Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

The NYT on page 1 tomorrow will detail how Bill Clinton flew to Kazakhstan with a canadian mining interest, introduced him to the corrupt Kazakh president, got him hooked up with a contract to mine Uranium (making him the largest Uranium miner in the world, from relative obscurity), and the Clinton foundation received a 137 million dollar donation from said mining interest.

The Kazakh president has been heavily criticized by one Mrs. Hillary Clinton many times for having a terrible record on human rights and political dissent.

Gloves are coming off now.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Come on cyclops, why is this a surprise? These people have always been crooks. The only thing that has changed is that the press has decided to support Obama, and so now this stuff will come out, which I find very interesting. When the Republicans talked about the endless corruption, it was just a problem of Republicans throwing mud, everyone did it, blah blah blah.

I realize you now support Obama, but I imagine you supported the Clintons while they were in office, is that right?

The interesting thing will be to watch the Clintons implode if alot of their liberal friends abandon them. It won't be pretty. I'm not sure it will happen completely, but for a while now it seems the wheels are beginning to come off. If Hillary manages to win, all of this stuff will once again be hushed up, and they will make retributions where they deem appropriate, and that may not be pretty either.

0 Replies

Quote:

I realize you now support Obama, but I imagine you supported the Clintons while they were in office, is that right?

No, I was a stalwart young Republican back then. I think I've mentioned before that I voted for Bush in 2000. Wasn't until he decided to forget about Bin Laden after 9/11 that I woke up to the lies and started researching things.

I do think that Clinton was an effective president at a time which was profitable for our country, but I've never been a big supporter.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Advocate wrote:
It is significant, I think, that Hill, in a somewhat meaningless election, got more votes that did McCain. It shows that the Dems are really mobilized this time.

Huh? How is that significant when Obama didn't campaign, and the Republican election was hotly contested between 4 candidates??

Asking the question is answering it.

The Republican election "was hotly contested between 4 candidates"; ads filled the airwaves, candidates criss-crossed the state and speeched until they were hoarse. (OK, metaphorically.)

The result: 1,9 million people came out to vote in the Republican primaries.

The Democratic election was not contested at all. Obama never went to Florida; Hillary only showed up there for a couple of fundraisers and a rally after the polls closed. The only ads anyone saw were a couple of Obama ones broadcast on national cable TV, with somewhat minimal reach. And above all: no delegates were at stake; the race was purely symbolic.

The result: 1,7 million people came out to vote in the Democratic primaries.

Hell yeah does that show that the Dems are really mobilized and motivated this time, and the Reps are confronted with an in comparison sceptical electorate.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Hell yeah does that show that the Dems are really mobilized and motivated this time, and the Reps are confronted with an in comparison sceptical electorate.

Does it?

Were people at the polls just to vote in the Pres. Primary or did they turn out to vote on the State Constitutional amendment that was also on the ballot? The last numbers I saw showed more people voted on the Constutional Amendment question (4.1+ million people) than in both primaries combined.

Did people turn out to vote in primaries and cast a vote on the constitutional amendment too? Or did they turn out to vote on the constitutional amendment and vote in the primaries while they were there?

But your answer didn't adress Tico's question about the number of votes cast for Clintion and McCain anyway.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

But your answer didn't adress Tico's question about the number of votes cast for Clintion and McCain anyway.

Doesnt it? I dunno, but I mostly just read Advocate's post as highlighting that Dems were more psyched about voting than Reps. He didnt elaborate and we cant look into his mind, but I think that was about the general extent of his point. Seems born out enough by the numbers.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

fishin wrote:
But your answer didn't adress Tico's question about the number of votes cast for Clintion and McCain anyway.

Doesnt it? I dunno, but I mostly just read Advocate's post as highlighting that Dems were more psyched about voting than Reps. He didnt elaborate and we cant look into his mind, but I think that was about the general extent of his point. Seems born out enough by the numbers.

Perhaps we are just looking at different parts of the comments?

Your comment was addressed to Tico's comment where he asked "How is that significant... ?" .

I took his question to be directed at Advocate's comment that "It is significant, I think, that Hill, in a somewhat meaningless election, got more votes that did McCain." - not the motivation portion.

But the motivation question remains unproven from what I can see. I haven't seen any poll results yet that shows whether the motivation for voters to turn out was the primaries or the Constitutional amendment issue. From at least one published report "Tuesday, voters will head to the polls to decide the fate of the bill as well as the state's Republican and Democratic nominees for president. While the race for the White House is shaping up to be arguably one of the most interesting in the country's 232-year history, the property tax bill seems to have generated as much, if not more, discussion and debate among Florida voters."

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=49307

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

But the motivation question remains unproven from what I can see. I haven't seen any poll results yet that shows whether the motivation for voters to turn out was the primaries or the Constitutional amendment issue.

Yeah, thats a good point. I dont know either - I dont know much about that amendment. Who proposed it, Republicans or Democrats? I would suppose that the camp that proposed it would be especially motivated to come vote about it..

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

fishin wrote:
But the motivation question remains unproven from what I can see. I haven't seen any poll results yet that shows whether the motivation for voters to turn out was the primaries or the Constitutional amendment issue.

Yeah, thats a good point. I dont know either - I dont know much about that amendment. Who proposed it, Republicans or Democrats? I would suppose that the camp that proposed it would be especially motivated to come vote about it..

Hard to say exactly who gets credit/scorn for it. It looks like the amendment originated with one of Gov Christ's campaign pledges (to cut property taxes) 3 or so years ago but the actual amendment is the result of a proposal worked out by the Democrats in the FL Legislature (They came up with the $ amount, how it is allocated and the "Save Our Homes" monkier for it.).

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

I took his question to be directed at Advocate's comment that "It is significant, I think, that Hill, in a somewhat meaningless election, got more votes that did McCain." - not the motivation portion.

That's right.

0 Replies

If Hillary Wins
January 31, 2008
If Hillary Wins...

MORE magazine, one of the best women's magazines for high quality writing and a complex take on women's lives, has a fascinating feature up on their website: If Hillary Wins... A range of feminist authors, politicians, and activists weigh on what they think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like. Some samples:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, especially chosen to administer the oath of office, in place of the traditional Chief Justice, did not produce a Testament, Old or New. Instead, she pulled out a tattered copy of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique and held it to the new Commander in Chief to swear her oath upon. -Linda Hirshman, Get to Work

After Hillary is elected, she will realize that male presidents have been too freaked out about their own sexuality to help others. She however, having had to think long and hard about how sexuality has affected her personal and political life, will be ready for some national action on the topic. Given her personal experience with a sexually undersocialized husband, she will correct two administrations of neglect and opposition to sex education and make it a serious priority.
-Pepper Schwartz, Prime: Adventures and Advice on Love, Sex, and the Sensual Years

I was sure the first woman president would be to the right of Dick Cheney, that she'd appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and that we'd later find out she herself had had an abortion for tangled reasons that would rival Larry Craig for hypocrisy. The anti-woman woman -- like Nixon going to China. So imagine my delight that we've got Hillary as our first! You can call her 'establishment' all you want, but believe me, the establishment never had cleavage.
-Gloria Feldt, Send Your Self Roses, mentor extraordinaire to so many young feminists

READ MORE:
http://www.more.com/more/story.jsp?storyid=/templatedata/more/story/data/1199992533380.xml

0 Replies

I watched a little of the Dem debate last night, and saw two wonderful candidates. Moreover, it was wonderful that the Dems are, for the first time in history, putting forward a woman and a black as their leading candidates. The Reps, as usual, had all white, male, WASPs.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I watched a little of the Dem debate last night, and saw two wonderful candidates. Moreover, it was wonderful that the Dems are, for the first time in history, putting forward a woman and a black as their leading candidates. The Reps, as usual, had all white, male, WASPs.

Technically, you are wrong as Mr. Obama is not "black".

Mitt is not a "WASP" either.

Yet, the fact that you need to inject race and gender and religion into the discussion shows how shallow and possible how racist you really are.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Advocate wrote:
I watched a little of the Dem debate last night, and saw two wonderful candidates. Moreover, it was wonderful that the Dems are, for the first time in history, putting forward a woman and a black as their leading candidates. The Reps, as usual, had all white, male, WASPs.

Technically, you are wrong as Mr. Obama is not "black".

Mitt is not a "WASP" either.

Yet, the fact that you need to inject race and gender and religion into the discussion shows how shallow and possible how racist you really are.

Obama is considered by all to be black. Indeed, Romney is not a WASP. (Our resident nitpicker wins on this one.)

Your other statement is truly stupid (and vicious) considering that sexism and racism has all but precluded the likes of Clinton and Obama in the past.

0 Replies

Well it turns out that McCain, a Catholic isn't a WASP either. So our fiend Advocate is wrong on all counts (WEFT is a good acronym for him).

However incompetent he may be in crafting his groundless smears, his surly bad intent and prejudice remain unsullied.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Well it turns out that McCain, a Catholic isn't a WASP either. So our fiend Advocate is wrong on all counts (WEFT is a good acronym for him).

However incompetent he may be in crafting his groundless smears, his surly bad intent and prejudice remain unsullied.

Not being able to counter the truth, you strike out at the messenger.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Advocate wrote:
I watched a little of the Dem debate last night, and saw two wonderful candidates. Moreover, it was wonderful that the Dems are, for the first time in history, putting forward a woman and a black as their leading candidates. The Reps, as usual, had all white, male, WASPs.

Technically, you are wrong as Mr. Obama is not "black".

Mitt is not a "WASP" either.

Yet, the fact that you need to inject race and gender and religion into the discussion shows how shallow and possible how racist you really are.

Obama is considered by all to be black. Indeed, Romney is not a WASP. (Our resident nitpicker wins on this one.)

Your other statement is truly stupid (and vicious) considering that sexism and racism has all but precluded the likes of Clinton and Obama in the past.

I know you ignore facts, but the FACT remains that Obama is NOT "black".

And yes, you seem to be hung up on race and think that race matters, therefore, you are a racist.

As a Native American, I can smell racists like you from miles away. :wink:

0 Replies

woiyo
woiyo, what are you implying when you state Obama is not Black?

Are you implying he is a Mulatto?

BBB

"Mulatto" was an official census category until 1930. In the south of the country, mulattos inherited slave status if their mother was a slave, although in Spanish and French-influenced areas of the South prior to the Civil War (particularly New Orleans, Louisiana), a number of mulattos were also free and slave-owning. Although it is commonly used to describe individuals of mixed European and African descent, it originally referred to any hybrid species. In fact, in the United States, "mulatto" was also used as a term for those of mixed white and Native American ancestry during the early census years. Mulatto was also used interchangeably with terms like "turk" leading to further ambiguity when refering to many North Africans and Middle Easterners.

0 Replies

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UHG6SG1&show_article=1

World Captivated by US Presidential Race

Feb 1 07:30 AM US/Eastern
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
Associated Press Writer

The Republican presidential hopefuls, by contrast, are not highly regarded in Europe: Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are seen as too religious, and the 71-year-old McCain as too old.

To Britons, history's most popular postwar presidents were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton because of their perceived levelheadedness and intelligence, said Dunleavy. The most despised? President Bush and Ronald Reagan "because they were seen as erratic and unpredictable," he said.

Yet Democrats don't rule the entire world of public opinion.

Saad al-Hadithi, a political analyst in Baghdad, contends the Republican candidates are more committed to Iraq and have a better approach.

"They show more support to the political progress and to combating terrorist groups in Iraq," he said. "The Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, are calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, but they are not offering an alternative. Such a withdrawal while the Iraqi security forces are still weak will lead to disastrous results."

Russia's leaders also consider Republicans more pragmatic, said Nkolai Petrov, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center.

But the Kremlin, Petrov said, would likely have "serious concerns" if McCain wins the Republican nomination because of the Arizona senator's harsh and persistent criticism of Vladimir Putin's autocratic government. Amid the raging debate over immigration, Mexicans arguably have more at stake in the U.S. election than any other nation. But President Felipe Calderon doesn't think very highly of any of the candidates.

"The only theme," he declared in December, "is to compete to see who can be the most swaggering, macho and anti-Mexican."
In the post-Bush era, the bottom line is blunt and simple, Dunleavy said.

"People all around the world are pretty worried," he said. "They want a president who will restore a kind of U.S. legitimacy in the world."

0 Replies

The conservative haters here were right; I should have referred to all the Rep candidates as being white males. The haters tend to be very literal.

They are right that race and gender should not matter. Unfortunately, it does seem to matter to the right, which fielded not a single woman or minority.

We should be delighted that the Dems have reversed this perverse discrimination.

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know