Why Is It Hillary Clinton's Turn?

[Sid]

Is it possible for Hillary Clinton to separate herself from her infamous husband and now claim center stage for herself? America was told it was getting two for the price of one, when Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1993. If Bill and Hillary were truly co-presidents for eight years, why then, does Hillary even deserve her own personal presidency?

The question is whether anyone knows the real Hillary Rodham Clinton. Is she the feminist who refused to take her husband’s name until it became apparent the down-to-Earth folks in Arkansas wouldn’t understand if she didn’t?

The fact that Hillary is a woman is not a factor. America may be ready for a woman in the oval office but Hillary Rodham Clinton is not that woman. She does not have the leadership qualities required for the job. Her baggage is very heavy and her honesty is more than questionable. Hillary’s experience is heavy in cover-ups and dishonesty and light in dealing with world leaders and a true national crisis.

Hillary’s experience is in ignoring her husband’s behavior and when caught, lying about it and putting blame on others. The fault was always on someone else’s shoulders, not hers.

The world is a dangerous place and our choice of leaders is paramount to our very survival. America does not need a leader who feels she is owed the job, but a leader who will lead us through these troubled times. There are voices crying in the wilderness of the world and the world needs someone who hears those voices and does not turn away, but faces those who are causing the misery and challenges them. If that challenge requires American force, there should be no hesitation. America is not the world’s policeman, but we have become freedom’s last and best guardian.

A woman whose main claim to fame is that she stood by her cheating man is not the person to lead the free world. America does not need another co-presidency. We are still paying the price for the first one.



Why Is It Hillary Clinton's Turn? (http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/stock/01302007.htm)

[lighthouse]

if she wins it will be the clinton era all over again

she will be bad for the us of a

[CoreIssue]

if she wins it will be the clinton era all over again

she will be bad for the us of a
Agree.

[Sid]

As the 2008 Democratic presidential sweepstakes unfolds, it will be interesting to watch the ongoing conflict between the two main rivals: Hillary Clinton and the anti-war base.

Everyone knows that Hillary has shrewdly positioned herself as a hawk in anticipation of a presidential run. Far fewer have bought into her sincerity on the matter. Conservatives know she has been acting. Anti-war liberals have fervently hoped so.

Hillary's glaring contradictions can only be understood in light of the undercurrent of tension between Hillary and the base. While Hillary's answers are meant to tell centrist voters that she would have supported the strike on Iraq if Saddam really did have WMD stockpiles ("knowing what we know now"), she realizes that to come right out and say that now might further alienate the base.


Hillary's war with the base (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54229)

[CTZonEdit]

We are still quite a ways away from the elections.

All this right now is just bluster. Hillary and the Dems coming out this early just gives the Republicans more ammo to use against them when it comes down to election time.

Their own records and mouths will hang them. The Reps need to keep focused, keep it about the issues and not get bogged down in the Dem tactics.

The winner will be the one who does the least mud flinging and has the best skills for communicating to the common people.

Hillary is already out. She has nothing in common with the common folk. The fact she admits she needs to change in order to get elected means she should not even be in the race. You need to be who you are, not something you think people want you to be just so you can get in office.

[CoreIssue]

White Water, Monica, health care fisasco, big bucks from 'investments' and all the rest.

Hillary will get ripped if she gets the nomination, which I don't believe she will.

I think Edwards will.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

We are still quite a ways away from the elections.

All this right now is just bluster. Hillary and the Dems coming out this early just gives the Republicans more ammo to use against them when it comes down to election time.

Their own records and mouths will hang them. The Reps need to keep focused, keep it about the issues and not get bogged down in the Dem tactics.

:nod: And, trust me, with this much time before the elections, it wouldn't surprise me if they were digging very deep, and they were able to come up with a WHOPPER of a scandal against her. It will definitely be interesting to set back and watch.

[Sid]

The senior thesis of Hillary D. Rodham, Wellesley College class of 1969, has been speculated about, spun, analyzed, debated, criticized and defended. But rarely has it been read, because for the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency it was locked away.

