This is too funny. Geez Max, what are you like, 16?!?! Don't you know that since she travelled to other countries and met former leaders more than 8 years ago, she is more equipped to answer 3 a.m. whitehouse phone calls?!?!
I'm no fan of Hillary's but I don't believe anything coming out of Dick Morris' mouth. The guy has spread so many lies about the Clintons that its ridiculous. Sometimes he throws in nuggets of truth though, as well. But I can never trust him.
The Clintons never refute what he has to say, and he was not just a casual observer. He was neck deep in the Clinton White House. Were you? Is that how you know he is "lying?"
The Clintons don't pay any attention to him whatsoever. I know he's lying because he'll claim things, and then facts brought out by third parties show he wasn't telling the truth. This is just one tiny sample But a better and more thurough read on the subject comes from here. So Morris exaggerates his own involvement with the Clinton's and simply can't be trusted on much that he says on the matter.
That is so thin. Give me proof -- not fanciful postulation. Morris' observations are telling -- why won't Hillary release her tax returns, for example, showing where they got their new found wealth? Books didn't do it all.
<embed src="http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/clintoncallin0229.mp3" width="400" autostart="false"></embed> http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/pregnant_pause.html np
ymc, I am almost certain MM has a JD. That means he is not only grown up, but he is also a doctor of law.
You're not sure how old I am?? I'm 33. Does my argument have more or less credibility now? Who you know only matters if the who likes you. That she travelled with her husband 8 years ago is of little relevance to me. She's playing an experience card...experience she doesn't have.
I been saying this forever that she is riding her husbands name all the way to the white house. Clinton scandal part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIf84llCRPc Clinton scandal part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGrDWQoUpsg&feature=related
Another plus for Hillary is that while she won't publicly say it, we all know we are getting a package deal that includes Bill. Bill will likely come in handy in any foreign policy situations.
Let's cut the crap. He's never been above 'politics as usual' in his campaign. He's just been very good at it. Much of his campaign has been a character assassination of Sen Clinton, and Democrat discussions have taken the talking points from AM radio, and wrapped them up with a 'hope' ribbon to disguise their true form. Sen Clinton did not run Iraq, nor has she been in the whitehouse for the past 8 years. He's capitalized on what he characterizes as a collosal error in voting for Iran -- yet he missed that very vote. The Clinton years were not quite as bad as Rush Limbough would have you believe. You do not have to go back the glory years of Regan (?!) [or, I suppose, Carter (??!!) if you're a democrat] to see competence in the White House. McCain has not said Iraq would continue in it's current form for 100 years. Neither McCain, nor Clinton are a continuation of GWB -- who deserves his own special place at the table of shame. Universal healthcare is not Manditory Healthcare, and no-one would have been forced to buy healthcare they could not afford unless he was recognizing that under his plan healthcare would remain unaffordable (there was no discussion that his optional plan would result in universally cheaper rates). He's been an active participant in the 'she cried for sympathy -- or maybe she's weak -- line of nonesense that blew up over an incident that didn't warrant mentioning nor would have even been noticed if there wasn't 24 hour news and cazillions of blogs to fill. Only one candidate has suggested his supporters would not vote Democrat if he wasn't nominated. But it's Sen Clinton who's running the scorched earth / divisive campaign?? Sen Clinton is both inexperienced, and a continuation of the past? The MLK comments were levered to their absolute distorted limit. And now he's calling out the media over giving Sen Clinton a free ride -- when really, he's had it pretty good over the last few months. We've had threads on each of these points, so I really don't want to go into them again. Just pointing out that he's been pretty effective magnifying distortions, mischaracterizations and 'politics as usual' over the last few months. He's certainly not been alone. Sen Clinton's NAFTA comments pretty much define politcal granstanding and hypocracy -- but he's been playing the game -- and playing it very well -- for quite a while already. And....so it continues... [/rant].
