Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Hillary Clinton's pro's outweigh her cons. She's smart & well spoken & is moderate. Clinton's already been in the White House & has been a popular senator. My feeling is that the folks that hate her would never ever vote for a Democrat anyway.

---

Quote:

---

I've always dislike Clinton because of her far-left beliefs and the fact that she has always seemed (to me) to be out of touch with regular Americans.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I don't understand how any Republican can say much after Bush's recent payout to insurance companies. Do they ever stop to think how many more are not only uninsured but have slipped into poverty during Bush's terms?

---

Quote:

---

...
The four-year increase in poverty under President Bush is the worst since his father was in office. The poverty rate rose for five years from 1989 to 1993, as it had from 1979 to 1983.

---

Quote:

---

Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003
NewsMax Wires
Friday, Aug. 27, 2004
WASHINGTON - The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.
It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush....

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
OK, but have you heard the statistics of how "poor" the poor really are. I mean the average TVs per household is 5 a majority of the "poor" have extended cable or satalite TV a third of the poor have MORTGAGES and at least 2 cars. Frankly the poor in our country live pretty well.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
OK, but have you heard the statistics of how "poor" the poor really are. I mean the average TVs per household is 5 a majority of the "poor" have extended cable or satalite TV a third of the poor have MORTGAGES and at least 2 cars. Frankly the poor in our country live pretty well.

---

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
Well the question of whether it's 'bad' or not isn't really up to us, is it? I'm really glad you've nailed down the probable cause, though.

---

Quote:

---

Relative measures of poverty

Another way of looking at poverty is in relative terms. Relative poverty" can be defined as having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society. In 1999, the income of a family at the poverty line was $17,020. This was 28.49 % of the median income in the U.S. In 1959 a family at the poverty line had an income that was 42.64 % of the median income. Thus a poor family in 1999 had relatively less income than a poor family in 1959.

---

Quote:

---

Food security

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7 % in 2001 to 11.1 % in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3 % to 3.5 %. This report, based on data from the December 2002 food security survey, provides statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

As it stands now a person is poor if they dip below $9,570 a year. Does that seem like a comfortable amount to anyone?

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Getting back to the topic of Hillary Clinton, I can't help but notice a trend of front page stories where some Republican like the RNC chairman declares Hillary as being angry or Laura Bush saying she's out of bounds. Is it really surprising that major GOPers have negative opinions about her that it should be major news? Might I suggest that their novice psychoanalyzing could be a wee bit biased?

---

Quote:

---

Having a bought & paid for whore of the Republican party talking about Hillary's tone isn't/shouldn't be front page news.

---

Sure, MEM. And all those early stories about Dean being angry were "repubublican spin" too..until he imploded and took his campaign with him.

But who am I to tell the democrats how to run their campaign? After all, they've done such a good job of things lately.

So keep pushing this:



...as the new face of "moderation." I'm sure it will pay off for your party just as well as pretending no one would think Kerry was haughty or Gore stiff did.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

---

AAAAAAHHHHHH!

I'mma have nightmares for MONTHS!

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

---

Quote:

---

PCG342 said:

AAAAAAHHHHHH!

I'mma have nightmares for MONTHS!

---

I gotta admit, the last time I saw this face:



... it had just finished telling Jodie Foster how " a census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti"

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:more people in poverty...If Bush's economic policies worked like Clinton's I would vote Republican more often.

---

I've noticed you've started hitting this "more people in poverty" phrase a lot. While I realize you're only parroting some talking point, you might want to stop throwing it around so much, especially in the context of compariing President Bush to President Clinton...

According to census data, the 2004 poverty rate (the last year they provide data for and the highest year under Bush) was 12.7%.

That's the same as the Clinton year 1998. It's lower than the Clinton years 1992-1997. And only slightly above the Clinton years 1997-2000.

In other words...the highest poverty rate under Bush is approximately the same or lower than the rate under the Clinton presidency...the last presidency where, you say, a president's economic policies "worked."

Furthermore, when you look at the average poverty rate under Bush, it is only 12.2%

The average poverty rate under Clinton was 15.1%, or almost three percent higher.