Many authors on the long shelf of unsympathetic Clinton biographies have envisioned the thesis as evidence of Marxist or socialist views held by young Hillary — or conversely as proof of her political agnosticism, a lack of any ideology besides a brutal willingness to attack opponents and accumulate power in the [Saul] Alinsky style.

Barbara Olson, the conservative lawyer and commentator, used an Alinsky quote to open every chapter of her 1999 book, "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Olson, who died in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, had charged in her book that the thesis was locked away because Clinton "does not want the American people to know the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky."


Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/)

[CoreIssue]

Further, reports have come out from many who worked with her that she has a real nasty temper.

[Sid]

Further, reports have come out from many who worked with her that she has a real nasty temper.


I bet YouTubes like this are going to send her to the moon:

VOTE SMART: a warning to all women about hillary clinton 05:14
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QViJwZwXTl0&mode=related&search=)

[CoreIssue]

Wow!

[Sid]

Democratic Presidential contender Hillary Clinton has managed to gain endorsements from the abortion lobby, homosexual activists, and now porn-magnate Hugh Hefner.

The Clintons’ embrace of the pornography endorsement comes as no surprise, since during her husband’s administration, Christian family ideals were often impugned, and pornography was made available to staffers. In 1999, a consultant hired to shore up security for the White House's computer network discovered staffers had downloaded massive pornographic video files during the height of the impeachment crisis.

With the porn industry behind her, former First Lady and junior New York Senator Hillary Clinton has cornered endorsements from the three most powerful anti-family movements geared to further dramatically American culture.


Hillary Clinton Supported by Big Abortion, Gay Activists and Now the Porn Industry (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07041906.html)

[kay-gee]

If you guys don't want her, send Her our way. We'll put her to good use! All the best.......

[CoreIssue]

If you guys don't want her, send Her our way. We'll put her to good use! All the best.......
So, you admire a pro-aborition, pro-homosexual, anti-christian and more person like her?

You can line that up with the Bible... how?

[kay-gee]

In my country that ship has already sailed. I'm in The Bahamas now. Core, I was being a little bit humurous. Canada loves Bill Clinton. He helped the Liberal guy campaign in the last Fed election. Michael Moore goes up there a lot too and shoots his mouth off. Believe me, when you see these kinds of posts come me, be sure it's my sarcasm shining through. All the best...........

[CoreIssue]

In my country that ship has already sailed. I'm in The Bahamas now. Core, I was being a little bit humurous. Canada loves Bill Clinton. He helped the Liberal guy campaign in the last Fed election. Michael Moore goes up there a lot too and shoots his mouth off. Believe me, when you see these kinds of posts come me, be sure it's my sarcasm shining through. All the best...........
Good! You scared me for a minute there. :freak:

[Vladd44]

I despised the clinton years, loathed every minute of it. But after having over 6 years of W the Clinton years don't look so bad.

No soaring deficits, no massive addition to the nation debt and no foolish war.

I left the republican part in 1992, until that time I was active in my state republican party and had twice served as a voting member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee. Even after i left the republican party I voted republican if there was not a suitable libertarian minded candidate in the mix.

But W changed all that, in 2004 I voted for a democrat in races where there was no libertarian candidate for the first time in my life. I repeated this in 2006 and have every intention of doing the same in 2008.

I fail to see the "moral quality" of a party who has misled the american people in such a pathetic and extreme way.

Admittedly I am not an expert in Intelligence gathering, but if anyone cared to read the unclassified documentation leading up to the Iraq fiasco, it was pretty obvious that Saddam had no real ability to reconstitute his WMD programs after the first gulf war. Because of this I opposed the Iraq war as soon as the beat to war began in early 2002.

So please make me understand why the subpar clinton is any worse than the idiotic and dangerous Bush?

He has lied to the American people, discredited us with the world, accelerated the slide towards economic insolvency by outspending the "tax and spend" democratic liberals at an unbelievable pace, and he as discredited any level of "moral legitimacy" the republicans could hope to claim.

