Is Hillary Clinton a Tricky Dick

Robert Novak is standing by his claims that the Clinton camp made claims that they have dirt on Obama. He does not know if they actually have dirt to smear, but he is certain that they put the word out. Yesterday the Clinton camp accussed Novak of baiting tactics and that Omaba took the bait, Novak is countering that this is more like a Richard Nixon scheme, where he made false claims against enemies, with the intent of manipulating opinion without having any actual dirt on the poor fellows…

WASHINGTON —  Columnist Robert Novak stood by his story Monday that the Clinton campaign is spreading the word that it’s holding back on dishing dirt on Barack Obama, and charged the Democratic frontrunner with playing “Nixon tricks.”

Novak, a FOX News contributor, added that he did not believe there were any Republicans behind the effort — as some have alleged since his column was published Saturday — to force Democrats to fight against each other.

Novak’s initial report said: “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information” about Obama, “but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.”

On Monday, Novak told FOX News that claims that there is actual dirt on Obama might not pass the sniff test.

“This is very similar to the kind of trick that Richard Nixon used to pull, where he would say, ‘I know some very bad information about the communists supporting George McGovern, but I can’t put that out because it wouldn’t be right, but I’m just too good of a guy,’ ” Novak said.

A message left seeking comment from a Clinton campaign spokesman was not immediately returned.

Novak also said he still had no proof that there really is scandalous information about Obama, only that he’s certain that Clinton’s campaign told well-connected Democrats that they had such information.

“Now whether there is any such scandalous information, I don’t’ know, but what I know is I’m confident in my sources, who I trust. We’re told this by Clinton people that there was such information out.”

Obama responded angrily after Novak’s column was published, challenging Clinton’s campaign to come forward with the information, if it exists.

“Sen. Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none. She of all people, having complained so often about the politics of personal destruction, should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics.”

He also denounced the attacks as reminiscent of the “Swift boat” campaign against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race, in which his supporters say his military record was attacked with unsubstantiated reports by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group.

Clinton’s campaign has denied any knowledge of the story, and suggested that Republicans might be behind the report. Novak is a conservative columnist.

Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said Saturday that Obama was “walking right into a Republican trap.”

But Novak said the claims of Republican involvement are unsubstantiated.

“The whole method of the Clinton campaign is when anything derogatory comes up, they say the Republicans are spreading it. But there was no Republicans involved in any of my reporting on this,” Novak said Monday.

Novak also suggested that Obama could use the information to his advantage, especially in the heated primary battle in Iowa, where Obama and Clinton were statistically tied in polls last week.

“Senator Obama’s only hope is to portray Sen. Clinton as a manipulative, almost Nixonian-type of candidate who would do anything to win and can’t be trusted. Obviously, Senator Obama is in a different position — he must win in Iowa,” Novak said, but, “Iowa caucus-goers might be put off by any kind of allegation of dirty tricks on the part of the Clinton campaign.”

Hillary Clinton – Unfit for Command

I hav nothing to add to this fantastic piece of writing as it speaks for itself, although the die hard Hillary trolls will surely deny everything, it is what it is… Think really hard before you vote her in as our next President.

Hillary Unfit to Be US President: Foreign Policy
Politics Joan Swirsky, Featured Writer
November 19, 2007

When I was studying to become a nurse in the late 1960s, I learned that the most important value in patient care, for both nurses and doctors, was safety. Not curing, which is often impossible, and not even empathy, although a high priority. That is because the patient who falls out of bed, or is given the wrong dose of medicine, or whose grievance is ignored, may pay with nothing less than his or her life.

As a mother of three, I already knew this – that all the love and support and education in the world meant nothing in comparison to keeping my young children safe: away from unprotected outlets, sharp table corners, a hot stove, automobile traffic, people with contagious diseases, and of course bad values.

I never forgot this lesson: safety first, a value that applies as well – first and foremost and above all others – to our country.

Does Hillary Put Safety First?

No. The New York Democrat Senator and presidential contender has consistently demonstrated – in word and deed – that she is unfit to conduct the foreign policy of our country. No matter where in the world our heroic troops are defending our country and our policies, Hillary is on the wrong side of every issue.

Especially in the perilous times we live, her constant flip-flopping on the urgent matters of national security and her tendency to fold in the face of even minor adversity on the campaign trail make her uniquely unqualified be the leader of the free world.

Hillary’s Consistent Flip-Flops on Iraq
Does the date October 10, 2002, ring a bell? That was the date of the Iraq War Resolution, which Hillary voted for – without uttering a single syllable of reservation. In fact, in voting for President Bush’s initiative, she cited her husband’s invasion of Iraq and the “known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites” of Saddam Hussein as well as his “aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” The over-400 cruise missiles the former president dropped on suspected WMD sites in Iraq must have been fresh in her memory.

But today, as she veers far left, the smartest woman in the world claims, disingenuously, to have been “mislead.” She does this to please – read, pander to – the anti-American branch of her party that is funded by George Soros and features such national embarrassments as Code Pink, Senate Majority leader Harry “the war is lost” Reid, House Majority leader Nancy “Iraq is not the war on terror” Pelosi, Sen. Dick Durbin (who compared our troops to Nazis), and the rest of this sorry lot.

Does the date January 26, 2007, ring a bell? That is the date that Hillary voted to confirm General David Petraeus to lead the surge in Iraq, again without even a token expression of doubt. Apparently this date is lost on Hillary’s conveniently sieve-like memory.

But when (1) polls told her that public sentiment for the war was waning, (2) the antiwar left was picking up steam and publicity, and (3) she was preparing for her run for the presidency and knew she’d need this voluble faction to get the nomination, she did what Clintons always do when focus groups and polls tell them what to think and believe – she changed her mind! She stated loudly and often that she regretted voting for the war and that monetary support should be withheld from the Iraqi government in a war we’re now winning – the same strategy leftists like her did to end the war we were winning in Vietnam!

Hillary Smears U.S. Troops & Their Leader

Does the date September 10, 2007, ring a bell? That is when The New York Times ran an ad, paid for by and headlined “Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us” which was published for a generously half-priced rate – in case anyone on earth thought the Times was unbiased.

To this day, Hillary has steadfastly refused to condemn the ad that slurred the five-star general, the commander of our 170,000-person Multi-National Force – Iraq, a 35-year veteran, a Princeton graduate with a Ph.D. in International Relations, and a man who has spent his entire existence putting his life on the line for our country.

Does September 11, 2007, ring a bell? That is when Hillary, showing her lifelong contempt for our military, told General Petraeus that his report to Congress, which cited empirical evidence that the surge was working – that America was winning!– required “the willing suspension of disbelief.” Translated: General Petraeus, you’re a liar!

Yes, Hillary Clinton considers General David Petraeus a liar – while she continues to defend the man who lied to our entire country for almost a year, was disbarred because of his egregious behavior, and was impeached as President of the United States.

Yet she wants us to believe she is fit to be Commander in Chief!


According to journalist Rick Moran, the experts at now report that the violence in Iraq has decreased in most areas of the country by up to two-thirds what it was earlier in the year:

In fact, progress in Iraq can be attributed to another great generation of American soldiers who are “creative, innovative, resourceful, free thinking and brave,” said Jay Carafano, a senior research fellow specializing in defense and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation.

But clearly, Hillary doesn’t agree. To her, American military success has no meaning. To this day, she has not apologized to Gen. Petraeus for her unforgivably intemperate slur on his integrity? She has not acknowledged the success of the general’s surge. And she has never once repudiated or even distanced herself from the Times’ character-assassination ad or from its sponsor,

No wonder Republican Congressman Peter King, who returned from Iraq shortly after Hillary’s slur, told a radio host how closely the troops were following politics in the U.S., and how angry they were about the ad. “They specifically mentioned Hillary Clinton…for not denouncing It went beyond a political anger – it was a rage.”