So, in fact, on average, there were more people in poverty under Clinton than Bush.

Care to tell us again, using your own measurement (more or less people in poverty) how well the Clinton policies "worked"?

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
..
Care to tell us again, using your own measurement (more or less people in poverty) how well the Clinton policies "worked"?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
You can't have it both ways.

If, as you say, the percentage of people in poverty is a benchmark of how economic policies work, then Clinton's high poverty rate means his policies didn't work.

And, while the poverty rate may have risen under Bush, his highest isn't as bad as Clinton's highest, and is only about the same as Clinton's lowest.

In other words, using your own measuring device, the best Clinton could do is about the same as Bush's worst.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
This is the point where you cut and paste a Media Matters article isn't it?

---

No I think I made it clear in how you were using the numbers. Clinton lowered the poverty rate every year while Bush has increased the poverty rate. He may very well leave office with the poverty rate being about where it was when his father left. All the gains under Clinton lost. Guess that would be a sort of victory for you

BTW, can't remember using Media Matters lately & not quite sure why you & WBAM keep bringing up this great website. Thanks for reminding me though, it is a nice resource.

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
normal people might be willing to at least give her or any other Dem a chance.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Why would she go left? Hillary I'm guessing could probably get through the primary just fine without appealing to the Sheehan crowd. And if they want another Bush in 2008 they can vote third party.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Sheehan publicly attacked Hillary Clinton for her vote in support of the Iraq war. Since then, Clinton, crisscrossing the country in support of her 2008 presidential ambitions, has faced regular protests and even heckling from her own anti-war “base.”

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Hillary has a tendency to act angry or speak in a poorly modulated voice that conveys anger. Also, when she's not "on," she tends to get a real sour look on her face.

And, in fact, it appears that even Hillary realizes this.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:
Anger at the failures of Bush and the GOP will actually help connect more to disenfranchised folks.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
However, if you think back to 2004, that group was vocally against Kerry too. But as soon as he got the nomination, they supported him. Which helped make Kerry look weak on defense.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
If that group was significant enough to keep Clinton from winning the primaries it would be a problem for her. Even in the straw poll, Hillary received hundreds to somebody else's 9 votes. I also see an advantage later on in a presidential race for that group to be vocally against Clinton.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I see it as helping Clinton get votes from middle America. My opinion is that most people are sympathetic to Sheehan but wouldn't want her setting policy. So having Sheehan attack Clinton is a plus in my book. Also I think it's unlikely that Republicans will get to enjoy being a unified party like the last election themselves.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Since you believe tha base is unified (unlike the divided Republicans) Where exactly do Democrats stand on the war or even Impeachment for that matter? You wanna see Republican unity... just play teh impeachment / Cesure card.

---

Quote:

---

and the outdreak of civil war makes that a real longshot

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Sounds like someone got up on the bitchy side of the bed this morning...... n offense, dude*.






* When someone says "no offense" what they mean is that they are going to say something that will hopefully offend you.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
No offense, dude, but you're really no good at sarcasm. I think you need to get a new schtick.

Whatever happened to Howard Dean? Is he done?

---

Quote:

---

while I was being critical, I was trying to do it in a friendly fashion. I just don't think you pull of sarcasm very well. For one, you overuse it. You also do it waaaay too over the top. Then, of course, there's your spelling.

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Her opponents are assembling the circular firing squad to deal with this outrage. If you think the Iraq war has lost support now, think what it will be in 2008. The Dems are blameless in the whole affair. It was a Republican President and Congress that started it all. Barring a sudden victory on the ground, and the outdreak of civil war makes that a real longshot, the Repub nominee is going to be looking a lot like Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

I think Hillary's strategy is to sit back and let the right fuck itself. The Dems are blameless in the war.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
That read pretty much like a National Enquirer "news" article.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man HAD ALREADY said:
Perhaps this is more gossip than news

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I never said it was not true, only that the report seemed gossipy.

In fact, according to the most recent reports, Bill is now flip flopping on his support for the Dubai port deal, claiming, weeks after the fact, that the news reports were wrong.