And just for the record, I will not be voting for obama, clinton or edwards if they are nominated. I have every expectation of supporting the libertarian candidate.

[CoreIssue]

Don't expect me to defend Bush. I won't.

But I will rip Clinton.

Taxes did sour. Remember your telephone and other hidden fees sky rocketing? Clinton did that. Remember new fees appearing, little nibbles here and there? Clinton did that.

Where did Clinton get his money to not drive up the deficit? Between the increasing hidden fees and cutting military and intelligence spending.

Did he try to drive up spending? Most assuredly, but Congress stopped him and the governor joined forces to make welfare reform happen. Remember that?

Just think back. Clinton did it all underhandedly. Like they always do.

Should we care the French, Russians and Germans didn't like us because of Iraq? No.

Remember the reports of the under the table deals that were bringing them in billions of dollars, at the cost of the Iraqi people?

The unclassified reports had enough data in them to show Saddam was working on nukes and WMDs.

But you are not going to see the real evidence. Just as you are not going to see intelligence reports dating back to when I worked intelligence concerning Russia, China and Nam.

I know what is in them. But you never will, since they are still under seal for 20 years to lifetime.

I am trying to say that you don't know the truth. And never will know the truth, probably.

Sometimes for very good reasons. Sometimes for very political reasons.

The economy most assuredly slipped under Clinton. The business I owned went stagnate his second term and began slipping the last year and a half.

GATT, NAFTA, illegals and such are bad for the US workers and are the fruits of both main parties.

So, what are the subpar Dems worse than the subpar Reps? Because they are actually lower on the morality poll than the sad Reps.

At least the Reps, except those from states where the only difference between a Dem and a Rep is the the degree of how far left of center one is, is that you have a better chance of a Rep voting against abortion, gay rights, gun control and other every day issues.

Sad, but true. Always the lesser of two evils. Two evils getting worse every day.

But then again, they are a reflection of the American voters. Which does not say much for our country.

[kay-gee]

Hello Vladd44. Just exactly is libertarian, and what are the policies? Thanks. All the best........

[Sid]

So please make me understand why the subpar clinton is any worse than the idiotic and dangerous Bush?




Hillary's husband spent 8 years wrecking our military and intelligence infastructure.

He treated the WTC bombing in '93 as a police matter and not as a national defense priority. The military saw Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Meals on Wheels programs. The economy bubble was bursting with the .dotcom bust, World Com, Global Crossing and ENRON.

The legacy of Clinton's policy were the Kobar Towers, the African Embassies bombings, Mogadishu, the USS Cole, and 9/11.

George W. has only had to deal with the legacy of 8 years of the failed Clinton Presidency.

[CoreIssue]

In the Clinton years, we went to a competition in Little Rock, Arkasas. Clinton's home state capital.

It was on a National Guard base.

On military bases the Top Chain of Command is posted, with pictures.

ONE picture was deliberately removed.

Want to guess whose?

[kay-gee]

Whose?...................ATB...................

[CoreIssue]

Whose?...................ATB...................
:swoon: Bill Clinton's. The joke of a Commander in Chief, at that time.

[kay-gee]

OH, A little disrespectful though. The duly elected president for and by the people! Remember, gotta respect the office if not the man. (Romans 13) All the best.........

[CoreIssue]

OH, A little disrespectful though. The duly elected president for and by the people! Remember, gotta respect the office if not the man. (Romans 13) All the best.........
And he never respected the men under him.

He never returned a salute, except the occassional sarcastic half baked joke of one.

Did you know a return salute is required?

I understand your point. And would abide by it.

But while one must respect the office, there is no requirement to respect the man.

One does not salute the man, but the uniform.

Many don't know that. You salute the rank.

[Vladd44]

heh Core,

You will get no denials from me regarding the clinton era. I still remember the revulsion I felt when his "Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993" was passed in 1994. As a libertarian I consider overtaxation to be one of the worst abuses a government can perpetrate. Having said that, I would happily have taken 8 more years of clinton over 8 years of bush.