Even The Washington Post’s liberal columnist Richard Cohen weighed in (“After Petraeus Is Slimed, Spineless Silence”), calling Hillary’s swipe at Gen. Petraeus “the politics of personal expediency.”

Questioning whether Hillary has “the spine” or “character” to be president, Cohen adds that this “was a moment for her to say that an Army general, under orders and attempting to fulfill a mission, should not be so casually trashed…That moment is gone – maybe because for Hillary Clinton it never arrived in the first place.”

Michael Goodwin of the NY Daily News put it this way: “With her refusal to denounce the far-left for its smear of our top commander in Iraq, Clinton has taken another big step away from the center of American politics. On the most important issue of our times – Iraq and the fight against Islamic terrorism – the Democratic presidential front-runner has thrown her lot in with the radicals, kooks and nuts…and she has turned her back on our soldiers and their leaders during wartime.”

Just as damning, in a Congressional resolution to salute Gen. Petraeus and denounce MoveOn for calling him “General Betray Us,” Hillary Clinton voted no! That made her only one of 25 senators to vote no, with 72 senators voting yes.

Goodwin calls this “a litmus test. By supporting one and opposing the other, Clinton put her ties to the radicals ahead of her ties to the military. Either you are viscerally comfortable with the people and the power necessary to defend our nation, or you are not. And with these two key votes, Clinton is showing not just discomfort, but hostility.”

And don’t be fooled by Hillary’s vote on November 16 against the enforcement of large-scale troop withdrawals in exchange for $50 billion in war funding – yet another effort by Democrats to lose the war in Iraq by stalling President Bush’s request for additional war funding until next year.

After screeching anti-war rants around the country, smearing General Petraeus, and bowing and scraping before the far-left factions of her Party, Hillary’s vote was yet another attempt to have it both ways and engage in the kind of flip-flops that have become her hallmark.

Writer Raymond Kraft warns that: “No soldier, no army, can be inspired by a leader who disdains it, and we have heard the disdain of Hillary Clinton for America’s soldiers, and for their mission. A Commander in Chief who embraces defeat cannot lead an army to victory. What soldier will fight for a Commander in Chief who believes that soldier’s mission is wrong, and that he or she should surrender and withdraw?”

Hillary’s Vintage Finger-Pointing

Hillary continues to stump on the premise that “this is George Bush’s war!” says writer Bill Murchison. This “tells us everything we need to know…Bush is `the one this thing is all about – not Saddam, not the weapons of mass destruction nearly everyone believed him to have; not the `bumper-sticker war’ on the homicidal maniacs who took down the Twin Towers, and whose imitators are multiplying.’”

“Campaigning for American defeat,” Murchison adds, “proves that those who do so had no shame to begin with.”

Nicholas Wapshott, in the NY Sun, writes that, “When [our troops] face the prospect of death or maiming each day, they do not deserve to be sniped at from the folks back home. Wars are also something the whole country shares. The Iraq War is no more “Bush’s War” than World War Two was “Roosevelt’s War.”

Wapshott reminds us that, “In World War Two, those who objected to the aims of the war, or refused to play their part, were considered traitors to America and treacherous to their friends and neighbors. It was possible to hold private reservations about the war or the way in which it was being directed, but it would have been unconscionable to have undermined the war effort or threatened the withdrawal of funds for our fighting forces.”

Yet, in her drumbeat, Hillary has thunderously “undermined the war effort.”

Columnist Debra J. Saunders reminds us that Hillary admitted to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that she hadn’t even read the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate before she voted for the war resolution, although she firmly believed that Iraq had WMD.

“Of course, she did,” said Saunders, “when [Bill Clinton] was president.”

In her new book, “For Love of Politics,” Sally Bedell Smith provides a perfect example of Hillary’s craven opportunism, which I maintain reinforces her unique unfitness to be president.

“In 1993 she talked her husband out of getting involved in the war in Bosnia because she thought it would be like Vietnam and would harm the chances for her health care plan. Two years later, after being secretly tutored by a State Department official, she became an advocate for the use of force in Bosnia because she feared Bill’s inaction was harming him politically.”

Hillary would also like the public to forget that last May, when Congress voted to fund the Iraq war without timetables or withdrawal dates, she was only one of 14 senators to vote no! This prompted the Wall St. Journal to editorialize that the vote (her vote) “won…praise from the likes of, which threatened not to support anyone who voted for the bill.”

Yet another reminder that Hillary’s first allegiance is not to our troops, nor to America’s victory in Iraq, but rather to George Soros’s money and to polls reflecting hard-left sentiment that also find it easy to bribe her to betray our troops.

The Journal’s editorial went on to say that Hillary (and her rivals for the presidential nomination) are “bidding to be Commander in Chief, and they vote to undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission…which means that they were for the war when it was popular but are against it now that public opinion has changed.”

As the “antiwar furies have built in her party, [Hillary] has bent with them and now says and does whatever it takes…This will complicate her Presidency if she ever does make it to the Oval Office. The Iranians, among others, will have seen that she can be turned when the going gets tough.” (Emphasis added).

Is this the woman who anyone on earth believes would defend our country – with the full force of its military might and the full backing of our military leaders – as we continue to fight the jihad that openly threatens to annihilate us every minute of every day?

Hillary Boosts Enemy Propaganda

That indictment is directly from the Pentagon, when last May Hillary insisted that the powers-that-be in that agency “start planning now for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.”

To this preposterous suggestion, Eric Edelman, the Pentagon’s Under Secretary of Defense, wrote back to Hillary: “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

If Hillary had her way, we would retreat from Iraq as her husband did, ignominiously, from Somalia. She is no more up to being Commander in Chief than any of the capitulators, appeasers and scared rabbits in her Party.

Which is why no sane American should even contemplate supporting the candidacy of a woman who believes that accommodating tyrants (think of her marriage), selling her soul for money (think of George Soros and any dozen fund-raising scandals), and smearing Five-star General David Petraeus is worthy of leading America in a time of such great peril.

Hillary and Tyrants – A Mutual Attraction
This past September, when the anti-American, anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, expressed a desire to visit Ground Zero, widespread protests took place. According to law professor, radio host, and writer Hugh Hewitt, New Yorkers were “unwilling to forgive and forget the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983, the bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina in 1994, the supply to Hezbollah of the rockets and missiles used in last summer’s indiscriminate attacks on civilians, or the killing and wounding of American soldiers and Marines in Iraq through the use of Iranian-manufactured explosives and Iranian trained and directed terrorists.”

While Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney immediately blasted Ahmadinejad’s plan, there was one (carpet-bagging) New Yorker who had nothing to say about it – Hillary Clinton.

According to Martin Kramer, Olin Institute senior fellow at Harvard University, Hillary’s foreign-policy agenda, which was published in Foreign Affairs magazine, involves resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by considering “that both sides are equally at fault for the violence,” and that Palestinians need only make promises to earn statehood.

“This is exactly what the U.S. did during the Clinton years,” Kramer says, “when Yasser Arafat visited the White House 11 times, and met with President Clinton 24 times. Not only did this `consistent involvement’ at the highest level not produce any progress…it eventually blew up in Washington’s face…”

Hillary “witnessed the debacle from up close…[but] ignores precisely the lesson inflicted upon us by the failed policy of the Clinton administration…[she] adopts a position of studied neutrality…These are not formulas used by Israel’s friends.”

