0
   

Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 08:18 am
talk72000 wrote:
There is the First Gentleman who will be at hand for consultation and advice as he has presidential experience. Two heads are better than one.



I agree completely. Bill was a great president, so he must be considered as Hillary's greatest asset.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 08:03 pm
Hillary Clinton briefly responds, graciously, to Obama's speech:

Quote:
"I did not have a chance to see or to read yet Sen. Obama's speech. But I'm very glad that he gave it. It's an important topic. Issues of race and gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they are complicated in this primary campaign.

"There have been detours and pitfalls along the way. But we should remember that this is an historic moment for the Democratic Party, and for our country. We will be nominating the first African-American or woman for the Presidency of the United States, and that is something that all Americans can and should celebrate."

source

Ezra Klein reader Paula wonders how things would have been if Hillary had been able to make a similar kind of speech on gender:

Quote:
Just the same, immediately after I read the speech, I wondered whether HRC could have made a similar speech re gender and/or race. The opportune time would have been the nexus of Matthews/tears/boys' club/Steinem op-ed after the NH primary. She could have spoken about the glass ceiling, perceptions of women in power, the government's continued neglect of issues related to women's health and welfare, the de facto cliques that keep women with children from advancing up the corporate ladder, the consistent wage differences between men and women. And as another theme, about how patriarchy also pressures men to conform to unrealistic standards of providence, forces them outside domestic sphere even though some would probably want a larger role, about how focusing on negative and accusatory statements prevents us from seeing the advantages of moving forward into a world where men and women share equal duties in the private and public sphere.

Or hell, she could have taken some time after Nevada and addressed the stuff in SC, or directly after Geraldine Ferraro's comment.

I wish she could have done so -- would have tempered a lot of damaging narratives for her campaign.

source
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 08:15 pm
Quote:
Ezra Klein reader Paula wonders how things would have been if Hillary had been able to make a similar kind of speech on gender:


Well, that's really quite a thought, isn't it?

I'd theorize that she didn't because she doesn't think that way. And I'd further speculate that this is because of a generational difference and that there are significant differences between these two issues but even moreso because Obama really is quite a special fellow.

It was an amazing speech. That the rightwing crowd is now moving to do anything it can to minimize and invalidate what Obama did today, and to do so for political gain through divisiveness and fomenting anger and racial fears, makes me despise them even more than I did before, which is hard even for me to imagine.

ps...Chait's book is very good
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 08:27 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Ezra Klein reader Paula wonders how things would have been if Hillary had been able to make a similar kind of speech on gender:


Well, that's really quite a thought, isn't it?

I'd theorize that she didn't because she doesn't think that way. And I'd further speculate that this is because of a generational difference and that there are significant differences between these two issues but even moreso because Obama really is quite a special fellow.

That she doesn't think that way was exactly my thought. I've been chastising myself for being uncharitable, but I just can't see Clinton being able to see both sides of the coin. Perhaps I'm wrong. I was surprised she hadn't seen Obama's speech. It could have been a turning point in either direction and it was well publicized ahead of time. I figured Clinton and team would have been ready to provide a response as soon as the applause died down.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 09:05 pm
My first thought was that she had seen it but wanted to downplay its significance by denying it. I think I've seen your uncharitableness and raised you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 09:11 pm
I don't think she's capable of making an inspirational speech of that type.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 11:14 pm
I'd say that Obama had to make a speech like that as it was explosive as well as traitorous and damaging while Ferraro was just annoying. If Obama left it it would have ended his run for the Presidency. He skirted around the issues.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2008 12:34 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
My first thought was that she had seen it but wanted to downplay its significance by denying it. I think I've seen your uncharitableness and raised you.

That thought crossed my mind as well. I guess neither of us are particularly charitable today.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:16 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't think she's capable of making an inspirational speech of that type.

Cycloptichorn


But who else could? That's a rhetorical, but serious, question. I really don't perceive this difference as an indicator of Clinton's insufficiency but rather as an indicator of Obama's unique talents and social understanding.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2008 06:50 pm
On March 4, Adele M. Stan made The Feminist Case for Obama in the WaPo.

I dont think the second half of her piece, in which she actually articulates her case for Obama, is very good -- a lack of substantive points worsened by an emotional appeal toppling over into kitsch.

But the first half, in which she rebuts Linda Hirshman's purported feminist case against Obama and for Hillary, which was published in the same newspaper two days before, is much better:

Quote:
Reading last Sunday's Outlook section, I found myself under attack from word one. Before I had finished my morning coffee, I had read that I -- and millions like me -- were stupid, fickle, elitist and hard-hearted.