This flip flop may be a mere coincidence, but the timing of it seems to confirm, at least superficially, that Hillary did get Veto power over his statements after all.

---

Quote:

---

Mr Clinton's spokesman said: "President Clinton is the former president of the US and as such receives many calls from world leaders and leading figures every week. About two weeks ago, the Dubai leaders called him and he suggested that they submit to the full and regular scrutiny process and that they should put maximum safeguards and security into any port proposal."

He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife's position on the deal and that "ideally" state-owned companies would not own US port operations.

---

MSNBC

This was from March 2nd so the timing isn't superficial. Your sources may want to do some fact checking

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
G-man perhaps you would like to comment how this is different than other candidates. Do you feel it's worse than say Bush having his campaigners get the names of entire church congregations?

---

Quote:

---

least-known but most common political fund-raising ploys

---

Quote:

---

...In fact, list brokerage is traditionally a right-wing stronghold, originating in evangelical Christian marketing of conservative causes.
...

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Hillary tries to shield "our children" from the video game plague

A year ago Hillary Clinton said the electronic entertainment kids enjoy is "a kind of contagion," a "silent epidemic" threatening "long-term public health damage to many, many children and therefore to society." Now she wants to find out if it's a problem.

This month a Senate committee approved a bill sponsored by the junior senator from New York that authorizes government-funded research on "the effects of viewing and using electronic media, including television, computers, video games, and the Internet, on children's cognitive, social, physical, and psychological development." Fittingly, since Clinton likens these diversions to a plague, the research would be overseen by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Last year Clinton claimed "we have this data that demonstrates there is a clear public health connection between exposure to [depictions of] violence and increased aggression." This year, explaining why she wants to spend taxpayers' money on more studies, she sounds less confident, saying "we need to better understand the effect of the constant barrage of media on our children."

Before a single CDC grantee has begun research to confirm there's a problem, Clinton already has proposed a solution: the Family Entertainment Protection Act (FEPA), which would make it a federal crime to sell anyone under the age of 17 video games with "mature" or "adults only" ratings. FEPA also would instruct the Federal Trade Commission to evaluate the industry's rating system, conduct secret annual audits of retailers, investigate "hidden" game content, and collect consumer complaints about ratings and content descriptions.

Upon introducing FEPA in December, Clinton and her co-sponsors claimed "parents are struggling to keep up with being informed about [video game] content." Yet all they have to do is look at the box or check titles at the Web site of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. Newer game systems even allow automatic blocking of titles with parent-specified ratings.

Thierer argues the threat of fines or criminal charges for failing to keep M-rated games away from minors could lead game developers to stop rating their products, in which case Congress would respond by establishing a mandatory government-run labeling system. Such content regulation would go even further than state laws restricting video games, all of which have been overturned on First Amendment grounds, largely because courts rejected Clinton's assertion of "a clear...connection" between video games and anti-social behavior.

Clinton complains that "young people are able to purchase [violent and sexually explicit] games with relative ease." While it's true retailers usually sell M-rated games to the FTC's 13-to-16-year-old "mystery shoppers," Thierer cites survey data indicating that "92 percent of the time parents are present when games are purchased or rented." Present or not, parents have the power of the purse strings, especially with products that cost $40 to $60 each.

As with sex and violence on television, which the mandatory but rarely used "V chip" was supposed to block, Clinton's real complaint is not that parents don't have the power they need. It's that they're not using it the way she thinks they should.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Well, maybe parents shouldn't bitch about the stuff their kids are seeing. No politician pulls an issue out of their ass, they hear from voters.
All this shit is due to whiny soccer moms who can't tell their kid not to get GTA, so they want the government to make it illegal for them to buy it.

---

Quote:

---

Sen. Clinton Says Bush Has Charm, Charisma

WASHINGTON - Asked to say one nice thing about President Bush, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton went one better: She named two things.

"He is someone who has a lot of charm and charisma, and I think in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I was very grateful to him for his support for New York," Clinton said Tuesday night during a talk at the National Archives about her life in politics.

Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said that despite their "many disagreements about many, many issues," she has always had a good personal relationship with the president.

