RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Hillary in 2008

he's a muslim.

One of the worst answers of the night at the YouTube/CNN debate was when Hillary Clinton answered a question on why she sent Chelsea to a private school rather than a public one in DC:

• CLINTON: And Chelsea went to public schools, kindergarten through eighth grade, until we moved to Washington. And then I was advised, and it was, unfortunately, good advice, that if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone, because it’s a public school. So I had to make a very difficult decision.

I can think of any number of legitimate reasons for Hillary and Bill to have sent Chelsea to a private school. But unfettered press access isn't one of them. Hillary most assuredly knows that even a "public" school limits who can and cannot enter onto its grounds. And why didn't the "press" bother Chelsea when she was in public school in Little Rock?

I suspect what we are seeing here is the beginning of a new Hillary "talking point," namely that the media is "mean" to her. This will be her excuse to avoid all sorts of issues that a normal candidate might suffer, as well as her excuse to keep ducking tough questions by skipping serious news programs for fluff like Jay Leno.

Clinton has a recorded & well established history of being very protective when it comes to Chelsea & the press so her answer shouldn't be surprising. A private school probably did have better security 14 years ago.

I thought this was a particular good exchange on Clinton's part & strikes at the one thing I don't like about Obama. He just doesn't have the experience yet to be President.

Yeah, as opposed to the Hildebeast's experience which consists largely of fucking a guy who actually was president.




Yeah, because NOTHING says "protective" like being a CHILD ABUSER:




Yeah, that Hildebeast. She's mother of the year, all right. Oh well, at least her and Bill never cheated on each other...oh wait...never mind.

Try again, MEM. Check you in box maybe you'll find a better talking point from her list serve.

I think when you go overboard like this you're really working against yourself. That of course is just fine with me.

Funny. During the previous Clinton administration, they had no problem sending their secretary of state over to North Korea to meet with Kim Jong II



Man, they sure look chummy. I wonder how Albright kept her job in the Clinton administration if Hillary thought she was "irresponsible and frankly naive"?

And, in 1994, Bill Clinton had no problem meeting with the President of Syria.

Poor Bill. He must have gotten an earful from Hillary for HIS "irresponsible and frankly naive" actions that night.

If Hillary keeps this up even John Kerry will have to call her flip flopper.

Hillary was speaking about the President's role in diplomacy G-man. She said she wouldn't meet with certain people in her first year, Obama said he would. This was in response to very specific question posed. Neither were asked about how they would use their Secretary of State or who they would or wouldn't meet after their first year.

This was a major point of difference between the two candidates IMHO. While I like Obama, his answer showed that he's still just a bit to new.

The Clintons had no problem letting Chinese nationals stay in the Lincoln bedroom in exchange for political contributions either, allowing an enemy Chinese government to purchase political favors that undermined U.S. national security, allowing commercial satellites to be launched by U.S. companies inside China. And despite warnings, the Clintons had a contempt for U.S. security, that allowed the Chinese to steal missile technology, and now China has ICBM missiles that can reach any city in the United States.

The Clintons also didn't see it as naive to make a deal with the North Koreans, to provide them with a billion dollars worth of free energy every year in exchange for scout's-honor promises the N. Koreans would stop developing nukes, but required no verification that they were not developing nuclear weapons capability.
And of course 10 years later when the nuclear fruit of this naivete emerged, their first impulse was to blame North Korea's acquiring of nukes on the Bush administration that inherited their bad diplomacy.

To say nothing of the Clintons' not taking a tougher stance against islamic terrorism, and not doing more to help and promote democratic forces in Russia and its former republics, which have now largely reverted to autocratic states.


I would argue that the Clintons' willingness to give away freebies to hostile nations, and posture militarily without real action(especially in 1998, after the African embassy bombings), is more proven to be naive and disastrous policy.

On Charlie Rose last night, Democrat political campaign strategist Bob Schrum (partly quoting Bob Dole) described Hillary Clinton's campaign as "building a bridge to the past", alluding to Hillary promoting her connection and experience with former president Bill Clinton (and also alluding to an ironic contrast with Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign catch phrase "building a bridge to the future".)

He described Barack Obama as having the political advantage over Hillary, in a campaign where voters are increasingly independent-minded, and opposed to the old order. He described Hillary as being the old order that voters want a change from.

He described John McCain as a maverick who would have had a shot, if he had campaigned the same way he did in 2000. But he described McCain as embracing the mainstream in the last 7 years and becoming and campaigning as George W. Bush, which has destroyed his outsider appeal to voters.

In Schrum's evaluation McCain became the old order.

But "Hillary Clinton is the old order."

And that if Obama can continue to raise funding at the pace that he has, he will become the Democrat candidate.

You can go back and spotlight what you feel were mistakes when Bill Clinton was President but who gave the best answer, Hillary or Obama? Would you prefer a President meeting all the dictators in their first year?

Obama is a fucking moron for sayiung that stuff....he's trying to put political spin on his answers now. I prefer Hilary over Obama.

I'd prefer a Republican.

Romney is actually the one I favor most at this point. He favors enforcing the existing immigration laws, and securing our borders.

But Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, on the total opposite end of the spectrum, both voted amnesty for illegals in the recently defeated immigration bill.
And if given presidential power, both would completely sell out this country to illegals, and would allow a radical change for the worse, that would allow, and is already allowing, a spike in crime, drugs, illegals crowding our prisons, welfare, cheap labor continuing to drive down wages, and even potentially threatening the sovereignty of the United States, through the high ratio of Mexicans moving to the southwest, with notions of "reconquista" and "La Raza", in such numbers that we assimilate to their culture, instead of them to ours.

