0
   

HILLARY CLINTON GETS RELIGION & AN AK47

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 02:20 pm
No, nobody can know what a person's motives are or what drives him/her or whether or not a change of heart is heartfelt or, as you say, political opportunism. All we have to go on is history and a track record. Hillary's is not one of conservative values and it will take a lot of conservative VOTES, not rhetoric, to convice those on the right that she is anything other than the liberal she has always been.

Would, however, that those on the left were as tolerant and willing to give the benefit of the doubt to President Bush as Princess seems to wish the Right to extend to Hillary. President Bush's track record has been pretty darn consistent for a lot of years now.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 06:57 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
No, nobody can know what a person's motives are or what drives him/her or whether or not a change of heart is heartfelt or, as you say, political opportunism. All we have to go on is history and a track record. Hillary's is not one of conservative values and it will take a lot of conservative VOTES, not rhetoric, to convice those on the right that she is anything other than the liberal she has always been.

Would, however, that those on the left were as tolerant and willing to give the benefit of the doubt to President Bush as Princess seems to wish the Right to extend to Hillary. President Bush's track record has been pretty darn consistent for a lot of years now.


Oh, I'm VERY willing to give him the benefit of a doubt on his sincerity! He claims to be a born-again christian, and he was a drinker before and a tea-totaller now. But there are a number of born-again christians in fundamentalist churches across America who gave up one addiction only to fill it with another: religion. That doesn't make me feel especially comfortable.

And I will grant you his track record is consistant: he's about the stupidest man ever to be elected president! His latest moment proving his idiocy: telling the CBC he knows nothing of the voting rights act! http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/local.cfm?ArticleID=381
Many examples are availble of his consistant ignorance of things relevent to being the president. Then there are his pronunciation gaffs and his vocabulary gaffs! Compare that to Hillary's consistant track record for being up to speed on topics at hand, of knowing her stuff, of simply being a smart and educated woman. I'm incredibly tolerant of him and his gaffs considering how frequently he makes a fool of himself in the course of performing his job. Our credibility in the international community has dropped considerably during his terms in office. I only hope we can recover with whomever follows in his footsteps!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 07:17 pm
You judge people on very different criteria than I judge people Princess. I prefer my criteria, and thus we probably have no common ground on which to discuss this.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 08:15 pm
I'm not a Hillary fan, but I hope she's feeling better. I did manage to see part of a speech she gave to some group on TV the other night. She mentioned "God" a lot and I didn't realize it at the time, but I was counting LOL. I stopped after she said it (God) five times. Was pretty funny.

The thing I think most people in this country will have a hard time with is her softened stance on abortion, given her voting record - especially on partial-birth abortion. That's going to be hard to reconcile and she's hardly "born again" since her press secretary recently said she's a long-time Sunday school teacher, and rarely misses her prayer group meetings.

I think I'd have more respect for her if she'd just stick to what she obviously believes in. Perhaps she'll realize it if she starts getting negative feedback from her own party.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 11:36 pm
Yeah posted back on Page 1 was this:

The biggest problem for the Democrats is that many of their hard-core supporters would rather lose another election than court the religious vote. Mr Wallis worries about Democrats being depicted as secular fundamentalists, but that is not far off the truth. The number of people who deny any religious identification has doubled from 14.3m in 1990 to 29.4m in 2001?-and many of them will do anything to stop the Democrats from drenching themselves with God. No pro-lifer has been allowed near a Democratic podium for years. Will People for the American Way allow the Democrats to let religion flourish in the public square? Will feminists allow them to compromise on abortion? Will the Hollywood crowd allow them to crack down on obscenity? Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio, two academics, point out that in 1996 and 2000 one in three white Democratic voters "intensely disliked" Christian fundamentalists.

She won't get away with pretending she is something she is not any more than John Kerry did with anybody who cares whether their candidate actually holds the convictions s/he professes. But she has four years to turn over a new leaf, amend her voting record along with explanations for why she is changing her mind, and she could pull it off. (Especially if the Dems think Barbara Boxer is a viable candidate Smile)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 06:59 pm
Birth control pills excluded from isnurance coverage; Viagra approved for Medicare; and Hillary's spending her time giving speeches and visiting bases these days. Republicans oppose condoms? The 2008 election is shaping up to be velly interesting.

February 3, 2005

Margaret Carlson:

Sex, Politics and President Hillary

I was trying to think of a person other than Hillary Rodham Clinton whose fainting would be breaking news on three continents. George and Laura, yes. Sen. John McCain, maybe. Jennifer Aniston? Possibly, if her swoon followed the sighting of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie en flagrante.

