Hillary Crossed the Line
It may be true that an untidy cat box could beat sad sack John McCain this year.
But.
Senator Clinton, please shut up.
Every charge you angrily hurl at Barack Obama gives the Republicans a talking point.
On yesterday's 60 Minutes, you crossed an unforgivable line:
"You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Steve Kroft asked her.
"Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.
"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.
"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.
As far as I KNOW? What if the situation were reversed?
"Sen Obama, What about those smears that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian who likes to skinny dip with her Iranian 'assistant...' and 'gal pal.' What do you think about those rumors?"
"She is a heterosexual happily married to former President Bill Clinton, as far as I know," Obama responds.
Who are you, Senator Clinton?
You are doing exactly what the Republicans do when they campaign.
Loading comments…
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
I've read most of the posts on this thread. At first, I held out the naive hope that Clinton supporters would have the good taste to hold their respective tongues on this one, as Senator Clinton was very much in the wrong. No such luck, of course. I'll ignore the over-the-top remarks on both sides, because I want to focus on those who just can't understand why her hedged response is such an issue.
I don't believe you're really looking at this in the proper context. Imagine you're in high school and running for Senior Class President. Doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl. The kid running against you is a football hero, but is suddenly plagued by rumors that he's gay. Even though there's nothing wrong with being gay, the rumors are starting to get to the kid. His teammates aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, and he's starting to be ostracized. You know the kid very well, and you know he's not gay by a long shot, and when you're asked about the rumors, you know there are more important things than class president and you immediately respond by saying Absolutely he's not gay, and those rumors are ridiculous. Your classmates appreciate your integrity, and you win the election.
That's the sort of response I would expect, one that looks beyond personal gain and stands up for what's right. The fact that it was like pulling teeth to get a straight yes or no answer from Hillary was infuriating to watch. I saw the 60 Minutes segment with no advance notice of her remarks, and I was instantly outraged. As above, there's a certain level of behavior that should be expected between decent people. Unfortunately, that's not what we got yesterday from Hillary.
You were instantly outraged? What a surprise. Obama supporters seem to be inas state of perpetual outrage. When you're not filled with hope, of course. Her very first statement was "Of course not." How much more of a declarative statement do you need? She answered the question three times. I think "as far as I know" is a pretty fair statement when talking about someone's faith. And as for the high school football hero, "as far as I know" would be a fair response there, too. How can someone state unequivocally that someone's not gay? The kid's your classmate, so you've got infallible insight into the workings of his mind? Because of course every gay teen is very open about it. What a stupid example.
"I held out the naive hope that Clinton supporters would have the good taste to hold their respective tongues on this one, as Senator Clinton was very much in the wrong." Please, give me a break. I know your character assassinations of Hillary would be much more pleasing if her supporters didn't have the bad manners to repsond to these kinds of ridiculous manufactured outrages. You guys really have a lot in common with right wing talk radio listeners, just waiting with bated breath for your next opportunity to be outraged by some real or imagined transgression.
You just can't talk to some people.
I agree that Hillary should have met this canard with a defense of Islam (even Bush says that Islam is a religion of peace) and a statement that she is well aware of his true religious affiliation. That would have been a brave and unparsed statement with moral force behind it, and she would have gotten votes for it. Instead, she held back her knowledge of the facts with that catty little phrase, "as far as I know." She seemed pleased to say so. She might not get a lot of votes for it, but she said what a woman like her might be expected to say if she thought she could get a few ignorant hicks to question Obama's religious views.
This is all in the eye of the beholder. I think Clinton handled it well. I voted for her. people that voted for Obama see what they want to see or hear what they want to hear. The level of paranoia is fascinating.
Speaking of paranoia -- how about that vast media conspiracy against Clinton, eh?
Speaking of paranoia -- how's the vast media conspiracy against Clinton going?
Amen. Hillary definitely crossed a line with this one. She's the queen of equivocations, no doubt, but on something as lowly as this, there is no excuse..
Hillary is reaching lower and lower as she gets more and more desperate. Way to go, woman. I for sure would have to think many times before voting for you in the final election. . .
Obama is so above all that filfth. He is genuinely interested in us, the people.
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com
Obama is the Messiah. He will lead us to a new world order. Then, we will all fly away in a big space ship.
Hopefully not before he rids the world of he sarcastic forever.