I think it is a major oversimplification to blame terrorism and 9/11 on clinton. We have been meddling in the affairs of the middle east for a long time, in doing so we have created many enemies. Some have legitimate cause to hate us, others just follow the herd. But either way, our support of the terrorist state Israel has not helped out cause in the region.

I can only wish we had continued to deal with terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than act like a spoiled child and lash out at everything we don't like. After hundreds of billions of dollars spent, thousands of our military dead, tens of thousands more wounded and our military being stretched beyond any reasonable limit I do not see where the idea of it being a military issue holds any legitimacy.

As recently as June of 2006, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring "is enabling our military to get more war-fighting capability from current end strength." It was not until late last year the Bush policy shifted to a position of actually needing a larger military. You cannot have it both ways, he had 6 years to get the military up to speed, but chose to idle the time away with too few troops and has allowed the window of opportunity to pass him by.

If we are serious about controlling terrorism we should look at a new approach to poverty. With over half the world literally living on less than $2 a day, it is small wonder that there are those who resent the haves.

We can bandy about intelligence reports, but it will not change the reality that Wmd has NOT been found in iraq. A war under false pretenses by any other name is still war by lie.

Rep voting against abortion, gay rights, gun control and other every day issues.I must confess as a male, I don't plan on having an abortion nor do I plan on having sex with or marrying a man. That is the only way either of those two issues could concern me.

There are far more effective ways to reduce the number of abortions than waving signs in front of an abortion clinic. As a libertarian I would prefer to pursue less reactionary methods to achieve the goal rather than simply have government get more involved with our lives.

As far as gay rights are concerned, I fail to see why someone should be denied rights simply because they engage in an act that turns my stomach. If thats the case, lets deny ugly people the right to get married, what they do must be pretty gross as well.

Regarding the salute issue. Ronald Reagan was the FIRST president to return the salute. Which is actually against code. #1 The president is a civilian, regardless of being commander in chief, he is NOT military. #2. No one should salute out of uniform. Eisenhower was a 5 star general 7 years before becoming president, and he did not salute.

[Vladd44]

hey kay-gee

Libertarians typically come from a perspective that everyone is the absolute owner of their own lives, making them free to do whatever they wish with their own property of lives as long as it doesn't infringe on another persons rights.

Some of our more traditional views are:

We oppose all forms of gun control. The regulation of weapons just limits the law abiding and serves no purpose other than to consolidate power in a centralized government who does have weapons.

We support the end of prohibition. I noticed you were not in the USA, but here in the USA we have fought a "war on drugs" for over 30 years now. What we have to show for it is increased violence, more prisoners than any other country, warzone inner cities and increased drug use. We are of the opinion that making something illegal doesnt stop people from getting it, it just makes the price higher.

We oppose most social programs, which is little more than wealth redistribution.

In a nutshell, as proponents of self ownership, we wish to see a government that does not interfere with the daily lives of its citizens. Doing so by default abrogates or rights to self determination. A libertarian society's tax structure would be based on user fees. Pay for what you use, and nothing more, to force people to pay for services they do not want is an infringement.

Essentially there would be no government social programs, no national law enforcement ( powers would be rightly returned to state and local govts) and no prohibition. It would be stripped down to its constitutional obligations and no more.

Government has become too powerful. Unless we can find a way to cut it at its knees we are all doomed.

[kay-gee]

I once thought a lot along these lines and in theory are great. In reality, I would'nt work that well. All the best...........

