Home > Uncategorized > There’s Something About Hillary

There’s Something About Hillary

OK, let’s spend a bit of time talking about Senator Clinton. She was on all the Sunday TV news shows today, plus everyone from Bush to Gingrich to Rove is predicting that she will win the nomination at the Democratic convention in Denver next summer. If the Democrats can’t take the White House in ’08, they might as well give it up, so Hillary has a real shot at becoming our first woman president, especially if she can coax Colin Powell to run with her (now that is a dream ticket).

I gave some $$$$ to Obama a few months ago to see what would happen, but the truth is, not much. He’s a decent guy and a smart guy, but he just seems to be spinning his wheels and going nowhere. He’s tried everything, but can’t seem to break out. There’s no way I’ll vote for Edwards. I think he’s a phony and will say anything, do anything, to get elected.

Everyone is predicting that Hillary will get eaten alive in the general campaign. The conservative hate machine threw everything they could against Clinton, Inc. and they still won in ’92 and ’96, plus beat back Lewinsky and then she got elected in ’00 and in ’06. I think they would run a formidable campaign.

I’m on the fence about Hillary. She lacks her husband’s eloquence and it’s hard to pin down her political compass. She did a complete flip-flop on Iraq once; what would keep her from doing it again if she’s elected?

The big plus is to bring Bill Clinton back to the international stage and let him spend the first few years going overseas and patching up the wounds with our allies created by W. Say what you will about Clinton, the man is beloved overseas and could help greatly in a time of need.

So talk to me about Hillary, please. Would you vote for her to be President? If not, what are your reservations? I’m curious.

  1. Guy Murray
    September 24, 2007 at 12:16 pm


    If Hillary is the nominee, I will likely vote for her. My concern is her high negative levels. She seems to stir up an irrational hatred amongst some, and not all on the right wing fringe. I prefer O’Bama’s anti-war stance; but, I am concerned about his lack of experience. I don’t know whether he will be in consideration for the VP spot or not. Secretary of State Powell would be a formidable running mate, but question whether he is willing to enter that level of public life again.

    I think Senator Clinton is quite bright, but also agree with your analysis that she lacks Bill’s eloquence. I do believe she will end the Iraq war, which to me is the most paramount moral and security issue our nation faces in the immediate and long term.

    One other issue on which I think Senator Clinton is knowledgeable is health care. She has studied this issue for years, and is headed in the right direction. This country needs to revamp its health care delivery. We can barely afford health care coverage. And, what coverage we can afford is pathetic.

    The money we are wasting by the billions in Iraq would be much better spent on America’s health care needs, which would actually produce a better and more productive society.

    I think the Clinton camp will be prepared for their hate crowd. I feel cautiously optimistic that the democrats will take the White House in 2008. George Bush’s failed policies, incompetence, and arrogance will cost the GOP greatly in 2008. I was struck by how harshly former Justice O’Connor criticized George Bush in Jeffrey Toobin’s new book on the Supreme Court. I think many Americans feel this way, and will take it out on GOP candidates across the board in 08. This, of course will help any democratic nominee, including Senator Clinton.

  2. the ghost of christmas past
    September 24, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    Republican hate machine? What part of the of the 1992 election envolved “hate”? There were a lot of facts in the 1992 election: Clinton really did thank a the ROTC professor for getting him out of the draft and slandered the military; He really did smoke pot and “not inhale”; he really did have an affair with Gennifer Flowers; he really did go to Europe and talk crap about America; He really did create a land scheme to steal the property of people who had loans when they missed one payement, resold the land, and did it all over again, all the while profiting personally while he was governor. What part of that is hate? To me and everyone else that wasn’t instantly beguiled by Clinton, those were facts that went to his lack of character. This lack of character was seen again when he was caught with his DNA on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress and he chose to lie about it rather than confess what everyone knew to be true.