No mystery here. Hillary has been trying for the last seven years to redeem her husband’s failed Mideast policy, the better for people to forget his last, sordid months in the White House and to obfuscate them with the elusive legacy they both lust for. But by so doing, she makes it plain that she hasn’t an original, relevant, forward-looking policy of her own.

Is this what our country needs? Hillary as President with a retro, pre-9/11 foreign policy that didn’t work then and surely won’t work now as we approach the end of the first decade in the 21st century?

Writer Deroy Murdock, a media fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, warns us that, “Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is gaining fans, even on the West Bank.” He lists numerous Palestinian “leaders” who wax poetic at the prospect of the U.S. losing in Iraq under Hillary:

▪ We see Hillary and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq… This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world…” Abu Jihad of Al Aqsa’s Nablus unit.

▪ “All Americans must vote Democrat”: Jihad Jaara, an exiled Al Aqsa agent who commanded 2002’s siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity.

“Why do these hardened butchers have a soft spot for Hillary Clinton?” Murdock asks.

“Perhaps because the New York Democrat is soft on terrorism.” He backs up this claim by listing the U.S. policies that Hillary opposes “robustly” – among them: interrogating terrorists even in “ticking time bomb” scenarios, the U.S. Terrorist Surveillance Program, and military tribunals for terror suspects, including al Qaeda detainees.

Hillary’s support from terrorists also includes the following, according to international journalist Aaron Klein, author of “Schmoozing with Terrorists.”

Hillary will end President Bush’s “unlimited military and diplomatic support for Israel” and adapt a more “evenhanded” approach…” and she will “follow in the footsteps” of her husband’s administration…” Ahmed Yousef, top advisor to the Hamas leader in Gaza. [Note: Hamas is classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization].

“I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq.” Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

Clinton‘s repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq “proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world.” Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip. [Note: The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.]

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is “emboldened” by Clinton’s calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

“It is “very good” there are “voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion.” Nasser Abu Aziz, the West Bank deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Brigades.

“All Americans must vote Democrat.” Jihad Jaara, an exiled member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity.

In a chilling article entitled “News of the Future: President Hillary Clinton Surrenders America,” Douglas MacKinnon, a former White House and Pentagon official, sums up Hillary’s unfitness for the presidency by asking the following rhetorical question:

“Would the Islamists bent on our total destruction prefer that the citizens of the United States elect as president, a person who will use any means to track them, hunt them down where they sleep and hide, wring the truth out of them, show them and their allies absolutely no mercy, and lock down our borders, or…would they prefer a president such as Hillary Clinton, who will keep our borders open, never allow profiling, never listen to their communications with terrorists inside our nation, think it is wrong to detain them outside of the United States or let our allies question them, bend to the will of other liberal or socialist nations, and always treat them as criminals instead of cold blooded killers?”

Hillary’s Loves Jihadists’ Money
The Clinton fund-raising machine has always been suspect, going back to the days when shady Chinese and Indonesian moneymen and Middle Eastern terror suspects larded the former president’s coffers with piles of funny money.

According to Investor’s Business Daily, it “looks like Hillary Clinton’s vetting of campaign donations still needs work. FEC records show she’s taken cash from Islamists so tainted that past Democrat candidates have returned their money.” Some of those donors, IBD reports, are under active federal investigation for supporting terrorism, money laundering and tax fraud.

“But that hasn’t stopped Hillary from pocketing their money,” even after she accepted money from fugitive donor Norman Hsu.”

Hillary’s connections to fishy donors “are worrisome,” the editorial continues, and goes on to name Muslim donors whose homes and offices were raided after 9/11 by federal agents, “as part of a counter-terrorism investigation targeting…a Saudi-backed conglomerate of Muslim businesses and charities.” One of the men targeted by the raids was “designated an al Qaeda financier by the U.S. government.”

“Why would Wahhabists be putting chips on Hillary Clinton and her unofficial running mate?” IBD asks. “Running down their wish list, you’ll find that Hillary checks off on just about everything – from promising to pull out of Iraq and the Middle East to creating a Palestinian state to closing down Gitmo. She also wants to stop interrogations and surveillance of jihadist suspects.”

“Hands down, Hillary gets the Islamists’ vote. Her sympathies lie with them and they know it. That’s why they endorse her and even contribute to her campaign,” the editorial states.

In addition, IBD reminds its readers “of the drug addicts and criminals who were given unlimited access to the people’s house in the 1990s. It’s not the first time Clinton has taken cash from terror supporters.”

This includes $1,000 she accepted during her 2000 Senate campaign from Abdurahman Alamoudi, then head of the American Muslim Council. After he expressed his support for Palestinian terrorists, [Hillary] “tried to disguise Alamoudi – whom she had hosted at the White House as first lady – as a curator rather than a terror supporter by listing his group in her FEC donor report as the `American Museum Council.’ But it didn’t fool anyone.”

Today, IBD explains, Alamoudi is doing time as a terrorist. “In fact, the Treasury Department says he was one of al Qaeda’s top fundraisers in the U.S.”

And we all know that this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to the jihadists’ money that Hillary loves so much.

Hillary fails miserably in vetting her obviously suspect campaign donors and takes the money of criminals and terrorists with craven indifference to the serious implications this has in terms of U.S. foreign policy.

To my mind, this disqualifies her from being even minimally qualified to be President of the United States!

Hillary’s Bogus Claim of “Experience”
Oh, she tells her gullible audiences that of all the Democrat candidates, she has “the most experience.” In fact, Sen. Barack Obama has held elected office longer than Hillary has.
But she is “the most experienced candidate,” says James Taranto of the Wall St. Journal, “only if you give her credit for proximity, for the eight years when she lived in the White House while her husband was president.”

As Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly reminded voters, Hillary has “never run a city, a state or a business.” And as most people know, of the few things she did run during her tenure as First Lady – healthcare reform being the most glaring example – she failed miserably.

In fact, since her 2000 election, she has never even chaired a Senate committee! But as Deroy Murdock points out, “Clinton has presided over something. She commanded the Wellesley College Republicans in 1965, and then became student-government president.”

The “experience” question is clearly bothersome to the Clinton campaign, which is why the former president, when interviewed on Bloomberg TV, took great pains to tout his wife’s fitness for office and to cite the differences between himself (who was 46 when he first took the oath of office, a year younger than Obama would be in January 2009) from the Illinois senator.

“Obama has the added difficulty that the international situation is more complicated today, with the threat of terrorism and the war in Iraq, than it was in 1992,” Clinton said. “…We didn’t have the terror threat…”

Taranto is clearly incredulous! I repeat here how he refuted this completely bogus claim: By the time Clinton was elected, the following acts had already occurred:”

▪ The November 1979 invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the holding of hostages, who were not released until Inauguration Day 1981.

▪ Hezbollah’s 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241.

▪ The holding of American hostages, and murder of some, in Beirut throughout the 1980s.

▪ The 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait.

▪ The 1985 bombing of a Madrid restaurant frequented by American soldiers.

▪ The 1985 Hezbollah hijacking of TWA flight 847 and murder of a U.S. Navy flier on board.

▪ The 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, in which an American passenger was murdered.

▪ The 1986 bombing of TWA flight 840, which killed four Americans.

▪ The 1986 bombing of a disco in Berlin, which prompted a retaliatory strike on Libyan targets.

▪ The 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270.

Clinton had been in office barely a month when terrorists first tried to destroy the World Trade Center, killing six. His term saw the following attacks on American interests overseas:

▪ The 1995 car bombing of U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five servicemen.

▪ The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, killing 19 Americans.

▪ The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224.

▪ The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, less than a month before the election of Mr. Clinton’s successor, killing 17 American sailors.