" As it was in the begining, now and ever after, world without overthetop sarcasim, amen, amen."
-Common Chant, 15th Century A.O. (After Obama)
Now there's an intelligent, relevant thoughtful post, yeesh
What Barack Obama needs to do is just shame the evangelicals. I don't know what type of supposed 'Christian' would give, or justify giving, a convert such a hard time. It is very lame. For a group of people who tout their religion so much, they don't seem to give a damn about you unless you were born into it. If you embraced christianity later in life, like oh say sixteen, eighteen, twenty, then same on you, you're suspect bucko. And we'll riduclue you until the last crow crows.
oh shut up! if he can't take the heat from clinton how is he going to stand of to the republican nominee?
What are you voting for then? President, or Character Executioner in Chief? Do you require any dignity of your candidate at all, or is it just a Last Person Standing conflict?
Frome the "madrassa" rumor tossed out there, to the picture of Obama in Somali garb, to the ones listed below, the Clinton campaign has systematically participated in tactics Karl Rove would be damned proud of.
- Clinton friend and supporter Bill Shaheen (who is husband of New Hampshire Govenor Jeanne Shaheen) floated the notion of Obama being a drug dealer and pusher:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.html
and:
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/video-evidence-that-attack-on-obamas-drug-use-was-deliberate/
**************************************************************************
- Bob Kerry trying to smear Obama by repeatedly mentioning Obama's middle name:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/kerrey-tries-to-explain-obama-muslim-remarks/
**************************************************************************
- Two high-level Clinton volunteers were vilified in the press for attacking Barack Obama with an "Obama is a radical muslim terrorist" e-mail smear campaign that has been both disproven and discredited, and a third volunteer knew about the e-mail - she didn't forward it, but she didn't alert the campaign about the smear e-mail either:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/third_clinton_v.html
Disgusting.
Not pretty, I agree, but just a warm up to the Repo smears about to start. Hadn't heard the "radical muslim terrorist" bit, though. I like that: guy goes to Harvard Law, graduates top of his class, all to infiltrate the US political system to . . . what? Outlaw Christmas? That should work.
LOL.
Outlaw Christmas and get us cheaper gas!
But why does the Clinton campaign and supporters aid an abet the Republicans? I have come to the conclusion that for the Clintonites, if Clinton is not the nominee, they would prefer McCain for the presidency. Well, I have news for you! You have insulted Obama's supporters repeatedly, so if Clinton is the nominee, some of us will sit this out. The attacks on Sen. coming from both the Clinton camp and the McCain camp are so similar, and at times seem to be well coordinated. It is as if they utilizing the same playbook.
Two high level Clinton volunteers? They were county cooordinators. You don't know much about campaigns if you think that's high level. What exactly do you think the campaign should have done other than tell the wqomen to resign after they learned about the e-mails? Do you really think campaigns monitor every e-mail sent out by every volunteer?
actions speak louder than words, watch how hillary acts after tues. nite. i predict she narrowly wins ohio (by 5%), and will either slightly win texas or lose all together. her net gain for the night might be 5 delegetes, which means she'll never catch obama. best thing for the dem. party would be for her to drop out and concentrate on mccain. but, i doubt she'll do that, because it's always been about HER, period.
Oh, and I guess if Obama wins, it could never be about HIM? Give me a break. If she wins, she has a good argument to superdelegates that the Democratic leaning states favor her, and yes that means Florida (she did not campaign there, neither did Obama, but SHE won, and no it is not about name recognitiion, he has been on every major television, newspaper, magazine cover in America, no excuses), and she has the best experience, Bill in the White House with her, not Michelle Obama, who only recently became proud of America (perhaps she should have been born abroad!).
Well said! I'd give you a standing ovation, but my leg just went to sleep.
mikonyc:
Why bother voting? We may as well go for the monarchy! That way we can move from the Bush dynasty to the Clinton dynasty. That way we are assured of inherited experience, by birth or by marriage. By the way, you better quit knocking Michelle because you really do not understand what it means growing up as a black person in America! You really need to learn real American history. Enough of this false patriotism!
I think Obama will win Texas and loose Ohio. Either way, he's still on top and I don't think Hillary will be in a position to gain any super-delegates. Remember what Richardson said yesterday: After tuesday, the candidate with the most pledged delegates wins the nomination. Even Bill Clinton said if she doesn't win both states she's done. Maybe the two of them had a heart to heart discussion during the super bowl.