    Where was Hillary Clinton in all this? Why she was right there by his side the whole time. She sttod by her man when everyone got to hear about the Gennifer Flowers escapade. She was there when the Rose Law Firm records disappeared. She was responsible for turning the full power of the federal government against the career civil servants that ran the Travel Office, trumping up bogus charges and destroying reputations, just so she could pay back her cronies with government jobs. She was there when the FBI files of Republicans turned up in the West Wing. She was the one that magically turned $10,000 into $100,000 on “cattle futures”, which was either laundered money or a bribe. She was there on the Today Show lamenting the “vast right wing conspiracy” to destroy her husband after Matt Drudge broke the Lewinsky story. Um, Mrs. Clinton? Two questions: Who among those in the right-wing thought up the conspiracy to have your husband ejaculate on Monica Lewinsky’s dress? Who among those in the right-wing forced your husband to lie about it? I know that you all think that this is nothing, that it is just sex and everyone lies about sex. Well, it’s actually about how everyone is just as base as the Clintons to the Clintons don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. You see, I have no animous towards Bill Clinton for his time has passed. It is Hillary Clinton that scares and infuriates me because with all of Bill’s well-known flaws and his proven and well documented track record of lies and deceit, she stayed with him the WHOLE TIME. She even defended him even though she HAD to of known he was as guilty as sin. Hillary Clinton is the true brains of that outfit and it she that has been the “man behind the curtain” of Clinton, Inc. There is a level of power-mad, raw ambition to Hillary Clinton that we do not know the depths of.

  3. Anonymous
    September 24, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    All of this is personal opinion until the dem & Republican candidtaes actually get face to face and debate issues.

    Hillary is from the old school. It’s all about the power grab, so not much will change even if she is elected. She and the others are owned by the MoveOn’ers and that will kill the party in a head to head battle for the white house.

    I watched all the shows yesterday and not once would she say she was wrong to vote to go to war, not once did she say moveon was wrong for disrespecting our military.

    She may have a better chance if we were not at war, but all the retreat & defeat democrats are shaky at best since they are all so weak on national defense.

    My son in law leaves for Iraq in 7 days. At his base Hillary is flat out hated for all she has done to disrespect and insult their leaders and to say we can’t win. You have no idea how the dems are hated in the military until you listen to the rank & file.

    Her other weak link is wanting to “talk” to Iran. Those that know history know that we have been talking to Iran since Carter and the hostage situation. Talking to radical muslims doesn’t work except to buy them more time.

    Hillary will win the nomination because she is all the dems have.
    But she will lose to the general election hands down.

    If it’s time for change why elect anther bubba for 4 or 8 years when her ideas are all 10 years old and proven not to work. ie: Socialistic health care.

    54% say they will never vote for her under any circumstance. You can’t win a national election with 54% against you from the begining.
    As Carl Rove said, and I believe; Hillary is fatally flawed.


  4. the ghost of christmas past
    September 25, 2007 at 1:26 am

    There is something else here that we need to discuss. Hillary says that everyone needs her nationalized helathcare plan in order to give 47 million Americans insurance. Huh? Well, that’s what she said. The medical care in America is the finest the world has ever seen. There is nothing systemically wrong with how Americans are treated in our hospitals. Yes, there is always room for improvements in quality, but as it stands, we have the best the world has ever seen. Where we do have issues is how we pay for that world’s greatest medical care. Right now, Americans rely on health insurance to pay for their medical treatments. Doctors prescribe needless procedures because, after all, insurance will cover it. People take the procedures because, after all, that’s why they pay their insurance premiums. Insurance is the problem. About the 47 million that don’t have insurance: how many choose not to get medical insurance? How many prefer having a 72″ HD TV instead of medical insurance? How many are self-insured (i.e. they pay for their own medicine)? How many without insurance are illegal aliens? How many are also homeless? This number, 47 million, is thrown out there totally unqualified and unsubstantiated. Also, how many people without insurance are on programs like Medi-Cal or medicaid, both of which are insurance programs. If we were to parse the number down, I think we would see that maybe only 10 million people are truly uninsured. That means that 290 million Americans are insured and therefore no compelling reason to turn our healthcare system over to Hillary and Clinton, Inc.

    Now why does our healthcare cost what it does? One word: Medicare. Medicare pays a percentage the costs to keep the program solvent. Doctors and hospitals pass that difference on to people with private insurance. Doctors and hospitals raise prices because they know that, by and large, insurance companies will pay the bill. Our health insurance system is a ponzi scheme built on the backs of people who are healthy and have insurance they don’t use. How else can health insurance companies afford to pay for cancer treatments and not go out of business. Because they need healthy people to not get sick so they can pocket their premiums.