[kay-gee]

Dear Vladd44. I find myself this morning answering your post containing the ideals of "libertarianism" and pointing out to you some of the flaws in it, even though, admittedly, It does have appeal. Your principles are fine but it's the operating of it that would'nt work.
Do you have any idea of the "real" cost of building a highway. More or less according to geography. (pity the states with mountains or large water masses to bridge) At any rate, it adds up to billions$$$. If the government did not fund it out of tax revenue, it would be stupendusly ridiculous. The cost to you to enter the high-way each time would be in the hundreds of dollars. Even a trip to local store, would cost you 50 bucks. Now I'm sure you would want to protect your wonderful libertarian utopia. So each time the army mobilized against an enemy, what would you do? take up a collection? How would you divide the cost equally and fairly. The guy with more to lose would pay a little more and him with less a little less? Imagine the admin nightmare there! You have to have some kind of social network. Human beings are "social" creatures, like it or lump it! If there was no help for the desparately poor they would come after the haves relentlessly, to obtain the basics. So now they have swarmed your place. Now you're on the phone to the cops. The police operator is trying to get your master-charge info so she can dispatch help to you. Remember, user pays. The rich folks open fire and the poor folks open fire and soon you have dead bodies all over the place. If you're not one of them you'll have to pay for removal, etc.. I could go on and on all day but I think you get the idea. Think about it.... All the best.........

[InTheWind]

But either way, our support of the terrorist state Israel has not helped out cause in the region.



Apparently your not a Christian or you wouldn`t say that, and i myself take it personally so don`t say things like that again. THIS IS A CHRISTIAN SITE AND WE SUPPORT ISRAEL. ;)

[CoreIssue]

But either way, our support of the terrorist state Israel has not helped out cause in the region.
Just what do you see our cause in the region to be?

Support Islamic states that would gladly force us to be Muslim, or otherwise bury us?

Religion aside, while different, we share more in common with Israel than any other nation in that region.

When you make a deal with the devil you pay a heavy price.

[Vladd44]

Your principles are fine but it's the operating of it that would'nt work.
Do you have any idea of the "real" cost of building a highway. More or less according to geography. (pity the states with mountains or large water masses to bridge) At any rate, it adds up to billions$$$. If the government did not fund it out of tax revenue, it would be stupendusly ridiculous.

And those tax revenues come from where? Only difference is those who use it would be the ones who decide what to build not a national system. Commercial use would take on a significant percentage of the costs, just as they do now with gas taxes.

But it still boils down to revenue generated by individuals and corporations, just as it is now. Only the middle man aka the federal govt would be cut out of the pie.

So each time the army mobilized against an enemy, what would you do? take up a collection?

There are varying degrees of libertarianism, personally I accept that defense is a legitimate effort for government.

If there was no help for the desparately poor they would come after the haves relentlessly, to obtain the basics.

Totally agree with you, couldnt agree more. People may accept the lie that the trains will eventually run on time, but try that with the most basic of politics and it will fail. People don't wait for bread forever.

I expect private charities and private social services provided by humanitarian and religionous organizations to step up. If for no other reason than the desire for a good nights sleep without being put against the wall. The system now placates the have-nots with the least common denominator mentality, and it removes each individuals personal responsibility to the people around them by giving them a nameless faceless monster (govt) to blame.

[Vladd44]

Apparently your not a Christian or you wouldn`t say that, and i myself take it personally so don`t say things like that again. THIS IS A CHRISTIAN SITE AND WE SUPPORT ISRAEL.1. So should I presume this is a board that a non christian cannot post on? If so, please add it to your rules.
2. Not all Christians support Israel, nor do all jews.
3. Is there a rule stating that someone of a divergent opinion than your own is not allowed to post?

I could understand your snippy attitude if I had started posting crucifixion joke spam, or trying to lump you in with some insane cult etc. But it is beyond me why your knee-jerk reaction to my viewpoint on Israel was brought out.

It may offend your sensibilities but I do not support israels right to exist, and honestly I think the world would be a better place if we nuked the wailing wall, temple mount, dome of the rock and left both the muslims and jews without something to fight about.

Not that I support that as a solution, but it would be better than the direction we are heading.

And yes, you are correct, I am an agnostic. I accepted that my beliefs in christianity were ill founded a decade ago. As nice as it sounded, it just didnt seem credible.

[InTheWind]

I think you should take your Israel hate and post it in a debate forum where others can give you some reasons why Israel should exist. ;)

[InTheWind]

I think the world would be a better place if we nuked the wailing wall, temple mount, dome of the rock and left both the muslims and jews without something to fight about.