"He's been very willing to talk. He's been affable. He's been good company," said Clinton, D-N.Y.

The junior senator from New York, who is up for re-election this year, said she is still thankful for Bush's personal commitment to helping rebuild lower Manhattan after Sept. 11, 2001.

She recalled how the president, in the grim days that followed the terror attacks, pledged in a private meeting with New York lawmakers to help rebuild the shattered city.

"It was a very personal, very emotional discussion and when we asked him for the help that New York needed he immediately said yes," said Clinton.

At that meeting, Bush pledged more than $20 billion in aid and tax incentives. Some New York Democrats have since charged the Bush administration has fallen billions of dollars short of that goal because some of the programs were underused, but Clinton said the president kept his promise.

"He always kept it on track," she said. "He made sure we got the resources that we needed and I'm very grateful to him for that. ... I am very appreciative in the time when the people I represented needed his help, he was there for us."

---

Quote:

---

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ON NET NEUTRALITY

Washington, DC – “I support net neutrality. The open architecture of the Internet has been the critical element that has made it the most revolutionary communications medium since the advent of the television.

Each day on the Internet views are discussed and debated in an open forum without fear of censorship or reprisal. The Internet as we know it does not discriminate among its users. It does not decide who can enter its marketplace and it does not pick which views can be heard and which ones silenced. It is the embodiment of the fundamental democratic principles upon which our nation has thrived for hundreds of years.

I have always, and will continue to strongly and unequivocally support these principles. As I have worked throughout my Senate career to make broadband access readily available throughout New York State and our nation, I believe that maintaining an open Internet coupled with more broadband access is necessary if we are to meet the promise and the potential of the Internet to disseminate ideas and information, enhance learning, education and business opportunities for all Americans and improve and uplift our citizenry.

We must embrace an open and non-discriminatory framework for the Internet of the 21st century. Therefore, it is my intention to be an original cosponsor of the Dorgan and Snowe net neutrality legislation to ensure that open, unimpaired and unencumbered Internet access for both its users and content providers is preserved as Congress debates the overhaul of our nation’s telecommunications laws. Any effort to fundamentally alter the inherently democratic structure of the Internet must be rejected.

---

Quote:

---

Hailing Gore a 'committed visionary,' Clinton unveils plan to reduce oil imports by 50%

In an appearance before the National Press Club today, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) called for a reduction of U.S. oil imports of 50% by 2025, RAW STORY has learned.

The remarks include Clinton's strongest language yet on the topics of oil dependence and climate change. As inspiration, Clinton even inserted a plug for Al Gore's new documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," proclaiming the former Vice President as a "committed visionary" on the subject of global warming.

To back this push, Clinton called for the creation of a "Strategic Energy Fund," which would place a two year fee on major oil company profits that exceed a 2000-2004 profit baseline. Companies could offset their fee by investing in refinery capacity, ethanol production, or alternative energy such as wind-generated electricity. The proposal also eliminates oil company tax breaks and calls on companies to pay what Clinton calls their "fair share" of royalties for drilling on public lands.

Clinton's office believes the fund could would raise more than $50 billion for research, development and deployment of new energy technologies. Targeted technologies include hybrid and alternative vehicles, renewable energy, biofuels, and supporting infrastructure.
...

---

Quote:

---

Hillary Clinton Calls Commentator Ann Coulter 9/11 Remarks 'Vicious, Mean-Spirited'

WASHINGTON Jun 7, 2006 (AP)— New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton accused commentator Ann Coulter of making a "vicious, mean-spirited attack" on outspoken 9/11 widows whom the television pundit described as "self-obsessed" and enjoying their husbands' deaths.
Coulter writes in a new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."
She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Clinton, who has felt Coulter's criticism over the years, responded on Wednesday.
"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,'" the senator said. "I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened."
The New York Democrat and former first lady said she found it "unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country."
New York's Republican Gov. George Pataki also voiced anger and surprise at Coulter's words.
"I was really stunned and I don't think it's at all fair or accurate," Pataki said Wednesday in New York.
"I have spoken with many, many grieving family members and the hurt is real, the pain is real, the suffering four and a half years later has not lessened to any appreciable degree," he said.
...