Charotte Allen, in her now-infamous essay, argued that she and I and all others of our sex were naturally inferior to men. Linda Hirshman, in an essay that ran beside Allen's under the shared headline "Women v. Women," condemned me and all other feminists and college-educated women who voted for Barack Obama as being callous and capricious. While the Allen essay understandably grabbed the lioness's share of the attention, the Hirshman piece is by far the more damaging of the two.

However outrageous Allen's claims, they're pretty easily put into perspective by a glance at Allen's record as a right-wing opponent of all things feminist. Hirshman, however, makes her claims as a feminist, and then tars fellow feminists -- those who vote differently than her -- with the right's "liberal elitist" brush. For flourish, she uses the sexist technique of ridiculing two women prominent in the Obama campaign by focusing only on their physical attributes. (Maria Shriver is reduced to a description of her hair, while Michelle Obama is mentioned in the context of her fashionable shoes.)

Feminists who support Obama, Hirshman writes, care little for the working-class woman. Their votes reflect nothing more than a "turn to solidarity with their own class." The same goes for college-educated women of all stripes who support Obama, all of whom are presumed, in Hirshman's argument, to be well-off, be they social workers or administrative assistants. If we cared for the working-class woman, she says, we would vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton because she was the first of the two to offer a paid family leave proposal and proposes a "slightly more generous" health plan than does Obama. If we vote on the basis of, say, something as esoteric as foreign policy, we're being elitist, because presumably everybody knows that foreign policy has no bearing on the life of the working-class woman.

I don't know who Hirshman thinks is fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But to dismiss Obama's stance against the war (and Clinton's vote to authorize President Bush's foray in to Iraq) as merely the high-minded concerns of narcissistic elites is perhaps not the best way to express solidarity with the class from which many of those fighting the war are drawn. It also smacks of the implication that foreign policy is too complicated a subject for the working-class woman to understand.

The notion that not rewarding Clinton for being "first" with a paid family-leave proposal somehow hurts working-class women is just silly, given Obama's own proposal. As for the "slightly more generous" health care plan proposed by Clinton, it works via a mandate that is legitimate fodder for debate, especially among the working-class people who would most feel the sting of the stick in this carrot-and-stick approach.

Her assertion that women who vote for Obama vote against their own economic self-interest essentially holds no water.

The feminist rationale for an Obama vote is really quite simple: My grand-niece. Your daughter, if you have one. All the little girls who are growing up at a rather grim hour in American history.

<snipped>
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2008 01:06 pm
Anybody else notice the perverted press's hard on today and yesterday about the first lady schedules? It's sickening to me. One headline basically implied that she was in the room while Bill was getting it on with Monica.

I think I really am about sick of this election season.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2008 01:16 pm
No, I've been spared that so far. Thanks for the warning,
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2008 01:19 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Anybody else notice the perverted press's hard on today and yesterday about the first lady schedules? It's sickening to me. One headline basically implied that she was in the room while Bill was getting it on with Monica.

I think I really am about sick of this election season.

I caught some of that yesterday. Obnoxious stuff.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 07:25 pm
Hillary the Fabulist

Hillary Clinton, the Washington Post's "fact checker" Michael Dobbs reminds us, "has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996."

"I remember landing under sniper fire," Hillary recounted in a speech at George Washington University just five days ago. "There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Even after comedian Sinbad, who was on that same trip, as was singer Sheryl Crow, called her out on her lies, noting that the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where they'd eat next ("I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place'"), Hillary persisted. She repeated her account, and smugly dismissed Sinbad's comments: 'He's a comedian, you know'.

How does someone get it in her head that she can get away with blatant fantasies like that? When the proof that she's just making stuff up is right at hand?

I dunno, but the WaPo's fact check today leaves little standing of these tall tales, and accords her a full four pinocchios:


Quote:
Candidate Watch

Hillary's Balkan Adventures, Part II

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/03/20/PH2008032002697.jpg
Greeting ceremony, Tuzla military airport, Bosnia, March 25, 1996.

    [i]"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."[/i]
--Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events.

The Facts

As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.

Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret.

According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996, and "firmly under the control" of the 1st Armored Division.

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

"There is peace now," Emina told Clinton, according to Pomfret's report in the Washington Post the following day, "because Mr. Clinton signed it. All this peace. I love it."

The First Lady's schedule, released on Wednesday and available here, confirms that she arrived in Tuzla at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries, including Emina Bicakcic, (whose name has mysteriously been redacted from the document.)

You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here. The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

Among the U.S. officials on hand to greet Clinton at the airport was Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. Nash told me that he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla. He said, however, that Clinton had a "busy schedule" and may have got the impression that she was being hurried on her way.

According to Sinbad, who provided entertainment on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."