I don't really think that criticizing Hillary's stances on IRaq is character assassination. It is issues based, just as Hillary's attacks about healthcare are. Both of those seem fine, and not character assassination to me. Obama did miss the vote on Iran, but it is far better to not vote than to repeat the same exact mistake she made with Iraq, and so I think criticizing her vote on the issue is a valid issues related point to make, and isn't mudslinging or character assassination. Obama is guilty of going into mudslinging when he argued about her WalMart connections. That was his worst moment. But only Hillary's campaign started two websites with expressed intent of going negative on Obama. Only Hillary's campaign sent letters out criticizing Obama and tried to make it look like they came from John Edwards. While Obama didn't need to point out the media's treatment of Hillary it is accurate that if he'd lost as many contests as she had, they wouldn't be talking about him having a legitimate shot, the way they have with Hillary. Hillary whined about media coverage and it seems to have worked. I don't have a real problem with pointing that out. That's kind of a grey area. It isn't about the issues, but it isn't really character assassination either.
This is politics folks, things don't have to be true, they only have to be heard. Check the D & D for reference.
Sure. 1. Saying the Clintons "injecting race" into the election is positive issue-based change 2. Saying the Clintons "belittling MLK" is positive issue-based change 3. Emails circling around telling you how Clinton will forcefully take away your salary for people can't afford healthcare is positive issue-based change 4. Having his lawyer crashing Clinton's call conference is positive issue-based change 5. Lying about the meeting with Canadian regarding NAFTA is positive issue-based change 6. "Accidentally" missing voting with Iran resolution and accusing Clinton's vote is positive issue-based change 7. Intentionally misleading voters regarding "voting against the war" while he wasn't even near Senate floor is positive issue-based change Some things are not done by himself, and he can always blame others to do the dirty job for him. It doesn't hurt having CNN contributor saying on TV with straight face that "the Clintons can never be trusted". It doesn't hurt having analysts lined up in CNN and MSNBC mentioning how "negative" Clinton is 30 times every 5 minutes. Yeah, he's running a positive campaign, with brand new politics. It's in the eyes of beholders. He's also the lawyer had bunch of lawyers lined up behind him to knock out every single opponent in an election, so that he could run a positive clean opponent-less campaign.
FB: I said I wouldn't....but what the heck... The Iraq posturing is actually the one that gets me most. Probably because I believe the greatest blundering is how the war has been mismanaged (IMO) rather then US involvement itself. I was against the involvement from the start -- but this wasn't the first time I've been at odds with US foreign policy. Sen Clinton did not authorize the war. Congress did. She voted in favor of allowing it as an option-- as did Biden and Edwards. I suppose they're off the VP list now? Sen Clinton did not decide to act on that option. That was GWB. Sen Clinton did not decide when to march into IRaq. THat was GWB. Sen CLinton did not run the war. That was Halliburton . On Iran..... I guess we differ in that I prefer leaders to take a stance -- even if I disagree with that stance. I am also somewhat receptive to the 'if you don't vote -- ya' got less of reason to complain' line of reasoning. I appreciate that campaigning senators miss a lot of votes -- but this one has been pretty central to his campaing. At least she showed up. On the vote itself....again....I understand the reasoning behind making a hard line option available. I'm not sure I agree with the vote -- but I do respect that it was a gutsy one to cast in that it openned her up for criticism from the anti-war crowd. It would have been a lot easier to just miss that one. I think he has distorted that fact pattern to suggest she would have, or will, conduct foreign policy like GWB has. In fact -- I think it's been a focus of his campaign to connect her to the GWB regime. That's really the only point I'm trying to make. That his campaign has been very similar to other's in finding hooks that work -- whether truthful or not -- and expoiting them for max effect. I think the HRD/GWB connect has been particularly effective. I expect we'll hear a lot about 100 years in Iraq when he's up against McCain. Regardless of what McCain's point was in making that comment. So this idea that he's been running a squeaky clean campaing devoid of political distortions just doesn't wash with me. In no way am I defending much of what she has done. Pillow talk with Hillary at 3am is a bit of a turn off for me too. Oh....and the media always talks up a contest. If he had lost as many in a row as she had, you better believe they would still be saying he had a chance. What else would they write about?
