There must be something really horrible in those tax returns that she has to hold them back until all of the primaries are finished.What do you bet Bill's presidential library was funded by those same Saudis that Bush & Cheney smooch, hand-hold and circle jerk around with back at the Crawford Ranch? And as far as this whole silly biz of Clinton's about Obama's bonifides as a Harvard Law grad to teach constitutional law at the University of Illinois, all I know is that in every college course I've ever taken we called the man or woman standing before the class "Prof." not "Teach". None of this can surprise anyone coming from a First Lady who said 'During my time in the White house, whenever there was needed a diplomatic visit to any country that was considered to be too poor, too insignificant or too dangerous for the President to go to he sent the First Lady and his daughter instead', as well as her whole Lara Croft confabulation about her trip to Bosnia? Let's face it, this lady has some serious mental problems, definitely not fit to have her finger poised over the nuclear trigger.
Truth is the First Casualty. Logic is the Second. The Democratic Party is the Third.
Buzz this article up.
For politicians who see campaigns as a war for personal gain, truth is always the first casualty. Reality is nothing but a tool to be bent and distorted to the candidate's will, regardless of the long-term costs to that candidate's party, her nation, or the values she claims to represent.
But the fact that truth is the first casualty doesn't make it the last. The Clinton campaign, reeling from the disclosure of lies about Bosnia and Northern Ireland, is pressing on with arguments for her nomination -- arguments that are not only illogical, but are likely to cause further lasting harm to the Party's prospects in November.
How illogical are those arguments? Well, let's see ... Sen. Clinton was quoted this weekend saying that it would be profoundly antidemocratic to resolve the nomination fight before the last primaries are conducted. She used language that suggested that accepting the numerical inevitability of the process beforehand would be downright un-American. She said that "some folks" want to "stop these elections," adding:
"I thought we of all people knew how important it was to give everybody a chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted."
And yet most nomination battles are resolved well before the last set of primaries is held. That's why Michigan and Florida broke party rules and jumped the line, an action that threatened to disenfranchise voters in late primaries whose states had abided by the rules. If Sen. Clinton is so intent on being fair to late-primary voters, she should be condemning the rule-breakers who tried to prevent them from "having their voices heard and their votes counted" -- especially since she herself agreed, along with Sen. Obama, not to participate in their primaries.
But no. Instead, says Sen. Clinton, "We cannot go forward until Florida and Michigan are taken care of, otherwise the eventual nominee will not have the legitimacy that I think will haunt us," said the senator from New York. "I can imagine the ads the Republican Party and John McCain will run if we don't figure out how we can count the votes in Michigan and Florida."
What do those comments, so contradictory to one another, have in common? Only two things: They are in Sen. Clinton's self-interest, and they are profoundly damaging to the party's chances of winning the presidency. She has exercised the "nuclear option": She's saying that a process that isn't retrofitted to maximize her chances isn't valid or legitimate. She even invites the Republicans to make ads around that theme. And her refrain that "we" must "count the votes" is specifically designed to evoke memories of the stolen 2000 election, a sore subject that is likely to alienate Florida voters in November.
The surreal thing about all of this is that Sen. Clinton and her staff would be making the exact opposite argument if it helped her chances. Everybody knows that. Others have had the same reaction to her campaign's phone-in press conferences that I have: They're exercises in politics as virtual reality. Her staffers make arguments they don't believe. What's more, you know they know you know they don't believe it.
One pill makes you larger ...
That's why the Bosnia and Northern Ireland whoppers shouldn't have been a surprise. A campaign that views the truth in such elastic terms -- extreme even by the standards of American politics -- is capable of saying pretty much anything. That's why the candidate who claimed she was best-qualified to answer a 3 AM phone call tried to excuse her misstatements with the explanation that she was sleep-deprived -- even though that's a common condition when receiving 3 AM phone calls. (And even though she repeated this particular "misspeaking" several times, embellishing as she went along.)
And yet, in the middle of the flaps over her truthfulness, her campaign went after Obama over the supposedly false claim that Obama was a University professor. In claiming he was merely a "lecturer" (it turns out he's been a Senior Lecturer, which equates to professorship), they actually used the phrase "details matter."
Gotta give 'em credit for nerve, if nothing else. A candidate who's been padding her resume since the get-go, with the willing cooperation of the media she claims is an enemy, now says that "details matter." And we're not talking about the harmless fibs all candidates tell -- that she's named after Sir Edmund Hillary or that Barack's parents met at the Selma march -- but tall tales that make more of her claims of experience than are reasonable.