---

Quote:

---

Actually this is a pretty classy reply to Bush's Chertoff cutting NYC funding by 40% because ... New York has no landmarks?!?
Quote:------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton, GOP Congressman to Chertoff: 'Wish you were here'

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, are responding to a Department of Homeland Security claim that New York City has no "national landmarks and icons" by sending DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff postcards of famous New York sights, RAW STORY has learned.

New York City is home to the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, Brooklyn Bridge, Times Square, Broadway, the Guggenheim, New York Stock Exchange, United Nations, Rockefeller Center, and a host of other world-famous landmarks. The equally famous, now-lost World Trade Center was the site of the bloodiest terror or foreign attack ever on US soil.

The DHS assessment, in which it further found that New York contained just four sites of national interest, was reported by ABC News after the department decided to slash the amount of homeland security funds that the city would receive by 40%.

The postcards that Senator Clinton and Congressman King have sent to Secretary Chertoff can be viewed on Clinton's website. The Senator and Congressman are also encouraging New Yorkers to send postcards to Chertoff themselves.

Earlier today, Clinton, mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly all went on record blasting the process used to determine NYC's relevance.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Too bad...voting for Hillary would help create a dynasty and we all know you're against those.

---

Quote:

---

the G-ham said:...
...
PS--You seem to forget that, in the original "go to hell Hillary" post your whining about, I said it was a joke and then went on to more or less agree with her point.

---

Didn't forget nor whined just noted. Like WBAM, your inserting emotion that just isn't there. I like to joke every once in a while myself

Quote:

---

June 08, 2006
Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls
More Americans say they want to see Clinton elected president in 2008
...

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
The content you are attempting to access is only available to Gallup Poll On Demand subscribers. Please log in to read the full article.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:...
I can't see the entire article you cited because of the above, but unless the poll was actually about which candidates are "loved" or "unloved," your claim "we love hillary" is not supported by the polling data.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Thanks for not hijacking the thread again with you pointless flame war with WBAM, Ray. Uh, I mean, Pro.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Read my comment at the end. It is a followup to a point I've made in the past. Is Hillary in danger of alienating the democratic base of angry desperate liberals by cozying up to "right wing" policies and figures such as Murdoch?

---

Quote:

---

Sen. Clinton Says Rumsfeld Should ResignAP
WASHINGTON Aug 3, 2006 (AP)— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign, hours after excoriating him at a public hearing over what she called "failed policy" in Iraq.

"I just don't understand why we can't get new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late," the New York Democrat and potential 2008 presidential contender said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think the president should choose to accept Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation."

"The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people," she said. "It's time for him to step down and be replaced by someone who can develop an effective strategy and communicate it effectively to the American people and to the world."
...

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I don't agree with the political motivations you accuse & assign to Hillary Wonder Boy. It boils down to she was in the right & the person you should be questioning is our leader. Why is the President keeping Rumsfeld in place?

---

Quote:

---

W B said:

Hilary's actions are based on political expediency, not principle.

She's seen how support of the war has put Sen Joseph Lieberman's re-election in serious jeapordy.
And so she's setting aside the best interest of the nation, and taking up the mantle of the Angry anti-American Left, and begun mouthing liberal rhetoric that bemoans failure, but offers no alternatives, in order to suck up to her Democrat voter-base, and remain a potential nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

Just like Kerry before her, I might add. Who took on Howard Dean's angry rhetoric, to steal Dean's thunder and get the 2004 nomination. We all know how well that served Kerry.

---

Quote:

---

M E M said:
You also take Clinton for task for not giving any alternatives but realistically if she suggested any replacements like you did it would pretty much guarentee them getting torpedoed.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:...

I find Hilary Clinton's timing for such a 180-degree shift to be just too coincidental.
A week ago, Lieberman was projected to win his re-election primary. Hilary still supported the war unwaveringly.
Now, 7 days later, Lieberman has been alienated by the Angry Left and is projected to lose. The message is clear: Democrats will bitterly oppose even their most favored, who dare to support the war. And what a surprise, Sen. Clinton suddenly abandons her principles and condemns the war.