It does look like the consensus is to wrap this up by the end of this week. In the end, this will help Hillary because right now, she is thrashing and out of control.
Of course she knew what she was doing with her response. It's just one of many reasons why this Democrat will never vote for a Clinton again. And as to those who suggest that's because she's a woman -- wrong! It's just the women named Clinton.
And by-the-way, so what if a Muslim were running for President. Even a comatose body would be better than the criminal occupying the WH.
OK, I like Obama, but surely the Repos will think it's fair game to ask whether he took Muslim religious instruction, etc.
It really alarms me--maybe it's repos acting like democrats, but there are a lot of Obama supporters who talk nasty about Hillary, say foul Republicany kinds of things about her and Bill. The biggest strike against HRC is that Bill didn't even really try to take bin Laden out despite many opportunities. Triangulation is not the same as leadership. But Obama is actually OUT-TRIANGULATING Hillary by suggesting he wants Republicans as Secretaries of State and Defense! Including Chuck Hagel, who was involved in a very dubious election at the begininng of his career which I believe was something of a playingfield for statistical analysis of wierd results. What's up with that? Is the problem in DC not enough bipartisanship or a LACK OF SPINE by democrats who don't stand for anything whatsoever? Personally I really love the whole Obama story, and I do believe he will be the first black president someday, but if he loses like McGovern this time then he may actually have to put in twelve or twenty years in the Senate first. McCain could easily wrongfoot Obama on national security and never look back. It's true that Hillary has high negatives. I could easily be wrong and the Obama phenom could carry him to a big victory in the fall. But overall he and Hillary are two typically weak Democratic candidates.
How come the campaign has been drawing record numbers in voter participation? You are absolutely have no basis in calling Obama nd Clinton "weak Democratic Candidates." This year's voter enthusiasm debunks your claims!
But overall he and Hillary are two typically weak Democratic candidates.
_____________________________________________________________
Maybe you'd prefer Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller?
if the saying u have to pick ur wars then it certainly applies here, as I fail to see a debate on this. Not a supporter of the Hill but I don't get the crossing the line thingie"? Don't debate the air people it's a waste of ur time and importance in the scheme of politics. I swear some of this bunk is placed here like a carrot to a horse just 2 see u run after it! Cut the puppet strings, and fight when there is a compassionate reason!
If I am Howard Dean right now I would be praying. Praying real hard. Praying for Hillary Clinton to lose tomorrow. Because if she doesn't lose, and if she does go on to win the Democratic Nomination, then it is possible that we will all be witness to the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.
Over the past two weeks, we have been witnessed to the Hillary Clinton "kitchen sink" strategy in which she has attacked Obama over whatever she can find. In her mission to win the nomination and increasing her momentum after 11 straight losses, she has also increased the level of negativity among Obama supporters towards her. With each attack her negatives have grown more and more. Read the blogs and the comments section of the major sites and you can almost feel the vile spewing through about Clinton. It is not like many dont realize this. In an interview this past weekend, Clinton advisors were asked about the divisiveness and the rift it could cause for the general election. Predictably, Clinton advisors said that she would be able to unite the party by November. Unfortunately, the demographics of the people that support Obama, tell a different story.
Don't think Dean doesn't realize who Obama supporters are. He does, because before Obama they were his people. They are young, they are old, they are educated, they are liberal, moderate and conservative. Yet the greatest, and scariest, thing is they aren't traditional Democrats. No, these aren't your mom and dad Democrats. They are people who really have a major distaste for Politics. They believe everything is rigged and that neither party really gives and damn about them. Their sense of idealism makes them wildly independent and show loyalty only to ideals while beholden to no one. Yet, as they have shown so far, they have incredible energy. Their grassroots ability are like none we have ever seen in politics. Most importantly, they can raise huge sums of money. More money than any campaign-democratic or republican has ever been able to raise. They can be the future of the Democratic Party...or the army that destroys it.
