Hillary Questions
Danny Boy
Posts: 161
As a moderately liberal, independent voter I've been quite chagrined with the campaign rhetoric and pandering we've witnessed from Hillary Clinton et al throughout her mathematically near-impossible quest for the Democratic nomination. I support Barack Obama unabashedly and fervently and it's not just due to his proclamations for change and hope. Anyhow, should Hillary somehow weasel her way into the nomination, I'd face a difficult decision as the war in Iraq and our defunct tax code that deepens the void between classes (the economy, in a larger perspective) loom as the two largest issues relevant to who would secure my vote. In other words, I cannot vote for McCain, but would have trouble casting my vote for HRC. As an openly opinionated voter, I would have great difficulty foregoing my right to vote.
I spend a lot of time in political forums and perusing the political sites and just sent out this message to a Clinton supporter I do not know so well but who's shared some dialogue with me in an adult manner void of some of the trash strewn throughout the media. Please take the time to read it...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I'd be curious as to your take on some issues regarding the machine we know as the Clintons, and please feel free to return the favor. I find it nearly impossible to share any political discourse with most Clinton supporters as I'm sure most HRC fans do with supporters of Senator Obama. I'm sure most question his relationships with Rezko and Jeremiah Wright, as well as those that cling to some trumped up perspective of his relationship with Bill Ayers. If I may pose some topics/questions that I would need clarity on to vote for Hillary should she somehow win, I'd appreciate your input. I think the attacks on her have been minimal considering there's a substantial amount of baggage out there and based on her negatives, Republicans, I believe, are itching to have her as the Dem. nominee.
Let me disclaim that I think too much time is wasted on such idiocies as Jeremiah Wright, but Hillary has some similar skeletons that would be yanked out of the closet should she win.
Much has been made of her campaign's fall from inevitability to long shot. She had a huge lead in superdelegates, money and polls when the race for the nomination commenced, most of which has been squandered. The campaign has witnessed a multitude of intense inner turmoil and mismanagement. How does this reflect on her ability to lead?
In lieu of the 2000 Florida debacle, would you deem it proper for superdelegates to overturn the will of the people considering Obama's lead, states won, popular vote, elected delegates and money raised? I understand completely the DNC's nominating process, but in the end, in our country and the sanctity of democracy, wouldn't handing her the nomination split the party and smack in the face of our election process? If not, please explain...
Hillary has routinely failed to admit she made a mistake casting her vote to authorize the war in Iraq when a plethora of information existed (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact) that might have rendered a vote in line with her Democratic Senate colleagues who opposed the bill. Unlike John Edwards, who owned up to his mistaken vote, she callously makes proclamations of responsibility and many wonder what exactly such a proclamation intimates. It's widely known that she didn't read the NIE (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7245/) which, had she done, might have raised some additional questions considering how much of the report was blocked out (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm). Before sending one U.S. soldier into harm's way, every bit of information under every rock in every corner should be investigated and this clearly did not happen with Senator Clinton, nor with many other elected representatives who handed Bush his war. In a 2004 interview with Larry King, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, she said, "That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to have a president who asks a lot of questions, who is intellectually curious, who seeks out contrary points of view, who doesn't just surround himself with people who see the world the same way." (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/) She stated numerous times that she was simply voting to reinstall inspectors and exhaust diplomacy yet voted for a bill entitled "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". If that was her true intent, why didn't author a bill that stipulated as much? Why didn't she opt for the Levin amendment instead? (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/clinton_and_the_iraq_vote.html)
The Peter Paul case hasn't been gaining any traction in the media, amazingly enough considering the dug dirt the media feeds the average American. It was recently ruled that she wouldn't have to testify until after November, but considering that one of her former staffers has already been convicted of campaign finance issues and the depth of the complaint, it would be a huge issue in the general. She hasn't been asked of it nor has she breached the topic. http://www.paulvclinton.com/pp_complaint_022504_njw.pdf
It's recently come to light that Hillary worked in a law firm where known communists were employed and Black Panthers sought defense counsel. Considering the radical statements made by Jeremiah Wright, isn't this an issue? http://www2.nysun.com/article/67002
In her clear attempt to win, she has made statements regarding Senator Obama that cast doubt on his ability to lead while lending credence to her run as well as that of Senator McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/clinton-mccain-and-i-hav_n_90310.html). We must also recall President Clinton's statements that caused many to infer that Senator Obama does not share the same love of country as Senators Clinton and McCain. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/another-bill-clinton-mome_n_92818.html) This smacks in the face of party unity. How does this bode for the party?