Details matter.
She repeated the Bosnia fable, elaborating with each re-telling, even after Sinbad and others have challenged her version of it. Commenters from Frank Rich to Nora Ephron have asked why. The answer to that is simple: Because it serves her self-interest, and until now the press let her get away with it.
Oh ... and so much for being "fully vetted." How many more Tuzlas are waiting to appear in her carefully crafted story? (And we haven't even seen those tax returns yet ...)
Details matter.
After pumping up her Ohio numbers with tales of her opposition to NAFTA -- and a lie about Obama and the Canadians -- it turns out that she campaigned for NAFTA's passage. She says she privately opposed it. Even if that's true -- which we can't know -- this is the candidate who says people should be judged on their "deeds," not their "words."
Details matter.
She turned a social visit to a women's center in Northern Ireland into a watershed moment that brought peace to a warring people - a total falsehood that denigrates the hard work of Northern Ireland's woman peacemakers.
Josh Marshall and others have commented on the increasingly tortured logic used to support her claims of legitimacy. The ritual recitation of her advisors' byzantine logic is becomingly increasingly meaningless. If the only way to consider her the "winner" was to count the votes of anemic Virgos who cast their ballots by the light of the full moon, that's the argument they'd be making.
She really only has -- or had -- one valid reason to stay in the race: To be the solid, reliable alternative should scandal or missteps seriously threaten Obama's viability in November. The problem is, she's made so many missteps of her own that she's no longer a good alternative should the front-runner stumble. She undercuts her own arguments that the race should go on by behaving in a reckless fashion that wounds the party itself. What's more, she has undiplomatically trampled sensitivities in both Bosnia and Northern Ireland (Clinton advisor jamie Rubin offended Protestant leaders in Northern Ireland defending her tall tales, while Bosnians -- including the little girl who read her a poem -- expressed outrage at her exploitation of their suffering).
In short, the Clinton campaign's reckless spree is damaging their party, and even the nation's diplomacy. That's why so many party elders are asking her to step down.
In typical Clinton fashion, she and Bill may rant and rage that this situation is the result of an unfair press, "Judases" insufficiently grateful for their (tax-funded) largesse, or a world that's insufficiently responsive to their desires and whims. But the real truth behind her candidacy's implosion is much simpler:
Details matter.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Here's another detail that matters too: Clinton actually lost the TX primary getting 6 less pledged delegates out of that state than Obama. So why is the Clinton campaign and Dee Dee Meyers allowed to get away with claiming on news programs that Hillary won big in Texas. She didn't even win big in terms of overall votes in Texas. One of the main reasons Hillary is even still in this race is because the media is making more money from having the contest continue. Also the Dems may be registering more new voters to at least negate the damage from allowing the campaign to continue.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
In the election where votes are cast in a private, confidential setting Ms. Clinton won. In the anti-Democratic setting in TX she did not win. So, your posting is a bit misleading.
Note to all Obamabots:
Check out FACTCHECK.Org concerning Obama's TRUE legislative record and accomplishments. It makes for some very interesting reading. You may however be somewhat disappointed.
I agree that Clinton is just trying to cause trouble, but I believe that her staying in the primary will not matter in the election.
The people who pay a lot of attention to politics already know who they are going to support and there is not much anyone can do about that. The other people who don't really pay attention aren't paying attention to this nonsense going on now, and they will decide after McCain and Obama start debating head to head.
The only ones that are making such a big deal about Clinton's bickering are the media who have gotten everything wrong so far. I am willing to bet that all the predictions made about the long Dem primary hurting the party will be wrong too.
I also would not be surprised that the idea of the long primary being detramental to dems was started by Fox news resulting in an echo by the rest of the media. After all, thats what the media does best; echo the others.
I don't feel a longer primary is detrimental to the Dems yet either but it soon will reach that tipping point and it certainly can't continue with the candidates going after each other in a nasty divisive fashion either without negative repercussions in November. If the candidates go on for another month or so attacking John McCain and making their case as the best candidate to beat McCain, that would be a scenario I could put up with for a while longer and would justify Bill Clinton's comments calling on everyone to "chill out." But if the Clintons mean everyone should "Chill out" while they attack Obama and bring up Rev Wright to try and sway Super Delegates, I want the race over with now.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
So what do you think this is, a tea party. It is a competition for the position of the most powerful person in the world. What do you want this woman do? Give up? I do not think so.