And ya wonder why someone might get offended.
What good would that do God gave the land to the Jews and He will make sure it stays that way. And as the good book says, in the end every knee shall bow to the Lord. :nod:

[CoreIssue]

ITW has a good point.

Since this is a Christian founded board, when you go after Israel, from the perspective you have, you cannot help but to expect a negative response.

It is appropriate to take those kinds of issues into the Open Debate Forum where the whys and hows of Israel can be debated.

No Biblical literalists is going to agree with your position.

Politics are never divorced from ones beliefs, contrary to what many claim.

[CoreIssue]

At least in the beginning, Libertarians professed minimal intrusion by government. Basic infrastructure and defense were to be the sum of their power and authority.

Problem is that Libs believe government has no role in moral issues. Which is foolish because every law involves a moral issue, in some manner.

Balance is the real issue, not the absence of law.

As an Independent I really dislike both main parties and think the current 3rd parties are not even close to being realistic.

[Sid]

As an Independent I really dislike both main parties and think the current 3rd parties are not even close to being realistic.


I dislike both parties, but I dislike the Republicans less.

Under our current election system, I don't see independents as a significant force.

[InTheWind]

Ya have to vote for the lesser of the two evils and pray you did the right thing. :pray:

[CoreIssue]

As an Independent I really dislike both main parties and think the current 3rd parties are not even close to being realistic.


I dislike both parties, but I dislike the Republicans less.

Under our current election system, I don't see independents as a significant force.
Better do some research, Sid.

They are the largest voting block out there now.

[Sid]

Better do some research, Sid.

They are the largest voting block out there now.


CI:


Most of the independent voters are probably disaffected by the major parties, but understand that two main party candidates have the only realistic chance to get elected.

A serious third party candidate is a rarity.

[CoreIssue]

I understand that, Sid.

But, from a historical perspective we are primed for a successful 3rd party. It has happened twice in US history.

[kay-gee]

Take the easy way out. Just don't vote!.........all the best.......

[Sid]

Take the easy way out. Just don't vote!.........all the best.......


I remember an old saying that goes:


If you don't vote, don't complain.


I rarely miss voting [aka civic duty]

[kay-gee]

Exactly! and happiness is achieved by removing all the things to complain about from your life!.......All the best.......

[CoreIssue]

Exactly! and happiness is achieved by removing all the things to complain about from your life!.......All the best.......
Does that include the freedoms that will be removed by allowing the libs to be in control?

Ooops! I forgot! Canada starts with less freedoms than we have here to begin with.

[kay-gee]

In what way? This I gotta hear!........all the best,.......

[CoreIssue]

In what way? This I gotta hear!........all the best,.......
Simple example.

No views allowed that say one is going to Hell without God, homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wron and so on.

They strip away the ability to be moral.

[kay-gee]

But it's not entirely true. My preacher at home preaches against those things all the time. In fact we have a Tv program that airs on a national network. You're getting faulty information. I blame propaganda-ish media sources. Even if you did break a government rule, you'd hardly ever get more than a slap on the wrist. I tell you the truth. I lived there! All the best.........

[CoreIssue]

I was referring to what happens if liberals take complete control.

As for Canada, there are laws against being anti-gay in public. Right?

[kay-gee]

Yeah, I don't suppose you could murder or assault a gay person in public, but in what civilized country could you? There were huge demonsrations in front of the Parliament buildings in Ottawa when the gay marriage thing was happening. There was the normal amount of police presence as there would be for any large event to keep order. Wasn't a problem anyway as Canadians are by and large a peaceful and orderly people. We have a whole bill of rights as you guys do. This is Canada not Iran!...All the best......

[CoreIssue]

Don't play twist the words.

It is illegal to even say homosexuality is immoral and wrong. People have been tried for that.

And saying it is fine to embrace homosexuality sure isn't anything God agrees with.

He said it is repugnant to him.

[kay-gee]

Not aware of any cases...all the best

[CoreIssue]

Start with this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38268).