“Then of course,” Taranto writes, “came 9/11, less than eight months after Mr. Clinton left office. How can anyone, looking back in 2007, claim, `we didn’t have the terror threat’ in 1992?”

“Experience,” Taranto says, “is valuable only if we are able to learn from it. At the next debate, someone should ask Mrs. Clinton if she agrees with her husband that in 1992 `we didn’t have the terror threat.’”

Hillary Bodes Ill For Our Country and for Civilization
“The rise and fall of nations and empires very often hinges on the decisions, or indecisions, of one person,” writes Raymond Kraft. Hillary is “hostile to the use of America’s force for ideological reasons, hostile to the idea of American exceptionalism, and therefore she is very likely – if not certain – to do grave and irreparable harm to the future of the United States and to the future of free societies around the world.”

In addition, Kraft continues, she is “ambivalent about America’s destiny to be the beacon of liberty…and ambivalent (at best) about using the combined moral, economic, political, and military forces of America to carry out that mission. Any Democrat government at this juncture in history will dissipate America’s momentum in a morass of multiculturalism and moral equivalence; in approval-seeking from foreign governments that share little or nothing of America’s ideals; and in moral and political timidity and myopia.”

Few people can fathom what drives Hillary’s ambition – an ambition so ferocious that it compels her to speak out of both sides of her mouth, flip-flop incessantly on matters of national security, militate against our victory in Iraq, accept dirty campaign money from criminals and terrorists, and embrace leftwing, anti-American organizations while simultaneously smearing our military.

Clearly, Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President of the United States.

Joan Swirsky is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. She is a New York-based author and journalist who has been a longtime health-and-science and feature writer for The New York Times Long Island section. She is the recipient of seven Long Island Press Awards…

Hillary’s Carville Planting

CNN has made a massive mistake with the undisclosed use of James Carville as a commentator for post debate round table… Even the liberal bloggers and her democratic opponents were upset…

While Carville might not be on Hillary’s payroll, Hillary is certainly on Carville’s payroll.

 A Clinton Friend’s Role Sets Off Intense Criticism of CNN and a Re-examination

Mario Tama/Agence France-Presse

James Carville with Bill Clinton in 1999 at the White House.

function getSharePasskey() { return ‘ex=1353042000&en=470a867a371e8215&ei=5124’;} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent(‘’); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘A Clinton Friend’s Role Sets Off Intense Criticism of CNN and a Re-examination’); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent(‘A CNN executive conceded that the channel should have more fully disclosed the past relationship between James Carville and Hillary Rodham Clinton.’); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Presidential Election of 2008,Elections,Friendship,Presidents and Presidency (US),Cable News Network,Hillary Rodham Clinton,James Carville’); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent(‘us’); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent(‘U.S. / Politics’); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent(‘politics’); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘By JULIE BOSMAN’); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent(‘November 17, 2007’); }


Published: November 17, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared for a battle with her Democratic rivals at the CNN-sponsored debate on Thursday night. She did not have much to fear from the postdebate round table.

Among the experts trotted out by CNN to comment was James Carville, a Democratic strategist and CNN commentator who is also a close friend of Mrs. Clinton and a contributor to her campaign.

Mr. Carville’s presence aroused the fury of rivals and bloggers. They called it a conflict of interest and criticized CNN.

“Would it kill CNN to disclose that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter when talking about the presidential race?” Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal blog, Daily Kos. Mr. Moulitsas drew hundreds of comments.

Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, said: “What you saw last night lacked full disclosure. The average viewer out in middle America may not know the inside-the-Beltway connection.”

A CNN executive conceded that the cable channel should have more fully disclosed Mr. Carville’s past and that it was discussing how to handle such situations.

The criticisms were among a series against CNN for how it managed the debate, a two-hour event in Las Vegas that ran nearly 15 minutes late. Viewers criticized segments like the opening, when candidates bounded onto the stage in a style reminiscent of a sports event.

Voters and commentators wrote online about how the audience cheered and booed, the way the CNN hosts reframed audience questions and whether it was correct to demand yes-or-no answers to complex questions.

Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval, a student who asked Mrs. Clinton whether she preferred diamonds or pearls (Mrs. Clinton answered “both”), said she had prepared a list of more serious questions but had been directed by CNN to ask her trivial question.

CNN said the debate was the most watched in this campaign, drawing more than four million viewers.

Viewers directed most of their criticism at the commentary. The channel has been ridiculed by conservative groups as the Clinton News Network, partly because its commentators include Mr. Carville and Paul Begala, an adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Carville said in a phone interview that he did not have a role in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and that he had “never been paid a nickel by her.”

He also said he considered her a close personal friend, had contributed to her presidential effort, had friends working for her campaign, planned to vote for her in the Virginia primary and spoke to Mr. Clinton regularly.

He also sent a fund-raising e-mail message last spring on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf, Newsday reported in February.

“Let’s show these attack dogs what we’re made of,” he wrote. “Our ‘One Week, One Million’ campaign will send a clear message: Hillary won’t back down, and we’ve got her back.”

“I am close to them,” Mr. Carville said of the Clintons yesterday. “I hold them in great affection and I’m a maxed-out contributor.”

CNN executives said they routinely reminded viewers of Mr. Carville’s affiliation in his segments. On Thursday, Anderson Cooper, the CNN host who moderated the round table, said, “I should point out David Gergen was an adviser in the Bill Clinton White House, as, of course, was James Carville.”

That was not enough for Jonathan Klein, the CNN president who said in an interview that the disclosure fell short.

“He’s not on the Hillary payroll, but he’s on the Hillary bandwagon, and that should be disclosed as much as we can,” Mr. Klein said. “I wasn’t comfortable with it myself as I watched it.

“He has disclosed all of this previously and repeatedly on our air,” he continued. “He happened not to last night, and it’s an unfortunate omission.”

The Swiftboat Card

I guess this is the term for the 2008 Democratic party… The latest is Barak Obama claiming that reports of the Hillary camp having dirt on his, could lead to her swiftboating him… Well sorry Obama, as I said in a previous post, the swiftboat actions against John Kerry were totally different, it was a group of soldiers that served with Kerry who disputed his recollection of the events surrounding his service records. This in no way equates to that, unless when revealed it turns out Hillary has a group of people that worked with you that dispute the events you recall about a series of events… Or is there something you know about in your past that you lied about and think that maybe Hillary has found a group of people that are going to publicly dispute it and demand that you release documentation you have access to in order for you to prove yourself…

Swiftboat, Swiftboated, Swiftboating, Swiftboatily, Noun, Verb, Adjective…

Welcome to the 2008 elections where everyone can be swiftboated for a price…

(CNN)–Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called on his rival for the nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, to put to rest a report that agents of her campaign are spreading word of an alleged scandal involving Obama.

“She of all people, having complained so often about ‘the politics of personal destruction,’ should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics,” Obama said in a statement released by his campaign on Saturday.

Obama’s comments stem from a newspaper column by the journalist Robert Novak published Saturday. Novak claimed that surrogates for Clinton have mounted a word of mouth campaign among Democratic circles regarding scandalous information the Clinton campaign has about Obama. Novak said that experienced veterans of Democratic politics believe the Clinton campaign is withholding the release of the information because it wants to avoid a re-play of the 2004 nomination fight, when attacks on each other by Richard Gephardt, and Howard Dean were credited with assisting the rise, and eventual nomination of another candidate, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.

” The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old ‘Swift Boat’ politics,” the Illinois senator went on to say in the statement. “But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.”

“We have no idea what Mr. Novak’s item is about and reject it totally,” Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer told CNN Saturday. “Instead of pointing fingers at us, Senator Obama should get back to the issues and focus on what this election is really about.”