Regarding Jeremiah Wright, she said, "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." Doesn't a husband or wife have the option of leaving his/her spouse in the face of no less than three known acts of infidelity? (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/clinton.wright/index.html) For many voters and various pundits, this statement could open the wounds of the Bill's numerous transgressions.
Her desire to seat delegates from Michigan completely contradicts her previous stance. In a general election, this could easily be used against her to display what many view as a feeble attempt to gain whatever politically expedient edge she can to serve ambition. http://searchwarp.com/swa311032.htm
She has stated time and again since her win in Pennsylvania that she leads in the popular vote count. Is it fair to include Michigan votes when Obama wasn't on the ballot and if so, why?
Virtually every economist in the land thinks the gas tax holiday is farcical. It would cut countless construction jobs in the summer (some estimate up to 300,000) and would take up to nine billion dollars from the federal fund that maintains highways and other transportation projects. She would pay for the holiday via a winfall profits tax on the oil companies but considering that Bush still wields his veto pen, the possibility of passing such a tax is minimal and the savings to middle class Americans would be minute. Many view this as political gamesmanship. In her Town Hall meeting on ABC, she said,
"I’m not going to put my lot in with economists," she said on the "This Week" town hall. Clinton added that the tax holiday would work "if we actually did it right." She also atatcked "this mindset where elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans." To me this smacks of the George Bush mentality in which the decider is right regardless of the opinions of experts who have studied and worked in a given field for the entirety of their professional careers. I trust the economists a we ebit more than I trust Hillary. What's your take? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Hillary_wont_cast_her_lot_with_economists.html#comments ,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?hp
NAFTA has cost our country countless middle class manufacturing jobs and although she speaks against it, she openly spoke of its benefit to New Yorkers and pushed the agenda during Bill's presidency. Her White House papers prove as much as do a plethora of quotes. If she didn't believe in it initially, why didn't she simply remain neutral? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html
How will she combat the following issues in a general for which she now faces very little scrutiny?
Mark Penn and CAFTA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/mark-penn-apologizes-for_n_95090.html), her husband's dealings with Frank Giustra (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/former-presiden.html), Bill's role in CAFTA (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Bill_Clinton_backed_Colombia_trade_deal_Estoy_a_favor.html), the Bosnia flap, the presidential pardons of the Puerto Rican terrorists by Bill that were construed as a measure taken to assist her with the hispanic vote during her Senate run (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120277819085260827.html), branding Obama as an elitist when he only recently finished paying off his student loans in the years that she and Bill amassed $109 million, her claims of 35 years of experience which would include every year of her life since graduating from college, contradictory statements on social security (http://youtube.com/watch?v=y52_zlQxaXM), her failed attempts at universal healthcare during Bill's amdninstration which were void of transparency and caused huge setbacks (http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-records-re-hillary-s-health-care-reform-plan-0), her quip about Mississippi and how it will resonate in the South during the general (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/hillary-and-mis.html), her employment at Rose Law Firm and the appointments Bill made at her behest of people who ended up under indictment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Hubbell), her employment at Wal-Mart when she claims to be a champion of health yet worked on the board for a company that is notorious for skewing worker's hours to avoid paying them health care while keeping mum when other board members trashed unions (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1), the "screw 'em quip when talking to Bill about middle class southerners (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/17/907891.aspx).
These issues don't go into other scandals, perceived or true, such as Whitewater, the Lewinsky affair, her involvement with Vince Foster and a host of other issues that will surely be rehaashed should she garner the nomination.