    John Stossel did a great program on this topic. He found that Americans live longer than any other country in the world when gun violence is taken out of the equation. Americans have a greater chance of survival of cancer, heart attacks and traumatic injury than anywhere else in the world. Conversely, Britain and Canada have long waiting lines and get spotty care in their “free” system. They have people die because heart bypass operations are considered “elective” surgery. A woman in Canada came to Idaho to get her operation. Brits pull their own teeth because they wait months to have oral surgery. The only ones that get immediate care are dogs and cats. A dog will get an MRI in Canada in two days; a human has to wait three months. Based on Stossel’s report, the nationalized healthcare systems that liberals tout so much. He also said that the main reason why Americans get so many unneeded treatments and go to the emergency room for the sniffles is that Americans don’t know how much things cost, as I said earlier.

    The solution to our lack of medical coverage issue for 10 to 47 million Americans: national insurance pools to lower insurance costs, encouraging doctors and patients to pay cash for services and treatments, encourage businesses to offer health savings accounts instead of insurance, and we have to stop the abuses in the Medicare and Medicaid systems.

    We don’t need Hillary-care redux. We do need to make the system more transparent to the patient and providers and to bring personal accountability in how that system is used.

  5. tired taxpayer
    September 25, 2007 at 4:01 am

    do not discount that bubba is taking over $10,000,000 in payments from a muslim to ,anage his investment portfolio.
    Yep! That’s right! 10 million! That number should stagger you work-a-days back a few steps.

    And Hellery is lovin every minute!

    We need a president that is not afraid of the muslims that are dediocated to destroying (murdering) half of their own religion and the entire jewish race.

    Hellery is NOT that person. Hussien obama is NOT that person, and you all know it.

    So who’s it gonna be? That’s right! A republican again! because when it comes to standing up against islam nobody comes close to a republican. The same goes for health care, and national defense, not to mention the military as all volunteer under hellery will be a ghost town because those brave man & women would clip a toenail for that hack!

    And since when did health care become an right? What America did all you libs grow up in? This is a free enterprise economy. The almighty buck rules. I have health care…always have because I made sure of it! But if you are a convicted felon working at the junk yard, well I guess ya shouldn’ta broke the law.
    It’s really quite simple. The government cant do for you what you are not willing to do for yourselves.
    As for me, get your hand out of my pocket! I ain’t paying anyone elses way. I broke a sweat to get where I am…you should to! Now shut up and go to work ya lazy bum!

  6. Anonymous
    September 25, 2007 at 4:48 am

    Dear Ghost,

    I really hated those terrible days of budget surplus, low inflation, high paying jobs, world-wide respect, peace and general robust economy. Oh that’s right, it was left over from the Reagan/Bush years. I knew you would say that.

    I would rather have Dennis be the next prez but no chance there. I would be happy with either Obama or Clinton. I believe that would send a great message to the world.

    I have not heard anything about Powell entering the scene (isn’t he a Republican?)

    If George would leave today and was replaced by ANYBODY but Jeb I would do cartwheels down the street.

  7. NewsstandGreg
    September 25, 2007 at 4:51 am


    Many in the “MoveOn crowd” and others just to the left of “center” say that the Democratic Party candidates for ’08 are much better than any of the Republicans who are running.

    Right now, the crucial 7 Senate Republicans the country needs to beat a filibuster and enact legislation for the good of the country–are waiting until the primaries are over.

    Then, they’ll “break” with the failed pResident and his failed nation-building war and failed domestic policies.

    Meanwhile, more US soldiers will die in Iraq. I sincerely hope “anonymous’s” son-in-law survives his tour. (I hope my two nephews come back alive also.)

    But I guarantee he’ll be talking a different kind of talk when he comes back after his 15 months are up.

    It’s unconscionable any politician would wait five or more months to say publicly what they’re thinking right now.

    “We gotta end this thing somehow. And bring our troops home, asap.”

    –Newsstand Greg

  8. our trrops hate hillary
    September 25, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Hillary will never be president. Here’s why:

    American troops in Iraq are in a “rage” over Hillary Clinton and other Democrats’ failure to condemn the MoveOn.org ad calling General David Petraeus “General Betray Us.”

    That’s the word from Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    In an interview with talk radio host Steve Malzberg, King said what struck him most about the troops in Iraq was how closely they are following politics in the U.S., and how angry they are over the Democrats’ reaction to the MoveOn.org ad.