“Once again Senator Obama is echoing Republican talking points, this time from Bob Novak. This is how Republicans work,” Singer went on to say. “A Republican leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games. Voters should be concerned about the readiness of any Democrat inexperienced enough to fall for this. There is a campaign in this race that has engaged in the very practice that Senator Obama is decrying, and it’s his.”

“The Clinton campaign has admitted that they do not possess the ‘scandalous information’ in question and we take them at their word,” said David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager in a statement on Saturday. “But what we don’t accept is their assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks. This is exactly the kind of smear politics, Democrats need to fight back on, regardless of the source or the party. Democrats should know that when Barack Obama is their nominee, he will not allow the ‘Swift boat’ politics of fear and diversion to prevail in this campaign.”

Click here to see CNN’s new political portal:

– CNN Political Desk Editor Jamie Crawford

Hillary Straps One On For The “Boys”

Hillary Clinton has stepped up her game and gone on the offensive in the Las Vegas Democratic debates… Taking one for the team, she is now trying to potray herself as the dominant one on the playing field by attacking bothe Barak Obama and John Edwards… Pulling from her arsenal of past mistakes, she sees to it Obama stumbles on the Drivers Licenses for Illegals issue and spanks John Edwards for Flip Flopping.

The Lower Ranks of the Democratic candidates also came out swinging in an attempt to show the public their strong sides, not that it will mean much in the long run as they don’t have a shot in hell at winning the primaries…

She is now trying to downplay the gender card and make up for her past mistakes, well folks this could be it. She out smarted the “boys” now that she is thinking clearly instead of emotionally…

LAS VEGAS  —  Hillary Rodham Clinton showed she knows how to use the roughhouse tactics of the political boys club.Two weeks after a rocky presidential debate performance where she appeared at times both defensive and evasive, the New York senator came into Thursday’s Democratic forum ready to rumble.For the first time, she directly challenged the records of her top rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards. She even chided Edwards, her fiercest critic in this debate and others, for “throwing mud” Republican-style.

Spectators inside the debate hall appeared to echo that criticism, repeatedly booing Edwards and occasionally Obama when they criticized Clinton.

And after days of torturous contortions on whether she supported granting driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, Clinton was able to stand by and watch as Obama was tripped up on the issue this time.

“To the degree she might have been stumbling in the last debate, she regained her footing tonight,” Democratic strategist Garry South said. “It was a very impressive performance by Hillary Clinton. She showed she could battle back criticism very well.”

It was a night during which many of Clinton’s rivals also turned in strong performances. Joe Biden demonstrated his expertise in foreign policy during an exchange over the growing crisis in Pakistan. Chris Dodd displayed his fluency on education issues, parrying a question on merit pay for teachers by saying he supported such pay for teachers in poor rural and urban districts.

But with exactly seven weeks until Iowa holds its leadoff caucuses, the dynamic between Clinton and her top two rivals loomed large. Polls show Clinton, Obama and Edwards locked in a tight three-way race in the state, and a Clinton win would be seen as her glide path to the nomination. Anything less and the nomination is up for grabs.

After months of avoiding any direct confrontation with her rivals, Clinton adopted a more aggressive tone. She took on Obama on his health care plan, arguing it would leave 15 million Americans uninsured. Obama has said he would first focus on bringing down costs.

She also noted that Edwards hadn’t supported universal health care when he ran for president in 2004. “I’m glad he is now,” she said.

Edwards responded by angrily denying he had “flip flopped” on important issues, as he’s repeatedly accused Clinton of doing.

“Anybody who’s not willing to change based on what they learn is ignorant, and everybody ought to be willing to do that,” he said. “I’m saying there’s a difference between that and saying the exact same two contrary things at exactly the same time.”

If anything, the former first lady showed she knows how to learn from her mistakes.

After her rough outing in the last debate, Clinton lamented the “all-boys club of presidential politics” while her campaign advisers accused her male rivals of “piling on.”

This time, Clinton smoothly deflected questions about whether she had played the gender card.

“It is clear, I think, from women’s experiences that from time to time there may be some impediments,” she said. “And it has been my goal over the course of my lifetime to be part of this great movement of progress that includes all of us, but has particularly been significant to me as a woman.”

To be sure, it wasn’t a perfect debate for Clinton.

Obama again cornered her on how she would keep Social Security solvent, a question she has sidestepped repeatedly. And she was forced to defend her Senate vote to take a more aggressive stand against Iran amid questions from a returning Iraq soldier and his mother who said they feared a showdown with Iran was coming next.

“Her weakest issue right now is Iran. It puts her at an enormous disadvantage in these debates,” Democratic strategist Bill Carrick said.

But Clinton was able to take advantage of other moments to showcase her toughness on foreign policy.

In an exchange over the situation in Pakistan where Gen. Pervez Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he believed that human rights were more important than U.S. national security.

Clinton flatly disagreed. “The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America,” she said.

The strangest moment in the debate — and the most fortuitous for Clinton — came over a discussion of granting licenses to illegal immigrants, a question that has haunted Clinton since the last debate.

Until this week, she said she generally supported governors’ efforts to find ways to promote public safety in their states in the absence of federal immigration reform. But Wednesday, she completely reversed herself, announcing she opposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

When CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer pressed the candidates on whether they supported granting licenses, Obama gave a long and convoluted answer. When Clinton was asked, she simply said “no.”

Clinton Planting More Than Corn In Iowa

The Clinton camp has been caught planting questions during a Town Hall forum in Iowa. The reprecussions are yet to be seen however the up coming caucus could show a caustic backlash as this area holds sacred the true meaning of open forums.

The biggest problem with this is that her canned speech is designed to force a perspective on Global Warming that may not necessarily be true. See says that young people in Iowa are very concerned with Global Warming and she knows this as so many are asking her about it.

The next area of concern is the political flip flop, isn’t this what the Bush Administration was accused by Democrats and they made a huge issue about it, the only difference, is that the Bush Administration allowed a specific reporter into a press conference, where as Hillary is using college students to influence other college students…

Lastly, it shows that Hillary is afraid of the open market questions, because she got caught off guard during the Democratic debate, so now she needs prepared answers so she does not stumble on the questions in the future. I wonder how many other questions have been plants, and how many more will come.

The Clinton camp has said this is then end, however had they not been caught, obviously this would have been the status quo for them.

Can you smell the fertilizer?

SIOUX CITY, Iowa —  Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee admitted that the campaign had planted the question and said it would not happen again.

“On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton’s energy plan at a forum,” Elliethee said.

“However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.”

In a state where the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clinton’s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans.

According to a report on the Grinnell University Web site, the Clinton campaign arranged for some of the questions for the candidate to be asked by college students:

“On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue…. /**/

“After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. ‘They were canned,’ she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. ‘One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],’ she said.

“Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

“But the source of the question was no coincidence — at this event ‘they wanted a question from a college student,’ Gallo-Chasanoff said.”

The tape of the event shows that the question and answer went as follows:

Question: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?

Clinton: “Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it’s usually young people that ask me about global warming.”

The campaign’s admission that it planted the question may be another blow to the New York senator’s image as a trustworthy politician.

Clinton’s critics have accused her of being a double-talker who refuses to answer tough questions specifically. Now her campaign has acknowledged planting at least one question.

Already her rivals have begun to criticize Friday’s revelation.

“In light of a weak debate performance, not to mention a persistent inability to answer the tough questions, it appears the Clinton campaign has adopted a new strategy of planting questions,” John Edwards’ Communications Director Chris Kofinis said.

“It’s what the Clinton campaign calls the politics of planting.”

