But it's getting close to show time and no word on it is in the news. It would make sense though because she is going to be on either The Daily Show or The Colbert Report Monday night. I forgot which one it was.

[epo]

If that's true it makes sense. But it's getting close to show time and no word on it is in the news. It would make sense though because she is going to be on either The Daily Show or The Colbert Report Monday night. I forgot which one it was.

Its being mentioned quite frequently in the diaries on left wing blogs tonight. I'm guessing the cat is out of the bag.

Edit: The Ny Times blog (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/clintons-surprise-snl-appearance/)is confirming the appearance. An interesting element could be that Wilco is the musical guest tonight and they have performed a bunch of Obama fundraisers in Chicago. I wouldn't be surprised if Tweedy sneaks in a word or two.

[scottinnj]

Live from New York, it's Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/01/clinton.snl/)! CNN

Days before a crucial set of primaries, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton is expected to make a surprise appearance on this week's "Saturday Night Live," an entertainment industry source tells CNN.

[pennington]

Well, Hillary proved to be as hacky as SNL.

[AKA]

Well, Hillary proved to be as hacky as SNL.

Hacky but fun.

[scottinnj]

Rush Limbaugh is also telling Republicans in Texas to vote Tuesday night in favor of Hillary Clinton. His reasoning is that it would be "entertaining" to see the Democratic Primaries continue as close as it is until the convention.

I have a different take on what he is thinking. As a lot of you know, I listened to him a lot until I got my XM radio. Friday I had to use a different company car, so I was without my reciever. Anyway, I decided to hear his take on things. He spent a lot of time talking about the Obama revolution as a "movement" and he sounded perplexed on how to go after Obama, if he is the DNC nominee. He even said that McCain would have a tough time campaigning against Obama, and the MSM would view any criticism of Obama as a personal attack, or at least a cheap shot.
So my thinking on this is that the conservative leadership of the RNC are quite worried about an Obama nomination. They have always had a "bring it on" mentality about Hillary being the standard bearer of the DNC going into November. I bet a lot of Republican strategists are just realizing that Obama may just get this, and are scrambling to come up with a new plan to campaign against him, without looking racist or nasty.

[TheGameHHH]

Rush Limbaugh is also telling Republicans in Texas to vote Tuesday night in favor of Hillary Clinton. His reasoning is that it would be "entertaining" to see the Democratic Primaries continue as close as it is until the convention.

I have a different take on what he is thinking. As a lot of you know, I listened to him a lot until I got my XM radio. Friday I had to use a different company car, so I was without my reciever. Anyway, I decided to hear his take on things. He spent a lot of time talking about the Obama revolution as a "movement" and he sounded perplexed on how to go after Obama, if he is the DNC nominee. He even said that McCain would have a tough time campaigning against Obama, and the MSM would view any criticism of Obama as a personal attack, or at least a cheap shot.
So my thinking on this is that the conservative leadership of the RNC are quite worried about an Obama nomination. They have always had a "bring it on" mentality about Hillary being the standard bearer of the DNC going into November. I bet a lot of Republican strategists are just realizing that Obama may just get this, and are scrambling to come up with a new plan to campaign against him, without looking racist or nasty.

i thought registered republicans cant vote in a democratic primary or am i totally off base with that?

[scottinnj]

I have no idea. I'm just telling you guys what I heard, and my opinion of that. Maybe he is talking about Independants who vote Republican, or maybe you can switch parties on primary days. I'd like to hear someone from TX who can explain the rules of the primaries.

[pennington]

So my thinking on this is that the conservative leadership of the RNC are quite worried about an Obama nomination. They have always had a "bring it on" mentality about Hillary being the standard bearer of the DNC going into November. I bet a lot of Republican strategists are just realizing that Obama may just get this, and are scrambling to come up with a new plan to campaign against him, without looking racist or nasty.

There's no real enthusiasm for McCain. I think they have come to the conclusion he's going to lose so they may as well let the Democrats tear the party apart, especially if it gets down to the super-delegates. Maybe hold on to the seats they have in the senate and house.

[Zorro]

i thought registered republicans cant vote in a democratic primary or am i totally off base with that?