What do you want, to have 10 states not count? What do you want, have millions of voters in Florida and Michigan not even counted? What do you want, to scuttle the super delegate structure of the democrats primaries in mid stream? What do you want, to discredit Hillary in every way you can so that your Obama candidate can win? Noneot of these wants of your amounts to "a hill of beans."
Please be decent and quit bashing the woman. She deserves her chances to compete.
Rant, rave, blather, obfuscate, lie, all you wish both you Obamabots and Billary shills. Truth is you'll lose the general election because your DAMNED political correctness crap will not allow you to become UNITED against the common foe. Rumor has it that Jesse Ventura may jump in. I know Jesse and campaigned for him when he was elected governor here in MN. in 98. He'd make a better POTUS than any of the jerks currently running.
Jesse Ventura is entertaining but that 's all. All he has is a big ego! BTW, he should try getting a haircut (or at least comb it once in a while).
"So what do you think this is, a tea party. It is a competition for the position of the most powerful person in the world. What do you want this woman do? Give up? I do not think so."
No but it would be nice if Billary would TELL THE TRUTH once in a while!!!!!!!!!!
That's our Jesse. What you don't know is that he is a very savvy politician that NOBODY owns. Talks common sense, takes no crap from anybody, detests "political correctness, and loves kids. Has a special place in his heart for veterans too. Some people don't like that because he doesn't knuckle under to their personal agendas. BTW- he can lead as well. Like I said. A better candidate than any of the BOZO'S currently running.
I don't trust eithe Hillary or Obama.....
But then I don't trust McCain either.
I just wish all politicians were held to what they say and a firing squad was always waiting in the hallway to stop the lieing.
You may not believe it marlin but ol' Jesse IS a man you could trust. And you should meet Terry Ventura. A lot like our own Arianna. Drop dead gorgeous and smart as a whip.
Well worth the read..
THE MAGIC NUMBER
Here"s what we have after considering the information in the Polls section below:
Senator Obama"s Magic Number " 88 of 310 remaining superdelegates needed, or 28.4%
Senator Clinton"s Magic Number " 241 of 310 remaining superdelegates needed, or 77.7%
The Huckabee Index " 69 or 22.3% of remaining superdelegates needed
The "Huckabee Index" is the number of any combination of superdelegates and convention/caucus delegates that the Obama campaign needs (or the
Clinton campaign loses) to make it mathematically impossible for the Clinton campaign to win the nomination, based on current delegate count
and polls for upcoming contests. (Disclaimer: This is meant to poke fun at Mike Huckabee, not Hillary Clinton)
Everyone can Keep voting till your hearts content.
THE MATH " Monday, March 31 " After Texas Counties
Thanks to phrigndumass for the work
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/phrigndumass
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5332098
October 11, 2007
Flashback: Does Michigan Matter to Clinton?
Hillary Clinton, during which she was asked about the Michigan primary:
"I personally did not think it made any difference, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, in this election they're having, it is not going to count for anything."
http://www.youtube.com/user/MDRUDGE
when will people realize that hillary clinton is a sociopath?
And you know this how?
John Kerry was swiftboated and we lost the White House for another 4 years. You would think we would have learned to give each other the benefit of the doubt after that experience and try to understand the facts before calling each other liars - guess not.
Excerpts from (read the whole article for yourselves):
Straight Shooting From Tuzla
By LISSA MUSCATINE and MELANNE VERVEER
Published: April 1, 2008
AS staff members who traveled with the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to Bosnia in March 1996, we have followed with more than passing interest the extensive news coverage of her landing in Tuzla. Video footage clearly shows that Mrs. Clinton"s assertions that she landed "under fire" and that the arrival ceremony was canceled were wrong. She said so herself last week. .
In a recent e-mail message to a British blogger, Ejup Ganic, who was the acting president of Bosnia during Mrs. Clinton"s visit, wrote: "I remember that visit quite well. Although the NATO troops were in Tuzla, we still believed that some positions on the hills were occupied by radical Serbs, so I was worried about the overall safety." The planned welcoming ceremony was shortened, he said, but it still lasted a bit longer than expected because a nongovernment group brought along a little girl to sing to the first lady.
Article from the New York Times. The two ladies writers? Former Clinton's staffers. I imagine there is no bias, right? Did she looked stressed on the video? Who are we going to believe, the video, or our lying eyes? Every day her campaign gets more pathetic!
