0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
xingu
 
Wed 30 May, 2007 06:10 am
Since we have a republican presidential canidate thread I thought I would have one on all the Democrats.

To start I'll post a book review on Berstein's new book about Hillery.


Quote:
E. A. Hanks| BIO
Clinton Insiders Open Up to Carl Bernstein on Hillary and Bill
Posted May 29, 2007

Dan Brown better watch his back -- there's another potboiler threatening to take over the best-sellers list, and there's a possible sequel in the making. The cover of Carl Bernstein's book on Hillary Clinton, A Woman In Charge is more buttoned-up pantsuit than ripped bodice, but it's still pretty saucy. Get whips and leather out of your head, because when I say saucy I mean it in the way a real wonk means it: the steamy stuff here is in summaries being tied up in policy meetings, heated debate with health care consultants, and vying for dominant office space. There's no safety word when you're fighting to be in the West, rather than the East Wing. Bernstein notes that "with the notable exception of her husband's libidinous carelessness, the most egregious errors, strategic and tactical, of the Bill Clinton Presidency, particularly in its infancy, were traceable to Hillary," but people seem to be more interested in the juicy bits, committee hearings notwithstanding.

I spoke with the author today about what makes his book a must-read. With papers shuffling in the background, Bernstein told me: "What is so important is that we finally have a biography about Hillary. Until now it hasn't really been possible, partly because she's put up so many impediments, including her own book."

The book is causing some ruffled feathers and raised eyebrows, thanks to some choice interviews with compatriots of both President and Senator Clinton.

Betsey Wright, Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff while he was Governor of Arkansas, and the woman tasked with managing 'bimbo eruptions' during his 1992 campaign, pontificates on Bill's "ongoing inferiority complex... Bill Clinton has spent his whole life scared that he's white trash, and doing whatever he could to try to prove to himself that he isn't." She also dishes on the beginnings of his escapades: "I talked to Hillary several times during that period by phone, and we were pulling our hair about him. He was a mess. During one of the conversations she said, 'There are worse things than infidelity.'" Like divorce, perhaps?

Donna Shalala chimes in on the Clintons' stance as newbies in the Beltway: "They'd spent all of their adult lives in which they were the smartest people in the room. These were two extremely able people who had not really been tested before. So they really had to learn their way." The Clintons as little fish in the Big Pond of DC? Sounds like a prequel to me.

A quote from lawyer Mark Fabiani illuminates Hillary in the days of the Whitewater investigations: "She is so tortured by the way she's been treated that she would do anything to get out of the situation..." Hillary as a silky femme fatale, desperate to get away from da coppers? Suddenly we're in to some pulp fiction! M'yeah, see? I'd buy that if you're sellin' see? M'yeah!.

The Clintons managed to have their dirtiest laundry out on the line for everyone to see, and yet the general public is still mystified by them. Even with their personal lives made as public as can be, we're still not sure who they are or what they want. People are uneasy about Hillary for precisely that reason: they don't know why she's running, they don't know what she wants. A Woman In Charge draws on readers' curiosity: if Bill has the befuddling sheen of the presidency on him, Hillary is still downright mysterious. Juicy quotes might not explain who Hillary is to the voters, but they might just loosen people's corsets enough to get them in the mood to find out.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/e-a-hanks/clinton-insiders-open-up-_b_49898.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 27,190 • Replies: 825
Topic Closed
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Wed 30 May, 2007 02:32 pm
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070529/asay.gif
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Wed 30 May, 2007 04:01 pm
McGentrix wrote:
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070529/asay.gif

And there are people who get all of their political views from reading the funnies.
0 Replies
 
Bodo
 
  1  
Thu 31 May, 2007 05:45 pm
And there are people who get their political views from the Daily Show and Colbert too. But what I don't get is why all the Dems are against going on a debate on FNC. I think the GOP guys looked a lot better on Fox than they did when Matthews was questioning them on MSNBC, plus its another viewing audience and a shot at free air time. Anyone?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Thu 31 May, 2007 05:51 pm
I guess being extremely bias on the conservative side would have nothing to do with it, hey?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 31 May, 2007 05:57 pm
Bodo wrote:
And there are people who get their political views from the Daily Show and Colbert too. But what I don't get is why all the Dems are against going on a debate on FNC. I think the GOP guys looked a lot better on Fox than they did when Matthews was questioning them on MSNBC, plus its another viewing audience and a shot at free air time. Anyone?