My apologies for getting a bit longwinded, but these issues would be valid for many voters should Senator Clinton become the Democratic nominee. As I said, please feel free to pose any questions you'd like regarding my perspectives on Senator Obama.
Cheers,
Danny
I spend a lot of time in political forums and perusing the political sites and just sent out this message to a Clinton supporter I do not know so well but who's shared some dialogue with me in an adult manner void of some of the trash strewn throughout the media. Please take the time to read it...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I'd be curious as to your take on some issues regarding the machine we know as the Clintons, and please feel free to return the favor. I find it nearly impossible to share any political discourse with most Clinton supporters as I'm sure most HRC fans do with supporters of Senator Obama. I'm sure most question his relationships with Rezko and Jeremiah Wright, as well as those that cling to some trumped up perspective of his relationship with Bill Ayers. If I may pose some topics/questions that I would need clarity on to vote for Hillary should she somehow win, I'd appreciate your input. I think the attacks on her have been minimal considering there's a substantial amount of baggage out there and based on her negatives, Republicans, I believe, are itching to have her as the Dem. nominee.
Let me disclaim that I think too much time is wasted on such idiocies as Jeremiah Wright, but Hillary has some similar skeletons that would be yanked out of the closet should she win.
Much has been made of her campaign's fall from inevitability to long shot. She had a huge lead in superdelegates, money and polls when the race for the nomination commenced, most of which has been squandered. The campaign has witnessed a multitude of intense inner turmoil and mismanagement. How does this reflect on her ability to lead?
In lieu of the 2000 Florida debacle, would you deem it proper for superdelegates to overturn the will of the people considering Obama's lead, states won, popular vote, elected delegates and money raised? I understand completely the DNC's nominating process, but in the end, in our country and the sanctity of democracy, wouldn't handing her the nomination split the party and smack in the face of our election process? If not, please explain...
Hillary has routinely failed to admit she made a mistake casting her vote to authorize the war in Iraq when a plethora of information existed (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact) that might have rendered a vote in line with her Democratic Senate colleagues who opposed the bill. Unlike John Edwards, who owned up to his mistaken vote, she callously makes proclamations of responsibility and many wonder what exactly such a proclamation intimates. It's widely known that she didn't read the NIE (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7245/) which, had she done, might have raised some additional questions considering how much of the report was blocked out (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm). Before sending one U.S. soldier into harm's way, every bit of information under every rock in every corner should be investigated and this clearly did not happen with Senator Clinton, nor with many other elected representatives who handed Bush his war. In a 2004 interview with Larry King, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, she said, "That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to have a president who asks a lot of questions, who is intellectually curious, who seeks out contrary points of view, who doesn't just surround himself with people who see the world the same way." (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/) She stated numerous times that she was simply voting to reinstall inspectors and exhaust diplomacy yet voted for a bill entitled "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". If that was her true intent, why didn't author a bill that stipulated as much? Why didn't she opt for the Levin amendment instead? (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/clinton_and_the_iraq_vote.html)
The Peter Paul case hasn't been gaining any traction in the media, amazingly enough considering the dug dirt the media feeds the average American. It was recently ruled that she wouldn't have to testify until after November, but considering that one of her former staffers has already been convicted of campaign finance issues and the depth of the complaint, it would be a huge issue in the general. She hasn't been asked of it nor has she breached the topic. http://www.paulvclinton.com/pp_complaint_022504_njw.pdf
It's recently come to light that Hillary worked in a law firm where known communists were employed and Black Panthers sought defense counsel. Considering the radical statements made by Jeremiah Wright, isn't this an issue? http://www2.nysun.com/article/67002
In her clear attempt to win, she has made statements regarding Senator Obama that cast doubt on his ability to lead while lending credence to her run as well as that of Senator McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/clinton-mccain-and-i-hav_n_90310.html). We must also recall President Clinton's statements that caused many to infer that Senator Obama does not share the same love of country as Senators Clinton and McCain. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/another-bill-clinton-mome_n_92818.html) This smacks in the face of party unity. How does this bode for the party?