And again, what kind of mother, if it really was a serious security concern, would have her daughter standing there with her on the tarmac? If she was MY kid, there is no way in HELL she would be in harm's way, even if I HAD to be. She'd be waiting somewhere, protected, in a secure location.
They really cannot have been terribly concerned, or Chelsea wouldn't have been standing there with her.
And what kind of President would send his beloved wife and only child into a danger zone?
The President gets classified intelligence briefings on a daily basis. He knew before he sent her that she was not going to be in mortal danger> I agree with Tonksmom. I have only one child, and I would give my life for him to protect him from mortal danger, and he's an adult.
This bizarre op-ed piece on Bosnia by two insiders shows why the Clinton campaign has failed. They were there! They knew there were no snipers. Yet they let Hillary tell her fantasy tale time after time. Now they are trying to spin an out-and-out lie, so Hillary can say she did not have "tea on the tarmac."
Yes, they were her staff members and yes, they would lie for her.
And the former president of Bosnia is lying too?
The former president of Bosnia did NOT say that anyone had to duck and run to safety because of sniper fire. The former president of Bosnia did NOT say that the welcoming ceremony was cancelled. What he said amounts to: "There were concerns that there MIGHT be snipers around." This again, of course begs the question why Sinbad and Hillary's teenage daughter were there.
Hillary lied. Blatantly, purposefully, and willfully.
Hillary said they had to duck and run to safety because THERE WAS SNIPER FIRE. That's an absolute lie on two counts: First, no one ducked and ran anywhere. Second, there was no sniper fire.
Hillary said they had to cancel the welcoming ceremony - not that they planned to shorten it but ended up letting it go on long enough for a little girl to sing to her.
Hillary lied. Period. What's worse is that when confronted with those outright lies, she refused to admit that she had lied, saying she had been sleep deprived lately. As mentioned in the article, that's pretty damning evidence that she is beyond doubt NOT the person anyone should want taking a "3am call".
Hillary is, as she has so deftly demonstrated recently, a liar and an unprincipled, unethical, disingenuous, opportunistic shill for the same people who fund the Republicans. They thought they had made sure they owned both dogs in the fight. Barrack Obama has shown them otherwise. While the MSM has focused on Hillary's "misstatements" about Bosnia and N. Ireland, the BIG lie she seems to be getting a pass on, is NAFTA. She claims to have always been against it, yet her appointment calendar shows that she was instrumental in building support for it. So either she was an unprincipled, unethical, disingenuous, opportunistic liar then, or she is now. Either way, that's what she is.
Every day there is a new disappointment from the Democratic Party that proves why they continue to let the Republicans control the debate and the spin on every issue. The latest being Hillary supporter, Ed Rendell's IDIOTIC and DAMAGING statement yesterday that Fox News has offered the most balanced reporting to date on Hillary's nomination struggle. Better than all the other news networks.
There in a nutshell is why the Democrats have been losers, and will continue to be losers in 08. Rendell, the former head of the DNC, hasn't a clue WHO THE ENEMY IS!
Typically, Obama supporters fail to recognize that Rendell was purposely making an ironic observation. The Obama fix is in with the wider mainstream media. There is a rule that it's perfectly okay to run with any negative story about Hillary, in fact run it into the ground. Despite her already admitting (what? 2 weeks ago?) that her version of the events on the Tuzla tarmac were at odds with what really happened, we're STILL seeing stories citing "proof" that she embellished the story. 2 days ago was the story that the pilot of her plane issued a statement contradicting her, and then yesterday, the NY Post published a story that they had tracked down the little Bosnia poet girl and got a statement from HER--now a 20-year old medical student, contradicting Hillary. OKAY--I think we all get it.
But with Obama, the rule is that any negative story about him is to be downplayed. He admits that his original claim that he had never been present or heard when Rev. Wright made his inflammatory, racist and anti-American comments was untrue. Now he says he WAS present, but that he doesn't agree with Wright, although he "won't disown" him. I don't see any news organization running THAT story into the ground. Obama's untruths are constantly forgiven & forgotten, or simply explained away. Double standard, double standard, DOUBLE STANDARD.
Anyone who has ever been closely involved in big time political campaigning has experienced their candidate lying , as well as their opponent lying and has accepted, or helped invent rationalization of the lies by the staff members and their candidate. I have partciipated in this well established fact a number of times in at least a half dozen campaigns.during the past 30 years.