Depends on the state. Each state party sets the rules for it's own Primary. Here in NY you must be a registered Democrat to vote in the Democratic Primary...

[PapaBear]

i thought registered republicans cant vote in a democratic primary or am i totally off base with that?

Depends on the state. Each state party sets the rules for it's own Primary. Here in NY you must be a registered Democrat to vote in the Democratic Primary...
And here in VA, you don't register for either party. On primary day, they ask which party you want to vote in, and they program the machine for the party you chose.

[AKA]

Texas is another open primary - not sure about Ohio.

[epo]

What's this little nugget?

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r285/scjr63/ClintonRezko.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

Old news. Her connection to Rezko is even more inconsequential than Obama's.

[epo]

Old news. Her connection to Rezko is even more inconsequential than Obama's.

They are both totally irrelevant. The point is pot, meet kettle.

[A.J.]

Carl Bernstein on Hillary and the truth:

Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences

Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:

“Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added]

As I noted:

“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”

The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions…

When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.

The latest episode — the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy “experience” — like the peace she didn’t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.

On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive “come back” after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President — all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.

On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called “missing billing records” had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper’s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

Even her closest aides — as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later — could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. “Oh my God, we didn’t,” said Susan Thomasas, Hillary’s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary’s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced — once again — to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken;” her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times’ columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,” I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”

The book concludes with this paragraph:

“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”

The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.

- Carl Bernstein, 360° Contributor (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/hillary-clinton-truth-or-consequences/#more-470)

[A.J.]

Hillary lies again:

In recent days, Clinton has made an issue of calls from Obama backers for her to abandon the Democratic race. They've argued that Obama holds the lead in the delegate count and a protracted Democratic primary would damage the eventual nominee.

"Now, this is one of the most important elections we've ever had. There is so much at stake. But just as it's getting time to vote here in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama says he's getting tired of it. His supporters say they want it to end," Clinton said.

Obama refused on Saturday to go along with other Democrats who are calling for Clinton to drop out of the race.

"My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," he said (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_labor).

[Zorro]

Hillary lies again:


In recent days, Clinton has made an issue of calls from Obama backers for her to abandon the Democratic race. They've argued that Obama holds the lead in the delegate count and a protracted Democratic primary would damage the eventual nominee.

"Now, this is one of the most important elections we've ever had. There is so much at stake. But just as it's getting time to vote here in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama says he's getting tired of it. His supporters say they want it to end," Clinton said.

Obama refused on Saturday to go along with other Democrats who are calling for Clinton to drop out of the race.

"My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," he said.

You really can't call Hillary a liar on this one. Obama himself has said she can stay in as long as she wants, but his surrogates have been leading the call for her to get out...i.e. Richardson, Leahy

[A.J.]

Right -- that's why I highlighted the part where she said "Senator Obama says he's getting tired of it"

[Zorro]

Right -- that's why I highlighted the part where she said "Senator Obama says he's getting tired of it"

ok...so I'm confused why your title was Hillary lies again...

[A.J.]

Hillary: "Senator Obama says he's getting tired of it."

Obama: "My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,"

Obama's supporters, NOT OBAMA, are calling for Hillary to bow out.

[Zorro]

Hillary: "Senator Obama says he's getting tired of it."

Obama: "My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,"

Obama's supporters, NOT OBAMA, are calling for Hillary to bow out.

Sorry...I missed it...

[A.J.]

Hillary gets the details wrong again.

Clinton drops hospital story from stump speech (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/06/clinton.hospital/index.html).

But what angers me more is this:

In the story, Clinton describes a woman from rural Ohio who was making minimum wage at a local pizza shop. The woman, who was uninsured, became pregnant.

Clinton said the woman ran into trouble and went to a hospital in a nearby county but was denied treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 payment.

In her speeches, Clinton said the woman later was taken to the hospital by ambulance and lost the baby. The young woman was then taken by helicopter to a Columbus hospital where she died of complications.

"It is so wrong, in this good, great and rich country, that a young woman and her baby would die because she didn't have health insurance or a hundred dollars to get examined," she said.

Working for minimum wage. Uninsured. Gets knocked up. And yet despite this irresponsible behavior, she's entitled to you and me paying for the health care of her and her kid. Sounds fair!

[HBox]

Hillary gets the details wrong again.

Clinton drops hospital story from stump speech (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/06/clinton.hospital/index.html).

But what angers me more is this:



Working for minimum wage. Uninsured. Gets knocked up. And yet despite this irresponsible behavior, she's entitled to you and me paying for the health care of her and her kid. Sounds fair!

Yes. I only care about the health of people who work and make more than ten bucks an hour. The rest of the filthy masses could have all their children waste away from cancer for all I care.

[TooLowBrow]

Yes. I only care about the health of people who work and make more than ten bucks an hour. The rest of the filthy masses could have all their children waste away from cancer for all I care.

are poor people even allowed to vote anymore? god i hope not

[pennington]

Hillary's Democratic boss during the Watergate hearings, Jerry Zeifman, "would not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust".

A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.

Interesting read:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925684/posts

[Stankfoot]

Hillary gets the details wrong again.

Clinton drops hospital story from stump speech (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/06/clinton.hospital/index.html).

But what angers me more is this:



Working for minimum wage. Uninsured. Gets knocked up. And yet despite this irresponsible behavior, she's entitled to you and me paying for the health care of her and her kid. Sounds fair!

How dare she not be insured! What was she blowing that minimum wage salary on?
Food?

[A.J.]

How dare she not be insured! What was she blowing that minimum wage salary on?
Food?

It certainly wasn't birth control.

[BoondockSaint]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080413/capt.a0d19e4b1b0b481caa90a58e9c96a5b9.clinton_2008 _inck135.jpg?x=400&y=318&sig=uEyjm1zjLr9oZsvxdOajKQ--

[scottinnj]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080413/capt.a0d19e4b1b0b481caa90a58e9c96a5b9.clinton_2008 _inck135.jpg?x=400&y=318&sig=uEyjm1zjLr9oZsvxdOajKQ--

I guess you can't inhale that.

[foodcourtdruide]

Hillary gets the details wrong again.

Clinton drops hospital story from stump speech (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/06/clinton.hospital/index.html).

But what angers me more is this:



Working for minimum wage. Uninsured. Gets knocked up. And yet despite this irresponsible behavior, she's entitled to you and me paying for the health care of her and her kid. Sounds fair!

Am I missing sarcasm? This is one of the most elitist statements I've ever heard. Do you think only insured people making over minimum wage should be allowed to have kids?

If you happen to have a job that gives you health insurance, fuck and have kids!

[scottinnj]

It's because she's slinging shit again.

A hospital has raised questions over the accuracy of the story, and Clinton's campaign has said although they had no reason to doubt the story, they were unable to confirm the details.

"Candidates are told stories by people all the time, and it's common for candidates to retell those stories. It's not always possible to fully vet them, but we try. For example, medical records are confidential. In this case, we tried but weren't able to fully vet the story," he said.


Elleithee added, "If the hospital claims it didn't happen that way, we certainly respect that, and she won't repeat the story."


It probably would have been more believable if the pregnant woman died from a sniper attack.

[A.J.]

Am I missing sarcasm? This is one of the most elitist statements I've ever heard. Do you think only insured people making over minimum wage should be allowed to have kids?

If you happen to have a job that gives you health insurance, fuck and have kids!

No, but I don't think it makes sense for a child to be born into poverty either.

[Ritalin]

No, but I don't think it makes sense for a child to be born into poverty either.

Then why don't we raise the minimum wage so that the annual salary of a minimum wage worker - after taxes - is one penny over the poverty line?

[foodcourtdruide]

No, but I don't think it makes sense for a child to be born into poverty either.

It is unavoidable that people in this country will be in poverty.

There are x number of people in this country. There are y number of jobs that working full-time would leave you below the poverty line. It is unavoidable that people will work those jobs.

[scottinnj]

Then why don't we raise the minimum wage so that the annual salary of a minimum wage worker - after taxes - is one penny over the poverty line?