Hmm, I dunno, maybe because Fox has done everything they can to intimidate, marginallize, ridicule, and disparage Liberals and Democrats since their inception?

Sheesh, why would something like that keep the Dems from wanting to bring ratings and advertising revenues to Fox? I just can't figure it out.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Thu 31 May, 2007 05:59 pm
Maybe the Democrats don't like "fair and balanced" conservative opinions masking as news.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 06:15 am
Quote:
No Movement At All on Democratic Side. Hillary Clinton 18 Points Atop Obama. In a Democratic Primary in California today, 8 months to the vote, Hillary Clinton remains on cruise control, as she has been in 4 SurveyUSA tracking polls going back to March, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KABC-TV Los Angeles, KPIX-TV San Francisco and KGTV-TV San Diego.

Here's the rundown, working backwards:
Today, Clinton is at 46%, 18 points atop Obama who is at 28%.
5/7/07, Clinton was at 48%, 21 points atop Obama, who was at 27%. 4/2/07, Clinton was at 43%, 17 points atop Obama, who was at 26%. 3/6/07, Clinton was at 44%, 13 points atop Obama who was at 31%.

John Edwards has finished in 3rd place in all 4 SurveyUSA CA Democratic Primary tracking polls.
Edwards is at 14% today
15% on 5/7/07, was at 17% on 4/2/07
10% on 3/6/07.

All interviews for the 06/04/07 release were completed prior to the New Hampshire Democratic candidate debate which began at 7 pm ET on 06/03/07.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=ec507b25-1edb-457b-a985-70ba91fd7ec2
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 07:55 am
"The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren't doing any better.

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3242551&page=1

There is no defending this crop of candidates and this poll is an indication that the public is fed up with both sides.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 12:08 pm
Biden Admits Post-9/11 Meeting With Hijacker's Financier
We Are Change group questions Senator on details of confab with Pakistani general
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 5, 2007


Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden admitted meeting with the chief financier of the 9/11 hijackers in the days after September 11 after being confronted by We Are Change founder Luke Rudkowski in the press room following Sunday's Democratic debate in New Hampshire.

According to the FBI and as confirmed by various news reports at the time, Pakistani ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad instructed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the alleged assassin of Daniel Pearl, to wire $100,000 to alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in the summer of 2001.

Arriving exactly one week before 9/11, the general met with Pentagon, White House National Security Council and CIA officials, including George Tenet and Marc Grossman, then U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.


On the very morning of 9/11, Ahmad was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.

Two days after the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon, on September 13th, Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, met with the ISI chief.

No adequate explanation has been forthcoming as to why top government and intelligence officials were meeting with the money man behind the alleged hijackers before and after 9/11.

Shortly after the Democratic debate had finished on Sunday, Prison Planet reporter Rudkowski was able to get access to the CNN spin room and confront presidential candidate Biden about his 9/11 meeting with the Pakistani General.

"We asked him the question - what was he doing with the head of the Pakistani ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad," said Rudkowski.

"He told me - he admitted that he met with him - he met with the head of the Pakistani ISI - he said I told them not to do it, I told them not to wire the money - I told them to stop supporting the Taliban, which shows he had foreknowledge of them supporting him."

"I told him - sir, he funded the hijackers, you did business with him, you let him go - he's free," said Rudkowski, to which Biden responded, "Get a life kid," after which Rudkowski was pushed away by Biden's security staff.

Biden's comments demand immediate explanation and an investigation into why Mohammed Atta's chief financier was allowed to leave the United States without even being questioned by authorities after having met with top Bush administration and other public officials.

The We Are Change organization, who made headlines for their recent head-to-head with Rudy Giuliani, were also busy speaking truth to power and confronting other high profile figures during their visit to New Hampshire.

Rudkowski said the event was packed with Ron Paul supporters and 9/11 truthers, outnumbering everybody besides Obama and Clinton acolytes.