    King said he had lunch with several female soldiers at a base in Iraq and they were “furious at the Democrats for not denouncing the ad and for what was said about General Petraeus.

    “This has been noticed by the troops,” King told Malzberg.

    “They specifically mentioned Hillary Clinton, being angry at her, and the Democrats in general for not denouncing MoveOn.org. It went beyond a political anger — it was a rage.”

    The MoveOn.org ad — which appeared in the New York Times — charged Petraeus with “cooking the books for the White House” when he delivered his Iraq report on Sept. 10.

    “To imply that Petraeus is a liar — MoveOn called him a traitor!” said King. “I was struck by the intensity of the anger from these people.”

    King said some of the soldiers who had previously supported Clinton’s presidential bid no longer did.

    King also criticized New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who said that the level of violence in Iraq’s Anbar province was down “despite the ‘surge,’ not because of it.” He suggested that the American troops couldn’t “get the job done,” so tribal leaders took up the fight against the insurgents themselves.

    Schumer is “totally wrong,” King declared.

    He said the tribes took action to fight the insurgents only after they saw the U.S. step up efforts in Anbar.

  9. the ghost of christmas past
    September 25, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Here are a collection of articles written by John Stossel. They came to comprise the 20/20 special on American healthcare and why we don’t need Hillary-care in any form.

    Debunking the myths: Cuba’s medical system sucks

    Socialized medicine fails to provide medicine

    Our Health insurance system is broke, not our medicine

    I’m sure that all you liberals will say that John Stossel is somehow evil because he doesn’t bow down and worship at the altar of her highness, Hillary Clinton, and drink the kool-aid that we need to scrap our healthcare system because 10 million can’t afford healthcare insurance but Stossel is more informed on how to provide better coverage than Hillary ever will be. Mostly because he doesn’t crave the power of controlling 1/7th of the US economy like Hillary.

  10. proud of our soldiers
    September 25, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    For quit some time now the democratic party has had no soul. All they have is this undying hatred for anyting Bush.
    What they don’t realize is that he will be gone shortly and they will have to deal with their “do nothing” congress and all the lefy wackaloons running around saying “the sky is falling”.
    If things don’t change, the sky will fall on their pointed little heads.
    That’s why it’s always good to keep a few republicans around so we can get on with winning the war on terror and running our booming economy.
    As for the comments about my son in law and Iraq. save your breath lefty.
    This kid and his fellow soildiers are 100% true blue and willing to sacrafice for our safety.
    As for the few wackos that slipped through the cracks to get the huge signing bonus…they are few and far between and embarassment to our nation. I hope they used the money to get a new bong!

  11. the ghost of christmas past
    September 25, 2007 at 11:09 pm

    Hey, I never said that Clinton did a bad job as president. The best thing Clinton did was listen to Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan and not screw things up with his socialist agenda. After he and Hillary got their heads handed to them over HillaryCare, he dialed it down and went small on easily supportable plans, like the assault weapons ban and signing the Republican’s Welfare Reform bill. That was all well and good in the 9/10 world. In the 9/12 world, having Bill back in the White House as the First Philanderer if Hillary gets elected is the absolute wrong thing for America. The Clintons have always ran on being vague on details when they campaign and then they spring the details when elected. Bill ran on exactly the same things in 1992: bad economy, “affordable” health care for all, blah blah blah. The Clintons rely on your willingness to have a “suspension of disbelief” on all of their proven track record to believe that they are going to be different this time. We knew that the ChiComs donated to the Clinton reelection campaign in 1995. We knew that Al Gore solicited for donations from a group of Bhuddist monks. We knew that the Riahdy Group of Indonesia made illegal contributions to their campaign. What do we have now? Another illegal contribution scandal plaguing a Clinton campaign. Hillary trying to seize our healthcare system ala Hugo Chavez.

    Have you ever noticed that the only choices Democrats offer are choices they approve of first? Hillary has choices in her plan, a series of choices where the socialized medicine choice is the lesser of the other evils she offers. Democrats are pro-choice, so long as that choice is death for the fetus. Democrats are pro-choice in Iraq so long as that choice is retreat. Democrats are pro-free speech so long as your speech is anti-Bush and pro-Democrat(like Mahmoud Aiwannajihad at Columbia), otherwise you have no free speech and you get shouted down (like the Minutemen and Ann Coulter).