Hillary’s Switftboat Sinking Fast

Bill is trying to do damage control for Hillary and seems to be making it worse. He is trying to use the John Kerry cry of Hillary being swiftboated, then when called on that by Democrat contenders, he tries to apply unseasoned logic that the whole democratic party is vulnerable to a Republican swiftboat action. What a way to try and recoop from mis-speaking.

Now, in both cases, Bill has it wrong. The swiftboat campaigns was a group of former soldiers that served with Kerry who disputed his account of his actions and service record. Their contention is that he lied. The Democratic debate had non of those traits to it, it was the trailers attacking the leader of their own party. Non on the contender claimed Hillary made up her record on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, they claimed that she was not answering the question.

As for this setting up other Democrats for swiftwatering, since the basis of Bill first argument is incorrect, then it only follows that his “clarification” is baseless as usual.

This is nothing more than political posturing and hoping to get a sympathy vote pulled from Hillary’s rivals… Cry me a river Bill…

So far the Gender Card has been Used, the Swiftboat Foul has been called, I guess next it will be the Vast Republican Conspiracy….

The Setup:

Clinton Charges Through Iowa, Bill Clinton Likens Attacks on Hillary to ‘Swift Boat’ Ads

With less than two months until the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton is charging through the early-voting state in an attempt to widen a lead that was recently imperiled when her Democratic opponents stepped up their game of hardball against her following last week’s candidate debate.

The frontrunner’s worries that opponents Barack Obama and John Edwards could outflank her in the heartland have set her to hiring 100 new staff in Iowa and possibly doubling that army by election night on Jan. 3.

It also has led to a back and forth about fair play that has even dragged husband Bill Clinton into the fray.

The former president has denounced attacks on his wife, likening criticism of her positions on issues to the attack ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that helped sink John Kerry’s White House hopes in 2004.

“We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters. When we listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President Gore was too stiff. And when they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he’d done in his life. When that scandalous Swift Boat ad was run against Senator Kerry,” Bill Clinton told some 3,000 members of the American Postal Worker’s Union at a convention in Las Vegas on Monday night.

“I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again,” he continued. “I think it’s fine to discuss immigration. We should. … But not in 30 seconds, yes, no, raise your hand. This is a complicated issue.”

Hillary Clinton has let her husband do the talking in her defense, instead taking the high road and telling Iowa voters she’s running a “positive campaign.” Her strategy of turning the other cheek plays to Iowa’s long-running antagonism toward negative campaigning.

Clinton is leading in Iowa by a narrower margin than she has been polling nationally, but even her national numbers have slipped in the last week. A Rasmussen poll taken of 750 likely voters between Nov. 1 and 4 showed Clinton with 41 percent support, down from the 49 percent she earned in a similar Rasmussen poll taken two weeks earlier. Her closest opponent, Obama, has 22 percent, the same number he held in the earlier poll.

In Iowa, an American Research Group poll taken between Oct. 26 and 29 of 600 likely voters put Clinton 10 points ahead of Obama, with 32 percent support. A University of Iowa poll taken a week earlier only gave her a two-point lead.

Trying to widen the gap in Iowa, Clinton has visited 33 Iowa cities this week to speak about her plan to increase biofuels production, achieve energy independence and create so-called “green” jobs.

But her pledge to stay positive has done little to silence her opponents, who scoffed Tuesday at her husband’s raising the specter of the Swift Boats ads.

Democratic candidate and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd called the Clintons’ response to the debate “outrageous.”

“To have the former president come out and suggest this is a form of swiftboating … is way over the top in my view,” Dodd said.

Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who in recent days has led the charge against Clinton, continued the barrage, releasing a statement challenging Clinton to answer five “simple questions” on Iraq and claiming she has provided no plan for ending the war.

Asked in New Market, N.H., if he was piling on the Democratic frontrunner with the rest of the all-male field, Edwards said, “No.”

“I think everyone who is running for president should be held to the same standard, and I have enough respect for all voters, including women voters in America, who know they have to evaluate every single one of us on the merits,” he said.

Obama, the Illinois senator, chuckled in an interview with The Associated Press when he said he “was pretty stunned” by Bill Clinton’s statement. He added that all the candidates need to have a thicker skin.

“I mean, I think it’s assumed that we are running for the presidency of the United States of America and that we’ve got to answer tough questions,” he said, adding that Hillary Clinton’s contradictions attract criticism.

“How you would then draw an analogy to distorting somebody’s military record is a reach,” Obama said of Bill Clinton’s comparison.

A Clinton spokesman on Tuesday urged the New York senator’s Democratic opponents to tone down the anti-Clinton rhetoric and join forces with her against attacks from the Republican Party.

“While Senator Obama copies John Edwards by spending his days attacking other Democrats, Senator Clinton is talking about how she’ll address the nation’s energy crisis,” said spokesman Jay Carson. “Senator Obama is well aware that the former president was saying that the Republicans will do anything to play politics with a serious issue. So instead of launching another attack against the Clintons, Senator Obama should join with them in working to prevent all Democrats from being attacked by the GOP.”

Obama’s spokesman Bill Burton didn’t let that notion rest.

“The only person playing politics today is Senator Clinton. It’s absurd to compare a simple yes or no question about immigration that Senator Clinton still won’t answer seven days after the debate to the despicable Republican attacks against John Kerry. … Senator Obama believes that to truly stand up to the Republican attack machine, we have to be honest and straightforward about where we stand on the major issues facing America,” Burton said.

Clinton is headed to New Hampshire next but plans to return to Iowa Saturday. The packed schedule in Iowa appears to be wearing on her, as she frequently makes reference to her raspy voice.

“My voice is getting a little worn down. I’ve been talking for about 10 months. Especially the last four days,” she said Tuesday in Amana.

FOX News’ Serafin Gomez, Major Garrett and Aaron Bruns and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The recovery:

Bill Clinton: Debates might leave ’08 Dems open to swift-boating

Watch former President Clinton’s comments in Las Vegas on Monday.

CHICAGO (AP) — Former President Clinton said Wednesday that all the Democratic presidential candidates could be open to a “swift boat kind of ad” if they try to give quick responses to complicated issues like driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

A day after being criticized for defending his wife, the former president tried to explain his comments linking criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton to the swift boat campaign against John Kerry’s military record in the 2004 campaign. Bill Clinton made the comparison Monday during a speech in Las Vegas.

Sen. Chris Dodd said it was “way over the top.” Sen. Barack Obama said he was stunned to hear the former president make such a comparison.

At the end of a Democratic presidential debate last week, Hillary Clinton hedged when asked whether she supported a plan by her home state governor to issue licenses to illegal immigrants.

Dodd, Obama and others have accused her of trying to have it both ways on the issue.

Bill Clinton said Wednesday he didn’t think it was a good idea to tackle such a complicated issue by asking the candidates to answer with hand-raising. He said candidates should have enough time to give full answers.

“I thought it made all the Democrats vulnerable to a swift-boat-kind of ad in the general election,” Clinton told reporters after a rally at a South Side ballroom with several hundred of his wife’s supporters. The event was closed to the media.

“When you have complicated issues, you don’t want to turn them into two-dimensional cartoons,” he said.

Obama “The Patriot” – Dishonors The United State Of America

In September during an Iowa Fry Steak, Omaba has hands crossed infront of his crotch during the National Anthem. Now some have argued that it was a matter of timing, that this picture was snapped just before the Anthem started or right after it ended. However video from the event shows that he was poised this way throughtout the Anthem.

Is this the man you want as our next President. He has already refused to wear the US Flag lapel pin because the thinks that it is too patriotic. Now the National Anthem is to too Patriotic for him. Even Hillary has the decency to follow protocol…

Can you picture what his Oath of Office will be like?