My point is that Hillary is in a class by herself, and not just because she powered through two more speeches that day. Her historic move ?- straight from the East Wing to the U.S. Senate ?- brought her one-name fame and made her the brightest star in the political firmament. If she wants the nomination, she is likely to get it, thanks to superior organization, fundraising and a base as solid as President Bush's. If she does, gleeful Republicans and some frantic Democrats foresee a general-election loss reaching McGovernesque proportions.

What the glee and worry don't take into account is how shrewdly Hillary is repositioning herself, in sharp contrast to the rest of her party. Sure, she carries a lot of baggage as a result of her husband's misbehavior, and she attracts visceral resentment not limited to insecure males. But remember that Richard Nixon used the massive exposure of a presidential campaign to offload some of the heaviest baggage in American political history.

Religion is now so central to our politics that every candidate prays like Voltaire on his deathbed just to cover his bets. This comes easily to Hillary, who's naturally self-righteous and a sincere, lifelong Methodist. For a while, she's been a regular at the Senate's weekly prayer breakfasts, clutching her own well-worn Bible, sometimes even holding hands with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), chief among her husband's tormenters.

To get right with the military, which never forgave her husband for his "don't ask, don't tell" doctrine, she chose to be on the Armed Services Committee. On weekends, instead of hanging around the house in Chappaqua, she visits bases.

But nothing shows off her third-way skills more than her recent proclamation on abortion, which she called "a sad, tragic choice" that shouldn't "ever have to be exercised, or only in very rare circumstances."

The speech surprised many who have long known her as a die-hard feminist, but, in fact, it may have been brilliant. Democrats desperately need to recover some of the ground they lost when Republicans forced a vote to ban partial-birth abortion, a rare but gruesome procedure. In thrall to Kate Michelman and NARAL Pro-Choice America, many Democrats voted no because they could only see the hypocrisy of pro-lifers who also oppose condoms and turn a blind eye to those who would kill a doctor to protect a zygote.

What Hillary is saying now is that no matter how specious their partial-birth abortion ban, she recognizes that the world has changed since Roe vs. Wade. She voted against the ban, but apparently now sees the light. Babies can now survive at 24 weeks, and yet the "health of the mother" exception has grown so large that a teenager seven months pregnant could slip through. Hillary hopes to appeal to that huge swath of voters who want to protect abortion but see themselves as pro-life.

In the same Jan. 24 speech, Hillary tried to turn the spotlight back on the sexual hypocrisy of the other side by bringing up the bill she co-sponsored that would correct the ridiculous exclusion of birth control pills from insurance coverage, a lapse even more absurd now that the Bush administration's new drug benefit is going to cover erectile dysfunction pills. No to Ortho-Novum, which can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and yes to Viagra, which can, well, I won't get into it. How's that for a mixture of sex discrimination and bad health policy? The little pink pill was excluded as a "lifestyle" drug. As you watch the ads for Cialis during the Super Bowl, you decide what those little blue pills are for.

Sometimes Hillary is a victim of sexual politics; sometimes she exploits them. But so far, she hasn't transcended them. Once again, her husband, who she once said "was a hard dog to keep on the porch," is off, first to Sri Lanka as a U.N. envoy and, if some old associates have their way, in a race to become United Nations secretary-general.

That effort ?- which would require changing some rules ?- makes you wonder whether Bill has signed on to an immensely clever "stop Hillary" movement, or whether he sees the U.N. job as a way to assure potential Hillary voters that he will be too busy abroad to interfere in domestic affairs, or to conduct one.

I bet the latter. And I think it's about time he helped her. She's not just building a tent big enough to bring back some of those centrist voters for whom her party moved too far left, but one big enough to keep the dog on the porch.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-carlson3feb03,0,2825358.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 10:58 pm
Well, if she's spending all her weekends visiting military bases, when is she teaching her Sunday school classes? Her "handlers" need to get their stories straight LOL.

I have to wonder if Ms. Carlson is perhaps "misunderestimating" the "glee set" in seeing through the smoke screen Hil has created for her new "positions". Who here, for instance, doubts for one second that she would undo every conservative law or appointment if she could.

That the mere mention of her getting the nomination puts a smile on most right-thinkers should send up a huge red flag to the dems - DO NOT underestimate the common folks!

That said, I would LOVE to see a Clinton/Boxer ticket - which would undoubtedly assure us our first 50 state win. Smile

Foxy - let's start a "Conservatives for Boxer '08" focus group!!! LOL!

OT - I heard today that Teresa Heinz has dropped the "Kerry" from her name. She said she only added it while her husband was running for Prez. Ouch.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2005 12:05 am
Clinton/Boxer in 2008 huh? That really has possibilities. As the writer of the just-posted article says, if Hillary wants the nomination, she will get it. There seems to be doubt in nobody's mind that she's gearing up for a campaign. Okay, I can keep my tongue in my cheek long enough to push a Clinton/Boxer ticket. Smile
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 © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 10:28:50