    Everything that is old is new again and history does repeat itself with the Clintons.

  12. NewsstandGreg
    September 26, 2007 at 2:42 am


    Thank you for having me on your show for the 6pm hour, Tuesday.

    It was fun and I was truly interested in the callers from up the grade and all over SLO county who made very sensible comments.

    Except the joker!

    –take care, Greg

  13. america is weeping
    September 26, 2007 at 3:01 am

    Dear residents of my land,
    I was weeping these past few days that one of our famous univerities welcomed an insane leader to speak to our precious and impressionable students with the blood of our young and brave soldiers on his hands.
    I weep for all of you that don’t see that you are being duped not only by liberal calleges but by a crazed and insane muslim terrorist.

    Save your mother nation and stop this insanity. Elect republicans back into power.

    There will be a place and time for the radical liberals but the time is not now.

    Dry the tears from my land and save our nation. vote republican and keep fighting the global war on terror so other nations like me don’t end up in tears as well.
    I love you,
    Mother America

  14. Marilyn
    September 26, 2007 at 3:47 am

    Hillary would not be my first choice for president. I have always admired her stance on health care and the need to take care of children. However, I do not like her international policies, especially when it comes to the Middle East and Palestinian rights under occupation. She is also influenced by big business and the Zionist lobby to a great extent. I would vote for Wesley Clark if he were running. I think we need a socialist in office, someone who puts the welfare of the poor ahead of God, corporations, and war.

  15. Rich from Paso
    September 26, 2007 at 5:22 am

    Yeah, Marilyn a socialist in the White House is all this nation needs… NOT. Socialism has failed in every country that has tried it. Every country that has tried socialism has backed away from it, repudiated it and regreted ever trying that failed, bogus philosophy. The most glaring problem is that socialism reads very well on paper, that is until you insert flawed, greedy, selfish human beings into the mix. What you are left with is a quasi-authoritarian regime exhibiting all of the failings that Marx talked about in his manifesto and Orwell talked about in Animal Farm.

    This is all irrelevant to liberals who view government and the State as the source of all solutions to all of the problems of the world. Because you subjegated your populace with state-run this that and the other thing in the name of compassion and equality, you don’t care that individuals no longer enjoy the freedoms and liberty they once had. The State, more time than not, only creates equality of misery, inaction, and privation. The Soviet Union is a perfect example of that. Individuals working together creating mutually agreed upon exchanges of whatever enables personal as well as national growth, greater freedom, greater liberty, greater incentives to excel and greater prosperity for all. In that world, the State does not determine the size of the playing field, only the height of the fences around that playing field. That is what we need in America, not some future dictator running as a compassionate socialist. You all hate the current ‘compassionate conservative’ in the White House that has done more to grow the size of the State in the last 6 years than in the last 16 years combined. One would think that you’d want someone opposite of the one you currently hate so much, not just more of the same.

  16. Downtown Bob
    September 26, 2007 at 6:01 am

    “Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator” Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger in his remarks when introducing the Iranian President. Yeah, they sure know how to admire a person like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; he was even laughed at by the audience when he said that Iran doesn’t have homosexuals. I am so amused that the right is so up in arms about “allowing Ahmadinejad to speak”; isn’t it better that we get to hear him for ourselves to see how unhinged and out of touch with reality he is and see for ourselves how impotent he really is?
    Getting back to Hillary Clinton; not a liberal; not a progressive. Will I vote for her if she is the Democratic candidate? Depends on if there is an independent who speaks to me better. If not, yes I will. If she is the candidate and has a great running mate, surrounds herself with competent people and does give a ear to progressive causes, she could be a great President. The obsession by the right with all things Clinton borders on the absurd; actual proof of all of the allegations comes up on “winger” type blogs and websites only. It will be interesting to see how she handles herself when the intense accusations and b.s. slinging starts.

  17. Rich from Paso
    September 26, 2007 at 8:44 am

    Hillary will have to survive the primary process with the Democrats having the exact same ammunition Republicans have on her vulnerabilties and weaknesses. For obama, edwards or anyone else to leave their six-shooter in the holster is an admission that Hillary will be the next Democratic candidate in the general election. They all might as well quit now and save themselves some time and money.

  18. political realist
    September 26, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    a liberal in the white house is the same as a socialist in the white house.