I'm sure there is a minimum wage thread somewhere, but let me just give a quick answer.
The "minimum wage" act and the increases in the minimum wage were never to be designed to support a family. It was intended for entry level workers (teenagers) to not be treated like slaves after we got the child-labor laws squared away, not for a head of household to raise a family.

[scottinnj]

No, but I don't think it makes sense for a child to be born into poverty either.

That is why even though I am pro-life, I'm a HUGE supporter of birth control, and laws that mandate insurance companies cover women's birth control prescriptions.

[keithy_19]

That is why even though I am pro-life, I'm a HUGE supporter of birth control, and laws that mandate insurance companies cover women's birth control prescriptions.

I agree with you. I was very pro life when I was younger but as I aged I became much more open regarding the topic.

[Ritalin]

I'm sure there is a minimum wage thread somewhere, but let me just give a quick answer.
The "minimum wage" act and the increases in the minimum wage were never to be designed to support a family. It was intended for entry level workers (teenagers) to not be treated like slaves after we got the child-labor laws squared away, not for a head of household to raise a family.

Tell that to Wal Mart

[pennington]

Do dogs vote in the Pennsylvania primary?


http://www.acmeanvilco.com/wp-photos/thumb.20080312-090816-1.jpg

[A.J.]

This is going over REAL well in the Arab press:

Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8uptD1-xxWKIJiK7hpLKtgW7olA)

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

[pennington]

Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8uptD1-xxWKIJiK7hpLKtgW7olA)

There must be some undecided Jewish Super-Delegates...

[Bulldogcakes]

Clinton: OPEC 'can no longer be a cartel' (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_OPEC_can_no_longer_be_a_cartel.html)

Clinton's attacks on oil prices as artificially inflated, Enron-style, keep escalating, and today she appeared to threaten to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.

Clinton has cast herself as a warrior for working people against the oil industry and malicious "speculators," and made that -- along with her push for a gas tax holiday -- central to her closing message in Indiana.

It's a potent message, like the attack on "Wall Street money brokers," with deep roots in American politics. It' It's also very hard to figure out what exactly she means by the threat to break OPEC.

Rename that piece "Hillary makes a threat she has no power to do anything about, even if she was president"

and she won't be.

[scottinnj]

Hillary's attack on OPEC reminds me of John Edwards promise of going after "big pharmacy" only worse on the pandering scale.

What is she going to tell OPEC? "Lower your prices or the United States will........" what leverage do we have now that China and India are waiting for us to get out of the way so they can go full bore on oil consumption?

[TooLowBrow]

Hillary's attack on OPEC reminds me of John Edwards promise of going after "big pharmacy" only worse on the pandering scale.

What is she going to tell OPEC? "Lower your prices or the United States will........" what leverage do we have now that China and India are waiting for us to get out of the way so they can go full bore on oil consumption?

i think the opec nations have done pretty well with an oilman as president. regardless of who becomes pres next things ARE going to change in policy towards our oil relations. i feel that a dem, acting on the 'will of the people' will surely be able to reconfigure our relationships with these countries/companies

[epo]

From Time Magazine:

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html)

1. She misjudged the mood
2. She didn't master the rules
3. She underestimated the caucus states
4. She relied on old money
5. She never counted on a long haul

I will totally be intrigued to read a good book about the failures of her campaign. It really could be a historical model on fucking up.

[scottinnj]

i think the opec nations have done pretty well with an oilman as president. regardless of who becomes pres next things ARE going to change in policy towards our oil relations. i feel that a dem, acting on the 'will of the people' will surely be able to reconfigure our relationships with these countries/companies

Maybe, with Obama. That's why I'm going with him. I wasn't too impressed with President Clinton's record with OPEC. He was just lucky that he was president before China really ramped up it's production process and consequently it's thirst for oil.

If you can think of something that he did that I'm missing to keep OPEC and the speculators from gouging us, I'd like to know. Maybe it can work again. I'll listen to all ideas as of right now.

[epo]

Maybe, with Obama. That's why I'm going with him. I wasn't too impressed with President Clinton's record with OPEC. He was just lucky that he was president before China really ramped up it's production process and consequently it's thirst for oil.

If you can think of something that he did that I'm missing to keep OPEC and the speculators from gouging us, I'd like to know. Maybe it can work again. I'll listen to all ideas as of right now.