The group confronted Bohemian Grove members Bill Richardson and David Gergen at the event, causing Richardson to run and leave the building, while Gergen attempted the laugh the subject away before the subjects of male prostitution at the Grove and Molec was mentioned, at which point Gergen also hurriedly left.

Another member of the group, Nate Evans, confronted Hillary Clinton at a fundraiser in New York, calling her "Queen Hillary" and was immediately assaulted by secret service, physically thrown out of the event and chased away.

Clinton was also asked about 9/11 and her association with the Bilderberg Group but completely ignored the questions.

Video footage from all the confrontations will be made available in the coming days.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 15 Jun, 2007 05:28 pm
Over at Pollster.com, they do an excellent job of keeping track of pretty much every national poll thats out there - and analysing 'em.

One thing that they'll warn against time and time again is not to read too much in any one single poll. Margins of error and the like mean that any one poll can swerve up and down quite markedly without statistical significance, and differences between pollsters mean that on top of that, there can be conspicuous differences between the results of different pollsters - and then you have the occasional outlier.

So what they strongly suggest is to look at the average of the last X polls out. They track exactly that, charting out a very cautious trend estimate.

In this image, the lines represent the trend estimate; whereas every individual dot represents one poll result. (And just look at how large the variation from one individual poll to another is..)

(Note that the graph was last updated three days ago.)

http://www.pollster.com/ATopDems600.png

As you can see, none of the three major candidates have made much headway in the last three months or so. Hillary is slipping somewhat; Obama and Edwards have stagnated.

Notice though that the trend estimate was deliberately made very, very cautious - there really need to be a lot of new polls out showing a marked change for the trend estimate to drop or surge markedly.

If you look at the dots (you can click the image for a larger version), you can that see that a more sensitive estimate would, for example, have shown Edwards really jumping around March-April, when the bad news about his wife's cancer came out; and that he has appears by now to have fallen further than the cautious trend estimate shows yet.

Then, of course, there is the curious matter of Al Gore actually steadily rising in the polls - despite not making any signs of running.

This is the analysis that went with it:

link

Quote:
<snip>

The Democratic frontrunners haven't suffered the sharp declines that Giuliani and McCain have, but none are showing strong positive gains either. Clinton has fallen off just a few points recently, Obama seems stalled and Edwards has a very slight decline in support. So who do Democrats like more and more? Al Gore, the non-candidate.

The Gore increase is no where close to that of Fred Thompson, but of the four possible nominees pictured above, he is the only one with steady gains throughout 2007. Given the low level of encouragement Gore has given to a possible candidacy (FAR less than Thompson) it is remarkable that he's moved up at all. And while the Thompson candidacy looks increasingly likely, a Gore campaign seems a remote possibility to me at least. Nonetheless, a non-trivial number of Democrats are looking longingly at him while passing up the easy opportunity to support Clinton or Obama or Edwards. Clearly they are looking for someone else who can take this opportunity to exploit the moment. Other evidence (here and here) makes Gore seem an unlikely white knight. In terms of partisan feelings, polarization and support in a general election, Gore looks a lot like Clinton-- well known and well liked among Democrats but not very popular among independents and actively despised among Republicans. But that isn't the point here. He is "someone else" at the moment within the Democratic party.

The front-runners have won substantial support within their parties and one may yet go on to win. But the current flatness or decline in their support trends argues strongly that none have sealed the deal with their primary voters. The widespread public disaffection with current leaders and conditions can be seen as a difficult environment to run in. But it is also the great opportunity to be seized by an able politician, one who can convince supporters that they have a vision of how to lead the country out of these bad times and into a new "morning in America". Based on the evidence here, I don't think any of the top six candidates has managed that yet. And that leaves them all vulnerable to someone who can. Fred Thompson is evidence that it is not yet too late for such candidates to emerge.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Wed 27 Jun, 2007 01:34 pm
It's funny how a thread like this gets boring so fast here.

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070620/trever.gif
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Thu 28 Jun, 2007 06:53 am
Clinton in the lead (unless Gore runs?); McCain, Giuliani slip in GOP survey

Wednesday, Jun. 27, 2007

Boston - A New Hampshire presidential poll by WHDH-TV and Suffolk University shows that local Democrats prefer Al Gore to any of the current contenders.