Right now it seems the latter to be true. Because a majority of them have no true allegiance to the Democratic Party, or to Clinton for that matter, a victory for Clinton in this matter could lead to the largest political revolt in American history. As Vernon Jordan stated: "How do you stop a movement?" Well the next question should be "How do you stop an angry movement out for revenge?" Forget about just a revolt at the floor of the convention. How about this for a nightmare scenario: Obama supporters lining up at each Clinton rally picketing and protesting. Bloggers writing every single bad thing they can about Clinton. Can you imagine the responses Clinton supporters would get canvassing or phone banking??? Can you imagine the number of people lining up to vote for John McCain just to spite Hillary's chances. It could get ugly.
This scenario could have been avoided. All Clinton had to do is run a clean campaign. but she could not. Her ambition for power was more important than the Democratic Party. The fact that she has gone negative. The mis-truths. Her ambition has even led her to give a semi endorsement of her "friend" John McCain over Obama. All this for power.
It is one thing to be angry and not like someone. It is another thing to lose respect. Clinton is walking that line. Some would say she has already crossed it. So yes, winning Texas and Ohio at all costs may indeed bring her back into the race and win her the nomination. But what happens if the cost of a Clinton victory is the destruction of the Democratic Party? That's something Dean doesn't want to know. So pray.
L-Mani S. Viney
This is a great post. Thanks for voicing my own thoughts. I've never participated in politics until Obama came along. If Democrats choose Hillary, I'll have to look elsewhere for someone to represent me. I can't believe its come to this - thanks Hillary.
Spot On. Bravo!!!!!
one word--decaf. Of course Hill wants to win. Of course she is doing everything she can to cast doubt about her opponent. McCain will do far worse, or his surrogates will, or the right-wing talk show hosts, blogs, swiftboat groups, and so on. Before this is all over they will portray Obama in the WORST light. Rove doesn't even need hints from Hillary. It may fail or it may work, but they will try it. I think it is true that a lot of Obama supporters are new to politics or distrust it or both, and it is great that they are getting involved. But they have to remember that politics ain't beanbag. The stakes are huge and passions get high. But guess what, in the end we are all citizens of the republic and we all have lives outside of politics. It is better to step back and take it all with a sense of humor. HRC is not the devil. Obama is not the savior. Or vice versa. So, as I said, . . . decaf
Beanbag? It's not a spectator sport either , especially with the world so closely watching our election and selection on who will unite the nations against terrorism and quell the partician gridlock of 28 years. Something as simple as breaking a mold in DC, by not voting for the same families that put us in this economic desaster.
But no.... After the 2006election when Americans stood up for change with a Blue United Tsunami, the Status Quo, didn't believe their were good People in America, that knew we screwed up re-electing this Borg society back in office.
They destroyed the Republican party so badly just to maintain the war agenda of both parties, by bribing the greedy wall street elite and giving them tax cuts during a war that still has no end.
Now they have a double agent in the status quo, working to keep the same two family regimes in place in the new century.
And what has our new century srought after all the years they reeked havok and allowed genocide before our eyes, more hatred in our foreign policy, even in the Latin nations.
Yes it will take a vesatile candidate that can meneuver tempers boiling over the last 28 years of neglected Independents, pissed off Republicans and Used Poor African Americans and Latinos of both parties that have United to Save our Constitution, with a Professor of such Papers. Barack Obama, the Harvard Law Review President who knows the laws and obeys the laws, when he doesn't trust cut throat (excuse my African American) Negoes, who affiliate with churches to cleanse their crooked souls. We all have them and try to make them do right, but sometimes they have to bang their head like Rezko, without a helmet, to realize, maybe just maybe, I should have taken the higher road in God's eyes, and not tried to use a Church non-profit Attorney. He corrected it and the savings he made on the sale of the ten foot property when he found out, he gave to charity.
Integrity. Some crabs like Hillary will pull you down back in the barrel, Obama offers every American, to lift their spirits, hopes, dreams and confidence in themselves.
Is that so wrong Hillary?
Buck Fush and Billary!
We want the Dream, Not more nightmares.
Barack On!
Excellent post!!! I agree 100%.
This should be a blog not a comment to a blog. Excellent analysis.
Hillary was accurate in saying as far as she knows Obama is not a Muslim, she does not live with him, she is not related to him and most of all, why should she even care.
Tom,
What part of "no" don't you understand?
What part of "of course not" do you not understand?
What part of " there is nothing to base that on" do you not understand?
Why don't you just come right out and say you are a Hillary hater. Perhaps you are a woman hater as well? It is obvious to me that you so strongly dislike Hillary that it would not matter what she said.