I believe that President Clinton did open the strategic reserve in 2000 to get OPEC to lower their price, by adding to consumer supplies. I could be wrong though.

[epo]

Keith Olbermann reported it...Howard Wolfson is denying it, but their are rumors that Wolfson, the Clinton's communications director is in talks for a book deal. Link here (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/A_book_deal.html).

So if your candidate was really "in it to win it", why would you be looking at book deals in May?

[scottinnj]

I believe that President Clinton did open the strategic reserve in 2000 to get OPEC to lower their price, by adding to consumer supplies. I could be wrong though.

He did, I remember that. If it helped, I don't remember. I like the new idea (I don't know who came up with it) of cutting back on maintaining the oil reserve, which would allow more oil in the marketplace, instead of having oil companies buy the oil from the government after it enters the reserve. I think it is a better idea. I'd have to defer to someone like Bulldogcakes or Yerdaddy to actually get some analysis on it.

[Reephdweller]

Has the woman gone officially insane?

Sen. Hillary Clinton referred Friday to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 Democratic campaign as a reason she should continue to campaign despite increasingly long odds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

[scottinnj]

So now she's anticipating Obama getting shot, and it's her duty to remain in the race to fill the void if he does?

C O M E P L E T E L Y O F F H E R R O C K E R!!!!

[Recyclerz]

Oooff. :blink:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5vyFqmp4wzI&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5vyFqmp4wzI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I think we just saw the darkest part of Hilary's soul. She would have been better off calling him the N-word.

[HBox]

had to edit...video was messing up the page.

[Bulldogcakes]

Oooff. :blink:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5vyFqmp4wzI&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5vyFqmp4wzI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I think we just saw the darkest part of Hilary's soul. She would have been better off calling him the N-word.


I told you she killed Vince Foster. With her bare hands.

[Dude!]

is she so evil and sinister that her comment was actually a call to arms to hardworking americans, white americans to off b.o. ???

she is a meglomaniac or insane or is she the :devil2:

[keithy_19]

is she so evil and sinister that her comment was actually a call to arms to hardworking americans, white americans to off b.o. ???

she is a meglomaniac or insane or is she the :devil2:

Either way I've never wante Hillary Clinton more...

[pennington]

I guess all that talk about her getting the V.P. spot can finally end.

[ChrisBrown]

I wish she would just go away. I was out to dinner a few nights ago with someone who has done some contracting work with Mark Penn. She said to watch how often Hillary mentions race in her recent speeches (i.e. "this has been a tough race""you don't know the winner of the race until the end""Americans love a great race"). All of that is calculated to reinforce the black issue in her white supporters. Since she isn't directly dealing with the issue, she can say, "hey, I didn't mean skin color "race", I meant campaign, competition "race".
I know that Mark Penn know longer works for her but she still uses his tactics. So, this, "hey, the Kennedy's are on my mind because of Ted's diagnosis and I innocently thought of Bobby's assassination" makes my stomach turn. It is such a condescending, slimy strategy and I feel like they are used car salesmen trying to pull one over on us.
I was a huge Clinton fan in the '90's but now I can't stand the sight of either of them.

[TheMojoPin]

Page fixed...thanks, Reilly!

[A.J.]

So now she's anticipating Obama getting shot, and it's her duty to remain in the race to fill the void if he does?

C O M E P L E T E L Y O F F H E R R O C K E R!!!!

Please. Let's let Gvac be the judge of that.

[HBox]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/egSD4aZcwL4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/egSD4aZcwL4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

Clinton says she's open to being Obama's VP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/clinton)
BOOOOOOOOOOO!

[awesomebill]

Fuck that bitch

[scottinnj]

It would absolutely destroy me if she was the VP on his ticket. I got hooked on his speech at Iowa when he won, I was convinced he was the right man for the job when he talked about true energy independence, I was in tears when he gave his speech on race, saying exactly what I was feeling.

Putting her on the ticket washes that all away for me. It shows he is not about true change, the bipartisanship he talks about is wasted by putting the most partisan person the Democrats have on the ticket.