It's way too coincidental to be anything else.

---

Quote:

---

page 31:

In the 1960's both a student rebellion and a cultural revolution rolled over campuses. When the rebels graduated, got jobs, and got married, they ceased to be rebels, taking their place in the country of their parents and voting for Ronald Reagan; though it took some --our president [George W. Bush] comes to mind-- perhaps longer than others to "break away".

The sixties rebels, however, were not revolutionaries. Converts to the revolution came to college thinking and believing one way, and left thinking and believing an entirely different way, that changed their whole lives. Hillary Rodham, the Goldwater Girl who came to Wellesley in 1965 and left as a social radical in 1969, with new values, a new moral code, and a steely resolve to change the [according to her liberal indoctrination] corrupt society in which she'd been raised, is as good an example of the revolutionary as Bush is of the rebel.

The cultural revolution that swept America's campuses was a true revolution. In a third of a century [since 1965] the Judeo-Christian moral order it defied has been rejected by millions. Its hostility to Ozzie-and-Harriet America has been internalized by our cultural elites, and through their domination of our opinion and value-shaping institutions --film, TV, the theater, magazines, music-- these evangelists of revolution have spread their gospel all over the world and converted scores of millions.

---

Quote:

---

page 45:

When America's most public lesbian couple, actresses Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres broke up, the president of the United States called to offer his sympathy.
Hillary Clinton became the first First Lady to march in the New York City gay pride parade. Did the New York Times, the good Gray Lady of Forty-third Street, editorially question the wisdom of America's First Lady parading with drag queens and men in thongs?
Not at all.
As Times national political correspondent Richard Berke told colleagues at the tenth-anniversary reception of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association:
"Three quarters of the people who decide what goes on the front page [of the Times] are 'not-so-closeted homosexuals' ".

Nine months after marching for gay pride, Mrs Clinton refused to march in the 240th St. Patrick's Day parade, once a must for all New York City politicians. The Ancient Order of Hibernians, the fraternal Roman Catholic group that runs the parade, does not permit the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization to march as a unit; and Mrs. Clinton had been chastised by gay rights groups for marching on St. Patrick's Day in 2000.
That Senator Clinton would appease the homosexuals, even if it meant affronting Irish Catholics, testifies to the new balance of power in the Democratic party, and the new correlation of forces in the culture war.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
As a Dem operative, MEM is most likely simply parroting the talking points his superiors have given him.

The current talking point is that Hillary is a moderate. She is playing the same "triangulation" game that her husband played in 92.

---

This coming from the fellow who's given us such mature titles like "Hildebeast 08" & "Go to hell, Hillary". I suppose what you lack in credibility you make up for in repetition so I should take you serious for a second.

Unlike some people, I can recognize when somebody from the Republican party is moderate on issues in general. I've said more than a couple of times that I like McCain & while I'm not a Rudy G. fan I do acknowledge that he's pretty moderate. Just because we're coming up on '08 I still see where their at on the issues.

Quote:

---

 Clinton on Cheney: 'I don't take anything he says seriously anymore'

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has said she no longer "takes seriously" statements made by Vice President Dick Cheney, RAW STORY has learned.

At campaign stops in the New York City area yesterday, Clinton addressed the alleged terrorist plot disrupted by British authorities, noting that the impact of the plot could have hit New York even harder than those of September 11, 2001.

“We appreciate the swift action by the British," Clinton noted, "because the plot centered on airlines flying between Britain and the United States, which obviously means between Heathrow and JFK, between Heathrow and Newark."

The Senator has used the unraveling of the London terror plot as evidence of need for more threat-based anti-terror funding.


Clinton continued her comments on the subject by denouncing the "perverted philosophy" of Osama bin Laden--before tearing into the Vice President for recent comments about the Connecticut Democratic primaries.

"I don't take anything he says seriously anymore," Clinton said when asked about Cheney at a later campaign stop. "I think that he has been a very counterproductive--even destructive--force in our country, and I am very disheartened by the failure of leadership from the President and Vice President."

In a conference call with reporters Wednesday night, Cheney implied that US Senator Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) loss to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont was a victory for "al Qaeda types."