    In the end we all know that America will never put a liberal lesbian in the white house.

    The question is now, if they run Hellery, what republican will win.

  19. copy-n-paste rookie
    September 27, 2007 at 2:11 am

    Please put all the bitterness asside and read this! I emplore you!

    Hillary’s Nose Is Growing

    As Hillary Clinton rises in the polls, her nose grows longer and longer.

    To be sure, she has never had any shame about making stories up out of thin air. After 9/11, Clinton appeared on national TV and claimed that when the two airplanes hit the World Trade Center, her daughter Chelsea was going to jog at Battery Park near the towers, where she heard and saw the catastrophe unfold.

    Clinton’s arrogance was so profound that she did not coordinate the story with Chelsea, who wrote an article for Talk in which she described what she had been doing that day. According to Chelsea, she was on the other side of town in a friend’s apartment on Park Avenue South. She watched the events unfold on TV.

    Nor does Clinton’s hypocrisy have any limits. When asked about the recent MoveOn.org ad suggesting that Gen. David Petraeus has betrayed the country, Clinton on “Meet the Press” on Sept. 23 called for an end to such attacks. “I don’t condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country,” she said.

    Yet three days earlier, Clinton had voted against a Senate resolution to condemn the MoveOn.org ad. Her closest competitor, Sen. Barack Obama, voted earlier that day but conveniently missed the vote condemning the ad.

    Now that she begins to see her candidacy in the general election as a certainty, Clinton’s prevarications — largely ignored by the media — are becoming more frequent.

    On Sept. 23, on “Fox News Sunday,” Clinton said that she has “fought hard” for body armor . . .” She added, “I’ve stood with my colleagues to fight hard for armored vehicles because we knew that they needed additional protection in Iraq and they weren’t getting it.”

    Yet last May, Clinton voted against the emergency supplemental bill to provide $1.6 billion for body armor, including advanced combat helmets; $2.4 billion to help protect against improvised explosive devices; and $3 billion for mine-resistant, ambush protected vehicles.

    During her Sept 23 appearance on “Meet The Press,” Clinton said that current strategy in Iraq is not working: “I will end our involvement at the level that we’ve seen that has not proven to be successful.” But in August, Clinton had said in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., that the so-called surge in Iraq is “working.”

    Clinton’s prevarications about her vote to support the Iraq war are even more striking. On Oct. 10, 2002, she stated on the Senate floor: “It is clear. . . that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” On Sept. 15, 2002, she said on “Meet the Press”: “I can support the president, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long term interests of our national security . . .”

    Yet this year in the Democratic presidential debate on Aug. 19 in Des Moines, Clinton claimed that when she voted for the Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, she thought she was voting to support more diplomatic efforts. She said she “regret[ed] giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused.”

    In fact, she voted against an amendment introduced in 2002 by Sen. Carl Levin that would have required more diplomacy. On the Sept. 23 “Meet the Press,” Clinton made yet another misleading statement about that vote, saying she opposed the measure because she did not want to give the United Nations veto power over U.S. actions. But the measure did not give the U.N. veto power and explicitly said the U.S. has the inherent right to use military force in self-defense.

    In fundraising appeals, Clinton has claimed the administration is spying on innocent Americans, when she knows that National Security Agency intercepts of calls and e-mails are to ping in on terrorists before they kill innocent Americans.

    Last Sunday, when asked questions by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” and by Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Clinton engaged in prolonged cackling. In particular, when asked by Schieffer if her healthcare plan was a step toward socialized medicine, Clinton began to giggle uncontrollably.

    Like her ever changing positions on Iraq, her contrived performance suggests that she thinks she can give almost any response to a question and get away with it.

    “Hillary has a keen sense of entitlement,” Bay Buchanan, author of “The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton,” has told me. “She doesn’t admit mistakes or learn from them. She believes in her own mind that she doesn’t have to take responsibility for things she’s done in the past. She can say whatever it is she wants to say today, and it’s as if the slate is clean and nothing has occurred before this.”

    At a hearing on Sept. 11, Clinton told Gen. Petraeus that “the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

    In making that accusation, Clinton aptly described what our own reaction should be to her serial dissembling. If any other job candidate had such a record, only a fool would hire the applicant. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, it will say as much about us as about her.