The difference between political parties is that Democrats almost always indulge in distortion of facts, exaggeration of matters at issue and white lies. Republican candidates and tbeir surrogates will often indulge in incredible falsehoods and viscious lies to characterize their opponents and the same to enhance the character and alleged accomplishments of their candidates.
Both Hillary , Obama and McCain have engaged in giving themselves the best of it, which is not out of the norm, but the double standard of media involvement has been almost criminal in condemning Hillary and lending support to the other two. It may be why Hillary, in desperation, has gone all out to lie about the Bosnia affair in order to get some positive media attention. Boy!, did that backfire and ended up making her no better than the average Republican candidate, which will remove her from consideration for the nomination and place the media favorite, Obama, in contention with McCain, who will be our next president.
Hillary, what in the hell were you thinking?
I recall Obama making a lengthy speech about his involvement with Revered Wright. I also remember Clinton making desperate excuses (aka - more lies) concerning the Bosnia lie. Let's compare -
Obama was attacked on something that a close friend and mentor of his said. He specifically admitted his deep involvement with Reverend Wright, and then specifically condemned the comments in question - comments that were largely taken out of context.
Hillary herself repeated a lie numerous times, and when confronted with incontrovertible proof of her lies, went on to pretend that she had merely "misspoke" because she was sleep deprived. She then, almost in the same breath, tried to focus attention back onto Obama.
To sum it up for you so it's easier to remember -
Obama's pastor made remarks and Obama was beat up for those remarks because he has a close relationship with his pastor. Obama then spent a long time addressing the issue and suggesting a need to heal the racial divide in this country.
Hillary lied for no other reason than to bolster her claims of "experience" and "ready on day one" and "3am call readiness". When confronted with HER OWN LIES, she avoided, downplayed and obfuscated.
If Hillary had a single ethical or courageous bone in her body, she would have admitted her lies and the whole matter would have died out already, but she chose to continue lying. That's why people are still calling her on it. They want her to admit that
"Obama's untruths are constantly forgiven & forgotten, or simply explained away. Double standard, double standard, DOUBLE STANDARD."
I think you're confusing accepting responsibility with simple explanations and double standards. Take a step back and notice who's willing to step up and deal with issues that have become problematic for any reason. Compare that with the tiresome tendency of Senator Clinton simply to repeat untruths (such as the landing in Bosnia) and over-reaching embellishments (bringing people to the table to settle the Northern Ireland problems). Most of all, ponder whether she'll ever admit that her vote that gave President Bush the wiggle room he needed to take us into this fiasco in Iraq (the single greatest foreign policy mistake ever made by the US government) was a mistake, even if well-intended.
Nobody is perfect, and that includes Barack Obama. However, he is what he seems; he's not cynical or disengenuous. He treats everyone with respect and listens to all sides. What a wonderful chance this country has to present a new face to the world, one that represents all that we have always thought we are but haven't been for a long, long time.
I'm not too sure about the truthfulness of her claims to being opposed to the war, either, when her "conversion" came so late.
After visiting Iraq with a small group--including her buddy McCain-- in Feb. of '05, she said: "The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," and "The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Last Throes, anyone? How good is that "judgment"?
And she criticized Murtha in Nov. of '05 when he called for an immediate withdrawal: "a big mistake." Saying that the U.S. had to "...work together to fix these problems" of the Iraq occupation.
I don't recall where she's acknowledged it was wrong to attack in the first place, nor rejected the aggressive war doctrine of Bush. Her views are right at home with the neo-cons, except she will talk a little longer, before the shooting starts.
Who believes an immediate withdrawal would not be a mistake? First, we have an obligation to those Iraqi citizens who have worked with us and for us, we cannot leave them behind to suffer the same fate the Vietnamese we abandoned in Viet Nam suffered. Anyone who would argue otherwise is misleading and wrong-minded.
You can be sure HIllary has not been truthful about opposing war. Her "conversion"?? It never happened.
.
Mrs, Clinton voted for Bush's Iraq war with as much gusto as when she voted for Lieberman's Bill to authorize Bush to pre-empt a nuclear attack against Iran.
She refuses to show her IRS Returns before the Pennsylvannia primaries - what a joke.
She talks and talks, - and keeps trying to destroy OBAMA and the
Posted March 31, 2008 | 12:28 PM (EST)