Hillary, and supporters like MEM, want to have it both ways. They tell us that Hillary will return us to the "glory days" of the former Clinton administration. They tout Hillary's experience as a "hands on" first lady, and want us to believe that a "vote for Hillary=a vote for Bill."

However, as soon as we point out mistakes, or worse, made by Bill's administration, the talking point reverses and we are told that Hillary as President won't do the same things as Bill and won't be "a bridge to the past."

Maybe it'd be "A Bridge too far" or a "Bridge over the River Kwai".

So which answer did you like G-man between Hillary & Obama? I would think you would prefer Hillary's but guess that because it's Hillary you just go negative.

I don't expect Republicans to support either candidate but I would hope you could at least give her credit when she's right.

Well when THAT happens shoot me a memo for sure!

Given the record of the previous Clinton administration in doing exactly what she is attacking Obama for advocating, I can't help but believe her statements are just her trying to appear "moderate." I would much rather judge someone on their record, and not a politically calculated soundbite.

Here's a bit of her actual record...
USA Today

Regarding healthcare being an issue of "great concern" for Hillary Clinton, you do remember the fiasco of her attempt to secretively create a national healthcare system, and then with little introduction of it, to suddenly impose it on the American public? It went down in flames.

I remember at one point, that pillar of conservative propaganda known as the New York Times ran a full-page ad in their paper with the names of all the people working on Hillary's national health care plan, that basically said: Here are the names we know from Hillary Clinton's health care program. We don't know who these people are. If you know them please call us at the New York Times and tell us what you know.
It was like the ultra-secret inner-circle of the Soviet Politburo, where they could only be identified and tracked down through the occasional crowd photograph taken of them.

Bill Clinton was the darling of the media, largely because he made himself so available to the media. Hillary seems a bit more clandestine and less media- friendly.



It was bad (i.e., naive) negotiations by the Clinton administration in 1994 that gave a billion U.S. dollars annually in free energy to the North Koreans, and yet required no verification they weren't continuing to develop nukes, that allowed N.Korea to build nukes for 8 years, and have their first nukes completed 11 months into George W. Bush's presidency.
Clinton: 8 years
W.Bush: 11 months

But yeah, sure, it's Bush's fault.




I'll grant Hillary this: She's been a military hawk.

I've thought that, because she's been an ultra-liberal for 35 years, Hillary Clinton as Senator has only been so pro-military because she needed to build credibility as a moderate, or risk being dismissed by voters as another pacifist liberal in the same cast as Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. She needs military credibility to be a viable candidate.
I always felt she would revert to her liberal/pacifist tendencies if she ever managed to become president.

But regardless of her motives, she has largely been voting pro-military as a Senator. The exception being her recent advocacy of Iraq withdrawal. But she waited as long as possible to support withdrawal.

And at this point, she has to support withdrawal to get the Democrat base, or she will lose the nomination. It's the same trap that John Kerry was in, competing in primaries against Howard Dean. And Hillary's switch, from supporting Iraq invasion, to now supporting withdrawal, opens her up to accusations of flip-flopping and political pandering.

The insurance industry & Republicans were against Clinton's health care plan so it probably would have been a good deal for the country. Certainly better than the drug benefit Republicans got passed when they were in power that the insurance companies like.

Beyond Bush & his core, very few I know of have the same stance on Iraq that they did at the beginning. I very much doubt that the bulk of the Republican party will be where they were at as we head into the 2008 election. The GOP call to surrender thread already shows the start of the party bailling out of the Bush boat in an effort to control the upcoming losses they'll take in '08.

I think it's more likely that it will be your Republican candidates who will flip after they win the GOP primary in an effort to win the big election.

RAW
Early polling so far that I've seen have them running close to each other so it will be interesting if future polls show Clinton pulling ahead like this one.

Early on, polls had Dukakis with an 18-point lead in 1988 over Bush Sr.

But it didn't mean much on election day. A lot can happen in 18 months.

This just in: Hillary's campaign is outraged at being called "Bush-Cheney lite" but has absolutely no problem with being ideologically compared to Karl Marx.

The e-mail refers to both references as "attacks" so it's really unfair to say there is absolutley no problem with being compared to Marx.

well Marx was just a guy with a philosophy. it's the people who followed up on that philosophy that caused the problems. Bush and Cheney however have started illegal wars that have killed hundreds of thousands, created a record deficit, shot old men in the face and then made the victim apologize, used bigotry and oppression and lies to win elections, and made America into a distrusted country in the eyes of the world.

it doesn't count as a clever quip if you just cut and paste. I mean had you made the joke once, sure. But just telling it over and over again until you get some sort of pity laugh is just pathetic.

If G-man wants to continue this, I'll start doing similar to some threads that he likes.

I would think you would be thrilled that thread called "Hillary in 08" keeps getting bumped to the top without someone changing the title or saying something negative about her.

But, hey, if you want to bump a thread called "Rudy in 08" or "Fred Thompson in 08" up to the top with Ray's quote, and without changing the thread title to something negative about them, be my guest.

Actually I would prefer more debate & discussion then a topic being spammed.

I'm not sure how pointing out Ray's admission that his posts are a waste of space is "spamming."

Is it your position that repetitive arguments are "spam?"

Fine, I'll just use something you said & keep posting that quote in the middle of topics that interests you.

USATODAY