And for those confused on what the proper conduct for the National Anthem is, there is the Flag code:

(a) Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b) Conduct During Playing.— During a rendition of the national anthem—

(1) when the flag is displayed—

(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;

(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

American’s Want Change, Not Necessarily Democrats

This is a great Article. The only concern is that several people I have talked to think that the article means that the majority of the country is going to vote Democrat and that this article is saying that Republicans are going to vote Democrat in the 2008 Presidential Elections.

The article points out several important issues in the upcoming elections and does seem to prod the reader into thinking Republicans are bad…. However it is not that people necessarily support Democratic change in the election. I myself, support change from the current path the Bush Administration is taking. I would like to see the Bush Administration return to the path it was taking initially during his first term. He brought the country together, forced the Democrats to become bi-partisan for those four years, achieved economic improvements for us middle class folks. When he switched and caved into Democratic pressure, he faltered.

Read each of the stats and think about what they really mean. Yes change,  

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page A01

One year out from the 2008 election, Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush, according to a new Washington PostABC News poll.

Concern about the economy, the war in Iraq and growing dissatisfaction with the political environment in Washington all contribute to the lowest public assessment of the direction of the country in more than a decade. Just 24 percent think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a course that is different than that pursued by Bush.

Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency.

Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq remains a primary drag on public opinion, and Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy. More than six in 10 called the war not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds gave the national economy negative marks. The outlook going forward is also bleak: About seven in 10 see a recession as likely over the next year.

The overall landscape tilts in the direction of the Democrats, but there is evidence in the new poll — matched in conversations with political strategists in both parties and follow-up interviews with survey participants — that the coming battle for the White House is shaping up to be another hard-fought, highly negative and closely decided contest.

At this point, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, holds the edge in hypothetical match-ups with four of the top contenders for the Republican nomination. But against the two best-known GOP candidates, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), her margins are far from comfortable. Not one of the leading candidates in either party has a favorable rating above 51 percent in the new poll.

And while Clinton finds herself atop all candidates in terms of strong favorability — in the poll, 28 percent said they feel strongly favorable toward her — she also outpaces any other candidate on strong unfavorables. More than a third, 35 percent, have strongly negative views of her, more than 10 points higher than any other contender.

Overall, the public’s sour mood is evident not only in the desire for a change in direction but also in assessments of those who control the reins of power in Washington. For the fourth consecutive month, Bush’s approval rating remains at a career low. Thirty-three percent said they approve of the job he is doing, and 64 percent disapprove. Majorities have disapproved of Bush’s job performance for more than 2 1/2 years.

In follow-up interviews, people were quick to find fault with what they see in Washington and to express their desire for something different. “I think Bush has been extremely polarizing to the country,” said Amber Welsh, a full-time mother of three young children who lives in Davis, Calif. “While I think it started before Bush, I think Bush has pushed it even further. I think the next president needs to be one who brings us together as a country.”

Democrats can take little comfort in Bush’s numbers, however. A year after voters turned Republicans out of power in the House and the Senate, approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress’s performance is lower than the president’s rating, registering just 28 percent. That is the lowest since November 1995, when Republicans controlled Congress and the capital was paralyzed in a budgetary fight that shut down the government.

Congressional Democrats now fare just slightly better. Only 36 percent of those surveyed approve of the way they are handling their jobs, down sharply from April when, 100 days into the new Congress, 54 percent said they approved.

Whatever their dissatisfaction with the Democrats, however, a majority of Americans, 54 percent, said they want the party to emerge from the 2008 election in control of Congress; 40 percent would prefer the GOP to retake power. One reason is that 32 percent approve of congressional Republicans, and in a series of other measures it becomes clear that the eventual Republican nominee for president may be burdened by a tarnished party label in the general election.

Thirty-nine percent of Americans said they now have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, lower than at any point since December 1998, when Republicans were in the midst of impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton.

Among the GOP rank and file, Republican favorability has fallen 15 percentage points since March 2006 (from 93 percent to 78 percent). It has dropped 19 points among independents, whose support for Democratic candidates in last year’s midterm elections contributed significantly to GOP losses in the House and the Senate.

Only 23 percent of those surveyed said they want to keep going “in the direction Bush has been taking us,” and the appetite for change is as high as it was in the summer of 1992, in the lead-up to Bill Clinton’s defeat of President George H.W. Bush. It is significantly higher than it was in the summer of 2000 or the fall of 1988.

“We’re in a terrible mess,” said Jay Davis, who works on computers for an insurance company and lives in Portland, Maine. “The war is an incredible mistake, and it becomes more and more obvious. The economy is just being propped up with toothpicks.”

Jo Wright, a retired Episcopal priest from Vinita, Okla., said, “It just seems that after these eight years most people think there’s got to be a change, and I’m with them.”

Greg Coy, a 911 dispatcher who lives in Shippensburg, Pa., is less pessimistic about the overall state of the country than Davis or Wright, but he is unhappy with both the president and Congress. He voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but he said: “If he came up again [for reelection], I wouldn’t vote for him. The last year I think he’s dropped something, and I’m not sure what it is.”

Coy also offered a broader indictment of a political system he sees as gridlocked by partisanship. “Here’s the problem with this country,” he said. “Just because it’s a Republican idea, Democrats don’t like it, and because it’s a Democratic idea, Republicans don’t like it. The Congress should go with what works for this country. We have gotten away from that.”

Justin Munro, a contractor from Reading, Pa., offered a less widely held view of Bush’s policies and the direction of the country. “I’m pretty confident that time will prove that maybe going into Iraq was the right thing to do,” he said. He also believes that Bush has not gotten enough credit on the economy: “I think we’ll look back on that, too, and see that the tax cuts were the right thing to do.”

At this stage, three issues dominate the electoral landscape, with the war in Iraq at the top of the list. Nearly half of all adults, 45 percent, cited Iraq as the most or second-most important issue in their choice for president. About three in 10 cited the economy and jobs (29 percent) or health care (27 percent). All other issues are in the single digits.

Iraq is tops across party lines, but Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to highlight health care as one of the two most important issues for 2008 (34 percent to 16 percent). Health-care concerns peak among African Americans: Twenty percent called it the election’s most important issue, and 38 percent said it is one of the top two.

While 12 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents cited immigration as one of the top two issues, it was highlighted by 3 percent of Democrats. Terrorism is also a more prominent concern among Republicans; 17 percent put it in their top two, while 3 percent of Democrats did the same.

The Democratic Party holds double-digit leads over the GOP as the party most trusted to handle the three most frequently cited issues for 2008: Iraq, health care and the economy. The Democratic advantages on immigration and taxes are narrower, and the parties are at rough parity on terrorism, once a major Republican strong point.

There are other signs suggesting that the political landscape has become less favorable to Republicans than it was at the beginning of Bush’s presidency. By 50 percent to 44 percent, Americans said they favor smaller government with fewer services over bigger government with more services — long a key Republican argument. But support for smaller government is significantly lower than it was before both the 2000 and 2002 elections.

In the new poll, support for allowing same-sex civil unions is up significantly from 2004. A majority of respondents, 55 percent, now support giving homosexual couples some of the legal rights of married heterosexuals.

There is a more even divide on another hot-button issue: Fifty-one percent would support a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements; 44 percent would oppose that.

Strategists in both parties agree on the overall shape of the political landscape a year from the 2008 election, but they differ as to how voters will ultimately register their desire for change.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said an electorate that took out its anger on Republicans a year ago remains mad, with the hostility still focused on the president’s party.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said, “It is a political environment pretty heavily tilted toward the Democrats.” One hope, he added, is that an early end to the GOP nominating battle will allow the winner time “to put the current administration in the rearview mirror, placing the focus on the nominee’s candidacy and agenda.”