And so I reject and denounce your support.
now please go away.
What part of "deliberate equivocation so people think Obama is a Muslim" don't YOU understand, your smugness?
And yes, I do dislike Hillary. I would if she were a man. Gender plays no part. Your playing of the gender card fits right in with the rest of her campaign.
Poor little victim.
Your candidate is the one who is going away.
'
And you sir - what is with all this nonsnse. Is it that we no longer recognize the proper use of our language. What you all demand is a comment such as, "of course, it's stupid to think otherwise" or possibly, "you bet, I know this for a fact". Neither one of these stands can be supported by personal, due dilingence, knowlege.
It is a matter of "I believe if the man says he is, he is". I need no other verification.
Good gracious if you inquire of others whether I faithful to my marriage vows for 50 years who but me would know the truth. So - all others could only state - "she says so - so it must be so, I see no reason to doubt her."
Unbelievable. She says " no, of course not" when asked if she believes he is a muslim and somehow this rumor is her fault? How is "no, of course not" not clear and specific enough? So I guess that 9/11 was Bill's fault too?
why do you have a colum? And on top of your silly assertation that she was not somehow clear enough, you follow with "Sen Obama, What about those smears that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian who likes to skinny dip with her Iranian 'assistant...' and 'gal pal.' What do you think about those rumors?" I'm sorry but this is somehow a fair comparison? You imply that she is a lesbian via your example? And of course, your not sexist, no, no. The lesbian thing, that's not inuendo, not ugly hearsay and even if it was, it's fair game b/c she's a woman who never wears a dress? So now you're gay bashing too?
On top of this ridiculous post, your replies are low brow and insulting.
Seriously Arianna, how does this guy have a column?
Tom,
I'll bet I hate her more than you!
If she were the nominee, I would be forced to vote for McCain. I'm sick of these women playing the victim and assuming that if we don't like Hillary, we don't like women! I'm a woman, and have no problem with a female President, just not this one.
Hillary has cried, played the victim card, whined about being picked on, be kind one day and psycho the next.
When women act that way, I'll choose a man.
Mr Tom D'Antoni
I Agree with you completely, including your response to.
(Guitarsandmore)
Whoa, whoa, whoa... "Woman hater"? From whence do you get that? Just because someone criticized your candidate for behaving like an unprincipled weasel?
Are you suggesting that Hillary get a free pass anytime she does/says something unethical - just because she is a woman? Isn't that simply the flip side of the alleged sexism you would presumably deplore? And why does everything have to be about gender and race anyway?
Please, let's just give the "identity politics" a rest, shall we? Enough already...
I think you're missing the point. When someone attacks a fellow democrat, you are supposed to denounce and reject. Hell, McCain rejected and denounced Cunningham on the same issue. I think Hillary is a cold blooded, calculating politician. That's why she hasn't acted like she should have. Mind you, this isn't the first time. But if you can't see it for yourself, there's nothing anyone can say or do. Your emotions are getting the better of your judgement.
Why don't you just come right out and say you are a Hillary hater. Perhaps you are a woman hater as well?
_______________________________________________________________
And perhaps you are a racist? Now how does that feel?
Let's just throw away any idea of civility and go to the lowest common denominator. Very worthy of so-called progressives. This is why we're going to lose the White Houe and possibly congress as well, despite the fact that the Republicans have made a total shambles of the country.
I watched 60 Minutes last night and was sickened by Clinton's non-denial denial regarding Obama's religion. Hell, she did everything but wink. And it wasn't the only line she crossed in the past couple of days. Her remarks about both her and McCain bringing a lifetime of experience to the White House, while Obama brings only a speech he made in '02, proves that she is just the kind of Lieberman-style "Democrat" I thought she was. Every day it becomes harder for me to say I will vote for her if she wins the Democratic nomination.
This is truly an example of one seeing and hearing what one wishes to see and hear.
If you sked me if he was a Christian, which by the way should not even matter, I would have to say "he says he is", and I certainly believe him.
AlphaDoc:
Thak you! You just hit the nail on the head. I myself I am beginning to seriously consider Ralph Nader in case Hillary is the nominee. I just don't think she is that much different from McCain on the issue of war and peace. Besides, they both seem to be heavily supported by corporate lobbyists.