I would be lost, and I'd have to sit out the election. No way am I voting for McCain, but I don't want the Clinton brothers anywhere near the White House ever again. No more Bushes, no more Clintons, this country has to MOVE ON!

[scottinnj]

"I will make no decision tonight"

The Democrat Party burns while Hillary fiddles.

[TooLowBrow]

fixed

"I will make no decision tonight"

The Democrat Party burns while Hillary diddles.

[thejives]

Can we lock this thread up.

It's over.

[K.C.]

It would absolutely destroy me if she was the VP on his ticket. I got hooked on his speech at Iowa when he won, I was convinced he was the right man for the job when he talked about true energy independence, I was in tears when he gave his speech on race, saying exactly what I was feeling.

Putting her on the ticket washes that all away for me. It shows he is not about true change, the bipartisanship he talks about is wasted by putting the most partisan person the Democrats have on the ticket.

I would be lost, and I'd have to sit out the election. No way am I voting for McCain, but I don't want the Clinton brothers anywhere near the White House ever again. No more Bushes, no more Clintons, this country has to MOVE ON!

According to Tim Russert...part of the deal of putting Hillary on the ticket would involve Bill being put in exile.

[scottinnj]

According to Tim Russert...part of the deal of putting Hillary on the ticket would involve Bill being put in exile.

He won't stand for that. His ego won't allow it.

[K.C.]

He won't stand for that. His ego won't allow it.

I know...the convention will be the equivalent of the Deltas ruining Dean Wormer's parade in Animal House with Bill as Bluto Blutarski.

He'll come crashing through the door, pirate bandana and all.

...I have to confess...I still love the guy.

[scottinnj]

He'll come crashing through the door, pirate bandana and all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/08/27/PH2007082701948.jpg

"I see some delegates that should be Superdelegates!"

"C'mon, who's with me?"

[thejives]

Was it over when the Germans bombed pearl harbor?

[scottinnj]

Was it over when the Germans bombed pearl harbor?

"Germans?"

"Forget it, he's on a roll"

[A.J.]

According to Tim Russert...part of the deal of putting Hillary on the ticket would involve Bill being put in exile.

He won't stand for that. His ego won't allow it.

No but his libido might.

[Heather 8]

A superdelegate from New Jersey claims that Clinton's campaign used divisive tactics, (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/superdelegate_says_clinton_cam.html) including a stratgey of winning over Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.

Stay classy, Hill.

[ChrisBrown]

A superdelegate from New Jersey claims that Clinton's campaign used divisive tactics, (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/superdelegate_says_clinton_cam.html) including a stratgey of winning over Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.

Stay classy, Hill.

She played so dirty that there is no way she will be on the ticket. so, what do we do with the Clinton brothers? I seriously can't imagine her making a graceful, supportive concession speech and then going back to being a NY senator. Will they start an independent presidential campaign?

[A.J.]

I seriously can't imagine her making a graceful, supportive concession speech and then going back to being a NY senator.

But but but....that's all she wanted to be when she ran in 2000 and 2006! She had no Presidential aspirations! She just wanted to represent the people of her "home state" of New York!

[Recyclerz]

I listened to Sen. Clinton's speech and had to sign in to go on the record before the main stream media spin starts. I haven't really been the biggest fan of hers but I thought that was a great speech.

[ChrisTheCop]

I listened to Sen. Clinton's speech and had to sign in to go on the record before the main stream media spin starts. I haven't really been the biggest fan of hers but I thought that was a great speech.

I listened to as much as I could.
I agree it was well constructed, and hit all the right points she needed to hit.
Her delivery was not the "ack ack ack" we've come to expect either, but actually a rather soothing, normal speak tone.

But, like her campaign, it ran waaaayyy too longgggg.
Even her supporters were ready to cheer her off the stage at several points,
but she. kept. on. chuggin.

One statement she made that kept bouncing around in my head was
"People said, can a woman REALLY be commander in chief??? Well.. I guess we proved that one!"

ummm... no u didnt.

[cougarjake13]

She played so dirty that there is no way she will be on the ticket. so, what do we do with the Clinton brothers? I seriously can't imagine her making a graceful, supportive concession speech and then going back to being a NY senator. Will they start an independent presidential campaign?

could she do that without angering the democratic party and being ostracized from future dem nominee campaigns ???