Replying to Sinbad earlier this week, Clinton dismissed him as "a comedian." Her campaign referred me to Togo West, who was also on the trip and is a staunch Hillary supporter. West could not remember "sniper fire" himself, but said there was no reason to doubt the First Lady's version of events. "Everybody's perceptions are different," he told me.

Clinton made no mention of "sniper fire" in her autobiography "Living History," published in 2003, although she did say there were "reports of snipers" in the hills around the airport.

UPDATE Friday 6:45 p.m.

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:

    I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.
Anybody else with first-hand memories of Clinton's Tuzla trip, please send them along.

The Pinocchio Test

Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport "under sniper fire" and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gifhttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gifhttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gifhttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/factchecker/pinocchio.gif


You got to love the attention to detail: how in Hillary's newly released schedule as First Lady, the name of the 8-year old girl who ceremoniously met her on the tarmac has been redacted out.

And the quality of the defenses quickly trotted out: someone who cant remember "sniper fire" either, and someone who remembers that in the plane, they'd said that the welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire - except, of course, it wasnt.

Is any of this tremendously important? Probably not, in that it doesnt have any practical relevance whether she heroically rushed under sniper fire or was elaborately greeted on the tarmac by dignitaries and a local little girl. But damn, what does it say about someone if she doesnt just just make up stories like that, but apparently thinks we're all so dim that she can get away with 'em? Even if obviously there would be plenty of material and eye witnesses to prove her wrong? And that she goes on to haughtily dismiss the first guy who was also there and debunks her story, and keeps on telling it regardless, instead of blushing and forgetting about it? Is it arrogance, or narcisssism, or what?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 10:39 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
about the first lady schedules


She waited until now to release them.

It's her fault that they are being talked about now, just when it'll hurt her most.

If she had released these docs 5 years ago, it'd be old news.

But Control Freak Hilly couldn't do it.

She wants to present herself as an independent woman, but the facts suggest that without the springboard of being First Lady , she'd be nowhere.

She tolerated Bill's behavior in order to position herself politically.

I think it's a valid topic to discuss her schedule, and all of it's ramifications.

The secrecy surrounding her health care team was astounding at the time, and to this day all the facts aren't available.

Not exactly what the American public wanted from a bunch who were attempting to nationalize what amounts to 15% of the US economy.

She needs to get used to scrutiny and not expect that she can forever manage the press.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 11:09 pm
14 things
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 12:53 am
It's probably inelegant, but I can't help myself from reveling in the schadenfreude resulting from the schism the Obama/Clinton thing has caused among A2K Liberals.

Every time I read Roxxy blasting some former ally for their slavish love of The Monster Hillary, or Cyclo superciliously chastising a Clintonista for their blindness for The Light, I rub my hands together in glee.

Every time I read Bipo blasting some Obamaniac for their supercilious chastisement of Clintonistas, or Miller or Maporche raining scorn upon their fellow Liberals --- who happen to hate Hillary, I experience this warm sensation in my mid-section.

Short of a revelation that Obama is an al-Qaida operative and Hillary is a bull-dyke dominatrix, we couldn't have a more perfect Democratic primary contest.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 07:17 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
or Miller or Maporche raining scorn upon their fellow Liberals

Miller a liberal? Who knew?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Short of a revelation that Obama is an al-Qaida operative and Hillary is a bull-dyke dominatrix, we couldn't have a more perfect Democratic primary contest.

Are you sure that you dont really believe they are, kind of?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 07:24 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It's probably inelegant, but I can't help myself from reveling in the schadenfreude resulting from the schism the Obama/Clinton thing has caused among A2K Liberals.

Every time I read Roxxy blasting some former ally for their slavish love of The Monster Hillary, or Cyclo superciliously chastising a Clintonista for their blindness for The Light, I rub my hands together in glee.

Every time I read Bipo blasting some Obamaniac for their supercilious chastisement of Clintonistas, or Miller or Maporche raining scorn upon their fellow Liberals --- who happen to hate Hillary, I experience this warm sensation in my mid-section.

Short of a revelation that Obama is an al-Qaida operative and Hillary is a bull-dyke dominatrix, we couldn't have a more perfect Democratic primary contest.


Your mindless sniping makes you irrelevant.

I hope you remember your words now if McCain gets drubbed, although you definitely won't be able to conjur up the humility to admit your comeuppance.

We all may as well "rub hands together in glee" at that which truly pleases us.

It's is instructive about you, how pleased you are at the ugliness on the other political/ideological side.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 07:28 am
snood wrote:

Your mindless sniping makes you irrelevant.


Pot, meet Kettle.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2025 at 01:39:59