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
HILL'S 'PREZ' MAN

Former Democratic Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe will run Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign if she runs for the White House, it was reported yesterday.

McAuliffe told The Hill newspaper that he would play a "huge role" in any presidential run, if it materializes, but said Clinton had not made a decision.

More on McAuliffe here and here.

---

did you link to a message board to prove your point?

in that case.
Hey, Rob!!! Look at your mods, one is a closet pedophile. Here's my proof .

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Did you notice that the "message board" had reprinted articles from an actual newspaper?

---

Quote:

---

You're just cranky today because I kidded you about getting all your news from "youtube".

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:
i don't have cable, some weird thing about my building. all i can get my news from is newspaper, internet, and looking for segments from cable news shows on youtube.
its not like the youtube posters are making up the segments, just uploading them.
why would i be offended?

---

Quote:

---

Clinton, Gingrich both defend the pope
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
September 19, 2006, 7:13 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, longtime foes in American politics, forcefully defended Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday against a wave of Muslim criticism over a speech last week.
When asked about the controversy prior to her speech at an American Cancer Society event, Clinton, D-N.Y., said the pope's follow-up statement should have been enough to settle the matter.
"It's just outrageous and offensive that people would be threatening violence against him based on what he said, especially when there is so much they should be working on together," Clinton said.
The former first lady has a huge lead in her Senate re-election bid this year. Her opponent, Republican John Spencer, had criticized her Tuesday for not speaking out in the pope's defense.
After appearing onstage with Clinton at the cancer event, Gingrich was even more outspoken about the religious tension.
"I think what he said in his entire speech ... is that Islam has to come to grips with having a genuine dialogue of mutual respect," said Gingrich, a Georgia Republican when he was in the House. "Everything you've seen of the viciousness and the evil that has been said since then by fanatics reinforces the pope's speech."
Both Clinton and Gingrich, who as House speaker sparred for years with President Clinton, are considered potential presidential candidates in 2008.
..

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Good for her... she'd still make a shitty president though.

---

Quote:

---

CBS Poll On Hillary Clinton
Thursday, September 28, 2006 06:00 PM - CBS News/WBEN Newsroom

CBS News-CBS News conducted a poll of registered New York State voters on Senator Hillary Clinton's political plans.  The poll was conducted between September 24th and 27th, 2006. 
 
New York’s Senator Hillary Clinton may have more on her mind than just her race for re-election to the Senate in November.   At least that’s what her constituents believe – not that it’s going to affect their vote in November.  And if she did face off against another famous New Yorker in 2008, she might be in a position to carry the state. 
 
62% of New York State voters believe Senator Clinton will run for President in 2008.  28% think she won’t.  Most Republicans and Democrats agree on this. 
 
           WILL HILLARY CLINTON RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008?
                      Among registered voters
                           Yes        62%
                           No         28
 
The possibility of Senator Clinton not completing a possible second term doesn’t bother New Yorkers – the vast majority of voters (77%) say it won’t make any difference in their vote for Senate this Fall.
 
And New York voters think Clinton would be a pretty good President, if elected.  About six in ten think she has the right experience to be a good President, and that she’d be an effective President.   
 
           WOULD HILLARY CLINTON BE AN EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT?
                Among registered voters
                     Yes        59%
                     No         33
 
But New Yorkers divide on whether she should run for President in 2008.   Overall, 49% say she should, 44% say she should not.  Registered voters in the state are also divided, with 50% saying she should not run. 
 
There’s only one other New York politician a sizable number of New York residents think should run for president in 2008 - and that’s former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.  Only one in four in the state think retiring Governor George Pataki should run, and even fewer think New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg should run, although there has been speculation about both.
 
 
           NEW YORKERS’ VIEW – SHOULD THEY RUN IN 2008?
                Clinton              49%
                Giuliani             44%
                Pataki               26%
                Bloomberg            21%
...

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
I still say Rice for 2008!

---

We're agreement! It's the end of the world! The Beast is comming, and his number is 613!

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
...you didn't speculate but flat out said the Clinton's were doing it.

---