You're welcome, Nkoo7. And I know what you mean about the similarities between McCain and Clinton. Hard as it's getting, though, I will still vote for her, rather than leave any possible SCOTUS appointments in the hands of McCain, who is both anti-choice and anti-gay. Since Nader doesn't have a chance of winning, I'd ask that you please reconsider, hold your nose and vote for Clinton, should she win the nomination. Know that I will be holding my own nose, in solidarity, here in NY. ;)
Gee, she spent about 5 minutes beforehand saying that it wasn't true. And anything about another person is "as far as I know." He COULD say the same thing about the millions of rumors about her, and I'm sure you'd be just fine with that. And I guess it was OK when he conflated the Muslim smear and political criticisms coming from her camp and then tacked on, "Oh, I didn't mean that those came from her." I only heard it but I wouldn't be surprise if that came with a 'nudge nudge, wink wink."
Incidentally, you should compare their voting records - they're virtually identical and both are probably about as far from Lieberman as it's possible to be, except for the Kyl-Lieberman vote, which Obama DIDN'T THINK WAS WORTH SHOWING UP FOR, in addition to having co-sponsored a resolution with almost identical language.
>Gee, she spent about 5 minutes beforehand saying that it wasn't true. And anything about another person is "as far as I know."<
Even Karl Rove did a better job of answering that question than Clinton did. Of course, he's attempting to keep the American public from believing that the Republicans are not a party of bigots, while Clinton couldn't care less, as long as whatever her camp says or does helps her win. How many of her people have been called out for rumor-mongering? And how many have passed along hateful gossip and innuendo without being caught at it? I heard it reported on CNN that someone from the Clinton camp was responsible for that original "Obama is a Muslim" email. If true, that is disgusting and disgraceful. In any event, I find it easy to believe that they are responsible, due to the rest of the nonsense they've pulled.
>Incidentally, you should compare their voting records - they're virtually identical and both are probably about as far from Lieberman as it's possible to be<
I have compared their records, and while they are as similar as Democrats should be, that's not what I was talking about. If you'll read my comment more carefully, you'll find that I was referring to Clinton's glowing words regarding McCain's experience, while she denigrated Obama's. Is this the way Democrats are supposed to behave? To me, she sounded more like a McCain surrogate than a Democrat.
I am sorry Mr. D'Antoni, but you are wring?
Your distasteful comparison, with heavy insults, fails to answer your discomfort about Hillary's comments.
Hillary said what she thought about Obama's beliefs. Religion is something between you and your God. It is not something that you can automatically decide by looking at the person or listening to his words. Obama has a past with Islam, even if he was not actually inside it. And, an undeniable part of Islam is to have been given the right to lie about something important if you are to protect something very import. And that includes your actual religious beliefs. Leading to the theories about the greater good...
So, yes, it is natural to have doubt about what he says about his religion, especially for me, for someone who grew up in a society where this was proved to have happened in reality. And, she expressed in a way to represent that.
And, I hope instead of playing with small words like, I would be more happy if you had actually researched carefully into Obama's past (surely, the Republicans are currently doing that), at the least, the part related to his church, the church that was criticized heavily for its strange connections.
OK. God just called and told me Obama isn't a Muslim. Happy now?
No, I am not happy.
Because, what you are trying to do is, intentionally or unintentionally (I am betting on the intentionally part based on your response above about disliking Hillary, or maybe, hating?), humiliating Hillary for the logical response she is expected to give.
I am sure you are criticizing Hillary for the political ways she use to defend her arguments (and yes, in politics, I do believe, they are allowed, she has yet to cross the border), but, what you are doing, to me, looks no better, and maybe even worse.
Much research has been done on this subject.
What is happening now is, I believe, a concerted effort to twist the facts so they appear to abe something else. We are all so ready to belief a negative and for sure it is one of the hardest things to rebuff. If a man's/woman's words, behavior, etc. cannot, with your logic, ever be taken at face value what is there left.? Everyone can lie does not mean everyone is lying. I suspect with so much digging the lies will surface sooner of later.
Borack was brought up with a mothr that felt he should be exposed to all there is - especially in religion. It was up to him to choose his path when he had all the information. Since I believe she was an athiest I commend her for this course of action. Does all this brouhaha mean only only who have their faith chosen for them at birth, and do not deviate from that with any further quest, are able to be trusted. Nonsense - conversions are all around us.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