Still, strategists on both sides foresee another close election. “The biggest dynamic is that people want change from the policies of the Bush administration,” said Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist. But he added that “it’s not a clear path” to victory for the Democrats, noting that no Democratic nominee has won 50 percent of the general-election vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Stuart Stevens, a media adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said no Republican candidate will argue next year that the country is in great shape, but he discounted the effectiveness of running against Bush in the fall of 2008. “A year from now, it’s not going to be a referendum on President Bush, it’s going to be a choice between two candidates,” he said.

Much will happen in the coming months that could reshape the political climate. But at this point, in a matchup of current front-runners, Clinton and Giuliani are tightly paired: 50 percent of respondents would support Clinton, 46 percent Giuliani. Against McCain, Clinton has a clearer edge, 52 percent to 43 percent. She has even larger advantages over former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee (16 points) and Romney (18 points), both of whom remain undefined in the eyes of many voters.

In each of these potential contests, Clinton has a big edge among women. In a head-to-head with Giuliani, 56 percent of women would back Clinton, and 40 percent would vote for Giuliani. By contrast, men would tilt toward Giuliani 51 percent to 44 percent.

Independents, who fueled the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, are evenly divided, 47 percent for Clinton, 46 percent for Giuliani. The split is one indicator that, despite current Democratic advantages and an electorate strongly oriented toward change, the 2008 election is likely to be closely and hotly contested.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 among a random sample of 1,131 adults, and includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans for a total of 203 black respondents. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

The Hillary Gang Bang

What exactly does Hillary think will happen if she is elected President of the United States and her agenda differs from other politicians or world leaders?

It is amazing that one person can divide the democratic party. I thought the theme of the progressive democrats was to unite Americans…

Maybe Hillary is to blind to see, but it has nothing to do with her gender, it has to do with the vast lead she holds over her fellow democrats. Obama and Edwards are desparate, they have no chance of winning the primary as it stands, so they are launching everything they have.

Stop trying to divide the country’s votes based on gender, this is politics Hillary, get use to it if you want to be President. It has nothing to do with your womanhood.

Can you imagine how much she will whine if she has to confront Iran, N. Korea, Syria and Venezuela… wait, mabye she won’t  as she will give them what they want because she agrees with them…

This outlines the key piece in what makes a great President, does the person have what it takes to make decisions that are not the popular choice and stick to them because they know it is the right thing to do.

Another thing Hillary, try giving some answers to the questions posed to you, so the people know what you actually stand for. Stop with the democratic handbook, and open up.

In the famous words from History of the World Part I, King Louis XVI, “Knight jumps queen! Bishop jumps queen! Pawns jump queen! *Gangbang*!  It’s good to be the King”

After Democratic debate, an argument about gender and ‘piling on’

By Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy

updated 1:28 a.m. ET, Mon., Nov. 5, 2007 function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById(“udtD”); if(pdt != ” && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((”.toLowerCase()==’false’)?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp(‘633298409061900000’);

DES MONIES, Nov. 4 – A critical question in this campaign — how to run against a female presidential candidate, or as one — has burst into the foreground in the aftermath of a Democratic debate last week at which Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was repeatedly challenged by her rivals and the event’s questioners.

Some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are accusing rival candidates and the questioners of “piling on,” to use the words of the Clinton campaign, at the debate, which rattled the Clinton camp. They noted that John Edwards had been especially critical of Mrs. Clinton.

“John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours they way they attacked her,” said Geraldine A. Ferraro, the 1984 vice presidential candidate who supports Mrs. Clinton. “It’s O.K. in this country to be sexist,” Ms. Ferraro said.

Story continues below ↓



“It’s certainly not O.K. to be racist. I think if Barack Obama had been attacked for two hours — well, I don’t think Barack Obama would have been attacked for two hours.”

Mrs. Clinton’s opponents, and some prominent women, countered that Mrs. Clinton was resorting to using her sex as a shield against substantive criticism in a hard-fought race.


  More from

Click links below:

Clinton rebuts accusations of secrecy
New life for initiative to apportion electoral vote
In pledge, Edwards reflects on wife’s cancer fight

External links

“It’s outrageous to suggest that it’s sexist for the other candidates to ask her tough questions or criticize her,” said Kate Michelman, a women’s leader and a supporter of Mr. Edwards. “To call it sexist is to play the gender card. Any claim of sexism is just a distraction from the fact that she did not do well in the debate, that she did not answer important questions on Iraq and Iran.”

In a campaign in which a woman is leading the Democratic field, it was perhaps inevitable that the question would arise: would or should she be treated any differently from her rivals? The situation is that much more complicated given that second place in most polls goes to Mr. Obama, who is black. It means that both race and sex have been added to the mix of substance and imagery that makes up presidential politics.

But more than anything, the fallout from the debate underlined just how uncertain Mrs. Clinton and her opponents are in trying to figure out what kind of role gender will play in this campaign.

The tentativeness reflects the memory of Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate campaign, when her Republican opponent marched across the stage during a debate and demanded she sign a pledge renouncing her use of soft money in the campaign, a maneuver that Mrs. Clinton’s aides quickly highlighted and said produced a flood of support among women.

Mrs. Clinton denies playing the gender card — at least in the sense of saying that as a woman she should be exempt from the traditional rough-and-tumble of campaigns — and her remarks on the subject have certainly been oblique.

From the start of this campaign, Mrs. Clinton has embraced the idea that she might be the first woman elected president, and has celebrated her candidacy in historic terms — young girls at her rallies are regularly seen wearing “I can be president” buttons provided by the campaign.

Whatever her personal feelings, it is a central part of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign strategy. In Iowa, she has set out to energize women young and old who have never participated in the caucuses.

Why Mrs. Clinton’s supporters have invoked her sex so specifically is a matter of dispute. Her critics, including some of her opponents, suggested it was a cynical maneuver designed to compensate for what even Mrs. Clinton’s supporters acknowledged was a poor performance.

  Click for related content

But aides to Mrs. Clinton suggested that by highlighting this episode — a statement by the campaign called her a “strong woman” as it denounced the “politics of piling on” — they were taking a lesson from what happened in the 2000 Senate race, suggesting that once again women would rally around Mrs. Clinton for showing strength in the face of attack.

For all that, Mrs. Clinton has taken pains not to come across as complaining or suggesting that she felt victimized. She told reporters she thought the criticism of her occurred not because she was a woman, but because she was the front-runner, even as she used language that invoked feminist imagery.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Indianola, Iowa. “Well, I’m really comfortable in the kitchen, and I’m going to stay in there and absorb the heat.”

Still, her campaign responded, characteristically, on a less obvious and more forceful track that at least initially used an online “piling on” video to encourage a simple story line for the debate: Seven men versus one woman.

Lashing back, her critics have denounced what they say was a political maneuver to force Mrs. Clinton’s opponents to treat the woman in the race more gingerly.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards, the former Democratic senator from North Carolina, dismissed suggestions that the male candidates were ganging up on Mrs. Clinton.

“The standard should be exactly the same,” Mr. Edwards said. “I think she’s entitled to be treated like every other candidate is treated, and that’s exactly what I’ll do.”

In his criticism of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, a senator from Illinois, said he had not referred to his race when he was challenged at the debate.

Ms. Ferraro said that she thought the debate and its fallout would rally support to Mrs. Clinton. (“I am not kidding,” Ms. Ferraro said. “I have been bombarded by e-mail.”)

“We can’t let them do this in a presidential race,” she said. “They say we’re playing the gender card. We are not. We are not. We have got to stand up. It’s discrimination against her as a candidate because she is a woman.”

Copyright © 2007 The New York Times