Hillary Clinton has a solid lead over the rest of the current Democratic field. The poll, released this afternoon, shows 37 percent of likely Democratic voters backing Clinton or leaning towards her. Barack Obama was at 19 percent, with both John Edwards and Bill Richardson at 9 percent.

Al Gore, however, could enter the race as the leader. When his name is added, Clinton loses more than a quarter of her support, while Gore is backed by 32 percent.

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani lead the GOP field. The former Massachusetts governor is supported by 26 percent of likely GOP voters, with Giuliani slipping to 22 percent. John McCain and Fred Thompson are both at 13 percent, a major move backwards for McCain. Romney's support, which relies heavily on younger voters, is up 7 percent from a comparable poll in March, when he trailed Giuliani (37 percent) and McCain (27 percent).

The poll, which has a 4.4 percent margin of error, surveyed 500 likely voters from June 20 to 24.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 30 Aug, 2007 06:30 pm
Reviewing the fall out over Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's arrest for soliciting sex in a men's room, MSNBC goes over the Mountain West's changing political landscape:

Quote:
Craig's potential trouble in Idaho draws attention to a part of the nation, the Mountain West, where the Republicans have been dominant for the past 40 years but which is turning more competitive:

  • In Montana, Democrat Jon Tester was elected last year, defeating Sen. Conrad Burns, and Democratic Brian Schweitzer won the governor's seat in 2004, even as Bush was carrying the state with 60 percent of the vote.
  • In last year's House elections Democrats picked up two seats in Arizona and one in Colorado.
  • Even in the GOP bastion of Wyoming, Republican House incumbent Barbara Cubin only kept her seat with a 1,000-vote margin, or 48 percent.

Convention focus on Mountain West

Democrats will keep the focus on the Mountain West next summer by holding their presidential convention in Denver.

And Colorado has an open Senate seat that Jennifer Duffy at the Cook Political Report rates as a toss-up. Democratic contender Rep. Mark Udall had $2.5 million in cash in his campaign treasury as of the end of June, more than three times as much as Republican hopeful Bob Schaffer.

"Voters out here tend to be more culturally conservative, but also more open to economic populism and civil libertarianism," said Denver-based Democratic strategist and blogger David Sirota. "Republicans in Washington, D.C., are now losing to Democrats on those latter two issues areas out here, which is why the region is becoming more hospitable to individual Democratic candidates."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 5 Sep, 2007 07:44 pm
Striking stuff - certainly a big part of why Edwards is still my favourite candidate, in particular when contrasted with the political culture of the Clintons:

0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:15 am
Kathleen Willey, the woman who says Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office, claims she was the target of an unusual house burglary over the weekend that nabbed a manuscript for her upcoming book, which promises explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Willey told WND little else was taken from her rural Virginia home as she slept alone upstairs - electronics and jewelry were left behind - and she believes the Clintons were behind it.

The break-in, she said, reminded her of the widely reported incident 10 years ago in which she claimed she was threatened near the same Richmond-area home by a stranger just two days before she was to testify against President Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

The theft of the manuscript early Saturday morning was suspicious, she told WND, coming only days after the first mainstream media mention of her upcoming book, which is expected to include accusations of campaign finance violations and new revelations about harassment and threats by the Clintons and their associates.

"Here we go again; it's the same thing that happened before," Willey told WND. "They want you to know they were there. And they got what they wanted. They pretty much managed to terrorize me again. It scared me to death. It's an awful feeling to know you're sound asleep upstairs and someone is downstairs."

The book, "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton" by World Ahead Publishing, WND Books' partner, is due for release in November. Willey said the stolen manuscript was not the book's final copy.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article57498.html
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2007 10:17 am
Doesn't surprise me you find trash like that in Worldnetdaily.

Looks like she's is looking for some publicity.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Fri 7 Sep, 2007 06:30 am
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 7 Sep, 2007 07:15 am
Petraeus is to testify on the troop buildup to Congress during the week of Sept. 10, and President Bush is to deliver his own progress report by Sept. 15.

It's being squeezed through the WH filters as we speak. It's like watching sausage being made.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Fri 7 Sep, 2007 07:19 am
Is Petraus going to testify before Congress? I heard Bush didn't want that.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2022 at 07:47:45