[A.J.]

I'm getting tired of all of these "What's next for Hillary Clinton?" pieces I'm reading about or seeing on TV. What's next you ask? How about she go back to doing the job she was actually elected to do. I wonder how many Senate votes she missed during her campaign. Maybe the people of New York would like to have her show up to work a little more often now.

[Recyclerz]

I'm getting tired of all of these "What's next for Hillary Clinton?" pieces I'm reading about or seeing on TV. What's next you ask? How about she go back to doing the job she was actually elected to do. I wonder how many Senate votes she missed during her campaign. Maybe the people of New York would like to have her show up to work a little more often now.

Nah, we're good. :wink:

[A.J.]

That's true. Schumer has it covered --- any chance for him to get more TV time.

[Zorro]

Apparently the "vetting" would be too much so she's declining...or she just likes F'ing with Barack...

[yojimbo7248]

Apparently the "vetting" would be too much so she's declining...

I wonder if there is anything else in the cabinet that she would be interested in.

[Zorro]

I wonder if there is anything else in the cabinet that she would be interested in.

I keep wondering why she would leave the senate. Harry Reid looks like he could drop at any moment and she'd be a shoo in for Majority leader

[Recyclerz]

Apparently the "vetting" would be too much so she's declining...or she just likes F'ing with Barack...

Message board psychic or are there news reports?

[yojimbo7248]

Basically everything about Hillary and SoS is speculation. Guardian completely jumped the gun and said she accepted. Now according to politico, she is leaning toward rejecting the offer. Nothing definite out there.

[scottinnj]

I wish she'd make up her mind!

[yojimbo7248]

I used to be the biggest Clinton fan now I wish they would just go away. I am so glad she might not take the SoS offer.

[AKA]

I wish she'd make up her mind!

Me too so I know what kind of cake to send.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/388041/2/istockphoto_388041-congratulations-cake.jpg

http://epicurious.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/18/cake_wrecks_sexual_harassment.jpg

[scottinnj]

From Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15738.html):

Clinton, the person said, remains deeply “torn” between the possibility of serving in Obama’s cabinet and remaining in the Senate to “help pass health care and work on a broad range of domestic issues.”


In other words, she's weighing the risks of being tied to a possible failure regarding the Obama administration against staying in the Senate and challenging him for the nomination in 2012 or possibly run relatively unscathed in 2016, but by then she would be 69 years old and time would be running short for her political career.

Remember, you'll hear stuff about Bill's foreign-based charity connections to his library and his foundation, but all that was "vetted" by the Obama administration well before the offer was made. They knew it would not be a problem for her nomination, and if it had been, they would have played that card during the primaries. So don't let the media cloud your vision with that story.

It's all about Hillary, and whether taking the SOS position or staying in the Senate is best for her to run again for president. That's all it is, plain and simple.

[keithy_19]

<p>.</p><p>But this is all a VERY long way off. Who knows what will happen.&nbsp;</p>



A black man...

:bye:

[AKA]

From Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15738.html):



In other words, she's weighing the risks of being tied to a possible failure regarding the Obama administration against staying in the Senate and challenging him for the nomination in 2012 or possibly run relatively unscathed in 2016, but by then she would be 69 years old and time would be running short for her political career.

Remember, you'll hear stuff about Bill's foreign-based charity connections to his library and his foundation, but all that was "vetted" by the Obama administration well before the offer was made. They knew it would not be a problem for her nomination, and if it had been, they would have played that card during the primaries. So don't let the media cloud your vision with that story.

It's all about Hillary, and whether taking the SOS position or staying in the Senate is best for her to run again for president. That's all it is, plain and simple.

Not being in the Senate takes her out of politics - Obama looses his chief rival in his party, which is a very, very good thing for him. It's something Bush should have done early on with McCain, back in 2001. It's a great political move, but the downside is foreign countries work best with administrations where it is clear the President and SoS are close, and that is not the case with these two. Also, she will be able to do much of the hiring, and she will build a mini-Clinton empire within the Obama administration.