Regarding Jeremiah Wright, she said, "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." Doesn't a husband or wife have the option of leaving his/her spouse in the face of no less than three known acts of infidelity? (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/clinton.wright/index.html) For many voters and various pundits, this statement could open the wounds of the Bill's numerous transgressions.
Her desire to seat delegates from Michigan completely contradicts her previous stance. In a general election, this could easily be used against her to display what many view as a feeble attempt to gain whatever politically expedient edge she can to serve ambition. http://searchwarp.com/swa311032.htm
She has stated time and again since her win in Pennsylvania that she leads in the popular vote count. Is it fair to include Michigan votes when Obama wasn't on the ballot and if so, why?
Virtually every economist in the land thinks the gas tax holiday is farcical. It would cut countless construction jobs in the summer (some estimate up to 300,000) and would take up to nine billion dollars from the federal fund that maintains highways and other transportation projects. She would pay for the holiday via a winfall profits tax on the oil companies but considering that Bush still wields his veto pen, the possibility of passing such a tax is minimal and the savings to middle class Americans would be minute. Many view this as political gamesmanship. In her Town Hall meeting on ABC, she said,
"I’m not going to put my lot in with economists," she said on the "This Week" town hall. Clinton added that the tax holiday would work "if we actually did it right." She also atatcked "this mindset where elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans." To me this smacks of the George Bush mentality in which the decider is right regardless of the opinions of experts who have studied and worked in a given field for the entirety of their professional careers. I trust the economists a we ebit more than I trust Hillary. What's your take? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Hillary_wont_cast_her_lot_with_economists.html#comments ,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?hp
NAFTA has cost our country countless middle class manufacturing jobs and although she speaks against it, she openly spoke of its benefit to New Yorkers and pushed the agenda during Bill's presidency. Her White House papers prove as much as do a plethora of quotes. If she didn't believe in it initially, why didn't she simply remain neutral? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html
How will she combat the following issues in a general for which she now faces very little scrutiny?
Mark Penn and CAFTA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/mark-penn-apologizes-for_n_95090.html), her husband's dealings with Frank Giustra (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/former-presiden.html), Bill's role in CAFTA (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Bill_Clinton_backed_Colombia_trade_deal_Estoy_a_favor.html), the Bosnia flap, the presidential pardons of the Puerto Rican terrorists by Bill that were construed as a measure taken to assist her with the hispanic vote during her Senate run (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120277819085260827.html), branding Obama as an elitist when he only recently finished paying off his student loans in the years that she and Bill amassed $109 million, her claims of 35 years of experience which would include every year of her life since graduating from college, contradictory statements on social security (http://youtube.com/watch?v=y52_zlQxaXM), her failed attempts at universal healthcare during Bill's amdninstration which were void of transparency and caused huge setbacks (http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-records-re-hillary-s-health-care-reform-plan-0), her quip about Mississippi and how it will resonate in the South during the general (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/hillary-and-mis.html), her employment at Rose Law Firm and the appointments Bill made at her behest of people who ended up under indictment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Hubbell), her employment at Wal-Mart when she claims to be a champion of health yet worked on the board for a company that is notorious for skewing worker's hours to avoid paying them health care while keeping mum when other board members trashed unions (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1), the "screw 'em quip when talking to Bill about middle class southerners (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/17/907891.aspx).
These issues don't go into other scandals, perceived or true, such as Whitewater, the Lewinsky affair, her involvement with Vince Foster and a host of other issues that will surely be rehaashed should she garner the nomination.
My apologies for getting a bit longwinded, but these issues would be valid for many voters should Senator Clinton become the Democratic nominee. As I said, please feel free to pose any questions you'd like regarding my perspectives on Senator Obama.
Cheers,
Danny
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
nope, she just squeaked past him. she's history.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
hey Danny, there is a tread abotu Obama and questions that peopel have on him, including myself. in fact i started 3 threads on all the peopel running and what they have on their website. you can look at some of those treads.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)