  20. Ellis in Los Osos
    September 28, 2007 at 2:42 am

    John Edwards has started to take public money.
    John EDWARDS and Dennis KUCINICH 2008!
    Hillary is a sellout.

  21. Anonymous
    September 29, 2007 at 1:57 am

    taking public money is only the first nail in a political coffic.
    Edwards is dead meat!

  22. Skeptic
    September 29, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Even for her, Hillary Clinton showed tremendous skill at batting aside questions asked of her on the Sunday shows this past weekend and giving, instead, her standard talking points.

    Pinning this lady down is admittedly not easy. Two of the best interviewers on political TV — Chris Wallace and Tim Russert — asked tough questions but got scripted and memorized retorts for their pains. But here are some questions (along with follow-ups) that I suggest they ask during the next round of Sunday shows — if she ever goes back on the circuit:

    1) Bill Clinton refused to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions in his campaigns of 1992 and 1996. Obama and Edwards are following his example. Why aren’t you?

    2) After all the bad experiences you had with Johnnie Chung and Charlie Trie and their campaign donations in the 1996 election cycle, why were you not more careful in vetting the donations generated by Norman Hsu? Didn’t you learn your lesson in 1996?

    (As a follow-up to No. 2) After you found that you had to return almost a million dollars to the donors bundled by Hsu, you said you would be more vigilant in examining the backgrounds of donors. Why didn’t you come to that conclusion before the Hsu scandal, based on your 1996 experiences?

    2) Norman Hsu was no ordinary donor. He was the biggest bundler in your campaign; he gave funds to the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton School of Government in Arkansas and took Patti Solis Doyle, your campaign manager, and other aides on an all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas. He also donated to Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, whose campaign debt you agreed to help repay.

    3) In view of his high profile in your campaign, why didn’t you check him out more thoroughly, and what does this say about your ability to make quality appointments?

    4) You base your healthcare proposal on the need to cover 47 million “uninsured Americans.” Since about a third of them are illegal immigrants and another third are eligible for Medicaid right now and just don’t apply for it, aren’t you overstating the problem?

    (As a follow-up to No. 4) In 2005 you co-sponsored legislation to provide health insurance to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in this country for five years. In other words, their children would get subsidized healthcare under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a reward for dodging the cops for five years. Do you still support that proposal?

    5) You say that your healthcare proposal will leave alone those who are happy with their current insurance. But if you provide health benefits for close to 50 million new people, thereby generating huge new demand for medical care without any increase in the supply of doctors, nurses or hospitals, it will drive up prices radically. Won’t that force you to institute cost controls by limiting the care those now on health insurance can receive?

    5) In Arkansas, you achieved fame by urging mandatory testing for teachers and demanded that those who failed the competency tests be dismissed. You and your husband did this and implemented this policy. As a result, he was denied the endorsement by the Arkansas Teachers Union during his time as governor. Do you still support your proposal of 1983 and 1984 for mandatory teacher competency tests for current teachers — not just for new ones?

    6) In Arkansas, you pioneered the idea of testing students to ascertain their progress and holding schools accountable for any shortcomings in their test scores. Now California Democratic Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Education Committee, wants to change the No Child Left Behind Act to substitute graduation rates for test scores as the measure of a school’s performance. Opponents say this is injecting a non-objective standard and undercuts the whole purpose of the legislation. Do you support Miller’s proposal?

    The answers to these questions are mandatory to have before we elect her president

    Why won’t she just answer them? No spin…No memorized scripted BS?
    We both wonder…wonder what her real agenda is.

  23. SLO Bear
    October 1, 2007 at 7:59 pm


    I am a Republican in the true sense on the word – not what we have had in office for the past 7 years.

    My choice this year is Ron Paul. He is against the war and spending money we don’t have. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a chance.

    I just don’t know if I could ever vote for Hillary. Although I honestly believe she could do a better job than W.

  24. Anonymous
    October 10, 2007 at 4:27 am

    Hillary lied about all she knows of her husband’s other life. She is a transient of New York. Yes, Foster was murdered. Hillary is a crook, as is Bill. Look at the fund raising, shady investments. Look at her supporters. If that doesn’t scare you…look at her botox filled forehead ad lesbian demeanor…I for one look forward to her nomination…she has NO CHANCE…This nation is not ready for a dis-honest, nasty, degrading, muncher…

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: